The starting point for this paper is the concern with two different but interrelated disciplinary debates in the field of security studies and IR: The logic of security (‘securitisation’) and the logic of risk (‘biopolitics’) are often understood as two very different animals. This paper seeks to challenge this common perception. Drawing on the works of Laclau/Mouffe, we seeks to excavate the contribution of hegemony theory to security studies and argue that the two logics are two side of a ‘postpolitical populist’ (Zizek) coin. In the same way as the Christian pastorate could not do without apocalyptic imageries, today’s micro-politics of risk depend on a series of macro-securitisations, which enable and legitimise the governmental machinery. In this sense, the logic of risk and the logic of security are inherently connected. This claim is backed up by an inquiry into current global discourses of global climate change regarding mitigation, adaptation and its security implications. Although these discourses are often framed by apocalyptic images, they rarely result in exceptional or extraordinary measures, but rather put forth a governmental scheme of risk management. Tracing the relationship between security and risk in these discourses, we use the case of climate change to highlight the relevance of our theoretical argument.