Defense ministries regularly frame climate security in their national security strategies. Recently, “civil” ministries also begun mentioning climate security. However, they do not mean the same thing. This article develops four indicators to assess the commitment of climate security framings to an understanding of climate security as either human/environmental or national security issue. It applies the indicators to fifty NDC submissions by civil ministries and seventy defense publications. The paper finds that NDC commonly refer s to climate changes’ anthropogenic origins and biophysical impacts but rarely to indirect consequences such as migration or conflict. In contrast, military administrations rarely mention anthropogenic origins but warn more often than NDC of indirect consequences. This shows that a civil domestic discourse on climate security has emerged, more attuned to human security and environmental security and more conducive to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The paper argues that organizational theory can explain these differences in securitization: defense and civil ministries frame climate security differently so that it falls in line with their respective mandates and established organizational features. The article concludes with a checklist for assessing framings of climate security.