Tara - Ocean Science

     The Tara is a state of the ark Arctic research vessel that is the focal point for a variety of talks at COP21 concerning the ocean and climate change. All the conferences (4 main round table discussions) stemmed from a Pan Arctic awareness centered on the cryosphere. Each round table lecture was given by world distinguished Arctic scientists and their student researchers. The lectures were given to a crowd of 50+ fellow scientists and Arctic explorers.
     Round Table #1 (RT1), given by director of WCRP, Dave Carlson, was titled melting snow and ice. It gave a snapshot of the past century or so of; CO2 emissions, arctic sea ice volume, worldwide glaciers, NH snow cover, permafrost temperatures, Greenland mass loss and the arctic sea ice volume, followed by other graphs depicting current arctic sea ice volume. The conclusions of this talk were; Arctic sea ice extent and Arctic sea ice thickness have decreased by 50% each. Arctic sea ice volume (or mass) has decreased by 75% at the end of the summer compared to 20 years ago and how long it will take for the remaining 25% to disappear is unknown, but largely speculated. Also, Arctic polar amplification due to global warming has more impact during winter than during summer. It implies other effects such as GHG trapping long waves radiation and/or heat advected from lower latitudes to the Arctic for being more responsible of the increase of Arctic sea ice melting than the albedo effect. The end of the lecture also covered the tipping points of the Arctic situation expressed by climate models. The models include; future warming and Arctic amplification, impacts of summer Arctic sea ice loss, future challenges, and certain temperature anomalies caused by an altered jet stream. This discussion ended with an explanation of APECS (association for young scientists of polar early career services) and how important it is to build upon what we know now with further research.
     Round Table #2 (RT2), which was given by biologists and Ecologists from the UK, was titled Impacts of Climate Change on Arctic Fauna and Flora. It covered the observed changes in phenology, distribution and interactions of Arctic organisms over the past century to summarize the changing biodiversity in the Arctic. The polar bear was used as a case study to show how many Arctic habitats are rapidly shrinking. The conclusion of this lecture was that, as habitats shrink in the Arctic, there is a need for new policy for fauna linked with pack ice in terms of the establishment of more wildlife refugees.
     Round Table #3 (RT3) was given by Lee-Karp from Maine University and was titled, Changes in Marine Ecosystems.It focused on plankton and ice algae, which occupies the bottom trophic levels of the Arctic food chain. The lecture explained why both ocean stratification and acidification is negatively impacting these basic organisms, which in turns, negatively impacts all other Arctic animals. This is all because of the high vulnerability of each Arctic food chain level due to the lack of biodiversity in each.
     Round Table #4 (RT4) was given by Jeremy Wilkon from Cambridge University and was titled, Changes in Arctic Sea Routs, Social and Economic Impacts. With the increased accessibility of the Arctic, in terms of hydrocarbons, there will be an increase of human activity and therefor and increase of pollution in the Arctic. The main shipping lane that is opening up, due to ice melt, is between Russia and the North Pole. As the ice continues to melt, if economic conditions favor it, neighboring countries will increase their presence in the Arctic, which could lead to future conflict and search and rescue missions as international trade and destination shipping increase in the region. This lecture was rapped up with an explanation of the new polar codes for only commercial vessels that will be operating in the Arctic and the major omissions from the policy. The policy focuses on safety at sea and the protection of the environment.

Overall, the theme coming out of this conference is that scientists and policy makers need to approach Arctic research, and its finding, more holistically.

 A few of the organizations that collaborated to this event include; CRNS, UPMC, WCRP, WMO, CNRS, UPMC, and APECS.

New context for COP21

     Ever since the events that unfolded in Paris, France throughout the 14th of November, it's clear that the context for the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been dramatically altered. Regardless of the motivations of the senseless attacks, one thing is clear, that many wish to show that such acts of terror will not inhibit the progress of such events like COP21. Both François Hollande and Barrack Obama have stated that they both want to show that the world will not be afraid of extremists. It is also clear that, even though most events are still scheduled to take place, fear surrounds the coming events.
     As time passes, and the mourning continues, many are beginning to look deeper into the motivations behind the attacks. This, of course, will not be fully understood for some time, but as for now, Paris finds itself at a crossroads of hope and fear.


Other posts related to the topic
Paris attacks - COP21 and the war on terror
Paris attack and COP21

White Paper: U.S. Military Policy on Climate Change

       Since the Cold War, the United States military has come to unanimously classify climate change as a national security threat. The U.S. military views climate change as a threat multiplier which has potential to exacerbate other security threats on both a national and global scale. An excerpt from the latest Department of Defense’s (DoD) climate change adaptation roadmap states, “A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions. This military could be called upon more often to support civil authorities, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the face of more frequent and more intense natural disasters. Coastal installations are vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased flooding, while droughts, wildfires, and more extreme temperatures could threaten many training activities” (2014). Whether or not it is widely accepted as reality, the U.S. military sees climate change for what it is, an anthropogenic issue that requires an anthropogenic solution. This paper will cover the; brief history of the topic, current overview of where the DoD now stands, and action steps that will be taken by the U.S. military to ensure sustainable operations. Long before the White House backed the idea of anthropogenic climate change “discussion of the environment and climate change as national security and foreign policy matters trickled in from the late 1970’s and the early 80’s” (Campbell, 2008).

            With the waning of the cold war, military and state leaders have grown to understand the security threat of climate change as one that will only become more prevalent. In 1974, General Maxwell Taylor suggested creating “an expanded National Security Council charged with dealing with all forms of national security, military and nonmilitary” In the late 1980’s, Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Bourtros Ghali warned that the next war in the Middle East world be over water (Campbell, 2008). Later in 1989, Jessica Mathews, the Vice President of the World Resource Institute wrote in an issue of Foreign Affairs, under the article titled Redefining Security, that:

“Global developments now suggest the need for another analogous, broadening definition of national security to include resource, environment and demographic issues. Environmental strains that transcend national boarders are already beginning to break down the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty. No one nation or group of nations can meet these challenges, and no nation can protect itself from the actions-or inactions-of others. No existing institution matches these criteria”

 Senator Sam Nunn, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, articulated in 1990 that:

“A new and different threat to our national security is emerging-the destruction of our environment. The defense establishment has a clear stake in countering this growing threat. I believe that one of our key national security objectives must be to reverses the accelerated pace of environmental destruction around the globe.”

 Just after 9/11 and George W. Bush’s war on terror, In a 2005 article titled Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism, Janet Sawin of Worldwatch Institute asserted that:

“Transformation in the climate would disrupt global water supplies and agriculture activities, resulting in drought and famine, which would lead some people to turn to extralegal organizations and terrorist groups that would be able to provide for their basic needs better than existing economic and political institutions”

 In 2005, the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change appointed by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan warned of a vicious cycle of poverty disease, environment degradation, and civil violence.

A landmark report was later issued in 2007 by the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) that attracted major attention in the national security community because of its advisory board of former senior U.S. military officers. 53 authors, all generals and admirals, recognized that although much uncertainty about climate change persists, “moving beyond the argument of cause and effect” is critical. According to the report “The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism.” They warned that these developments may lead to state failures, interstate conflicts or security issues in many geographic regions that may require a response from an overburdened U.S. military. Transformation in the environment resulting from climate change could also complicate regular U.S. military operations. The board affirmed that they as military officers had long recognized the need to assess the risks of climate change-driven events if the consequences could prove sufficiently severe. Today, the U.S. military is fully committed to undertaking the foreseeable impacts that climate change will pose on its ability to sustainably continue its operations.

            Climate change is and will create a cornucopia of problems that will directly affect the military. It truly is a threat multiplier. As of now, the military is bracing for specific stresses that climate change will bring. They include, but are not limited to, energy consumption, trade relations, future conflicts due to unavailability of resources, natural disasters and diseases, mass migration of environmental refugees, and vulnerability of infrastructure and installations. Each one in itself poses much more than just a huge threat to military operations.

            It is no secret that the U.S. military is a top energy consumer and one of the leading greenhouse gas producers. As of 2010, “the average fuel demand per soldier has increased from about 1 gallon per day (WWII) to 20 gallons,” roughly half of which is used to generate electrical power. This dependency translates to a vulnerability, as a “significant proportion of US combat casualties in operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom may be attributed to resupply operations” (Justice). National defense leaders, the defense community and academia increasingly recognize that energy poses a strategic, operational and fiscal challenges to the military. The Pew Project for National Security claims, “Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish to harm us, and weakens our economy” (Reichert, 2010). With respects to future energy consumption, trade and other international relations will also be put to the test as the economic opportunities in the Arctic Ocean begin to present themselves.

            As sea ice in the Artic continues to melt, more natural resources are coming within reach as shipping lanes open up in the first time in recorded history. The military predicts that this will affect bilateral and multilevel operations. According to the National Research Council, “The decline in sea ice thickness and extent could result in increased access to and conflict over offshore resources in the Arctic Ocean in association with northwest and southeast passages-overall increase of stress on international relations” (2010). With the shrinking availability of other basic resources such as food and water, due to climate change, escalated conflict is yet another dilemma that the military must face.

            As unstable regions of the world continue to run out of necessary resources, future armed conflicts and even wars are expected to break out. According to the Center of Naval Analysis, there are distinct links between environmental scarcity and violent conflict. Impacts on resource availability, such as water and food represents a stress multiplier. Because of this, governments may face increasing difficulty sustaining their populations and maintaining political stability as they cope with resource stresses induced by climate change (2007). The National Intelligence Assessment for 2030 concluded that climate change alone is unlikely to trigger state failure in that time frame, but the exacerbation of existing problems could be enough to endanger domestic stability in some states, giving rise to threats of regional conflict or creating openings for criminal activity or terrorism. For example, a dysfunctional government response to water stress-of a sort expected to become more common under climate change-is generally agreed to be one of the contributing factors to the current humanitarian disaster in Syria (Houser, 2015). Correlations between climate extremes and violence is being realized more and more. According to Solomon Hsaing and his colleagues, “the magnitude of climate’s influence is substantial.” For each one standard of deviation change in climate toward warmer temperatures or more extreme rainfall, median estimates indicates that the frequency of interpersonal violence rises 4 percent and the frequency of intergroup conflict rises 14 percent” (2013). For perspective on the size of these effects, historically observed oscillations in the global climate have been implicated in contributing to 21 percent of civil conflicts since 1950 (Hsiang, Meng, & Cane, 2011). Not only will the U.S. military be called to future climate caused conflicts, but it will also have to deal with an increase of global disease outbreaks and natural disasters.

            The increase in humanitarian aid and disaster response stemming from changes in climate extremes is highly expected by the military. The U.S. military often has a unique ability to respond to large-scale extreme weather or natural disasters. In the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines on November 8, 2013, the United States not only provided 37million in humanitarian aid but also deployed more the 14,000 U.S. military personnel to help stabilize the area and provide relief. The U.S. military gets a request for humanitarian assistance and disaster response about once every two weeks (Houser, 2015). As climate change heightens humanitarian emergencies, the demand for U.S. assistance for homeland defense or combat operations that may arise. Emergence of new strains of disease, a profound cultural and demographic tensions in several regions, are just some of the trends whose complex interplay may spark or exacerbate future conflicts. Humanitarian emergencies that require the mobilization of domestic and international militaries are also security consequences of concern and may be more likely and more immediate concerns than conflict (Busby, 2015).  With events such as armed conflict, natural disasters and diseases predicted for the future, the U.S. military has to also be vigilant when it comes to mass migrations of environmental refugees.

            Because it is the most unstable regions of the world that will be hit hardest by the effects of climate change, mass migration is becoming more and more prevalent. The increasing trend of environmental immigrants is clashing with widespread anti-immigrant sentiment in both developed and developing countries around the world. Some countries are describing migration and particularly unauthorized international migration as a security threat and are turning to military forces to deter or manage the human flows, a trend that is likely to grow (Smith, 2007). The U.S. government and military alike, fear that abrupt, massive tides of 'climate refugees' (people displaced by the adverse impacts of climate change) would threaten international security and possibly lead to armed conflicts (Reuveny 2007; Christian Aid 2007; Myers 2005). Now, more than ever, the U.S. military will be called upon to answer new emerging threats brought on by climate change. This demands that training for future operations be a priority for the military, unfortunately, climate change will also negatively impact future training exercises along with military infrastructure and installations.

            In order to train to meet the coming security threats of climate change, the U.S. military must rely on its installations and infrastructure to do so. The military also sees these as extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Vulnerabilities of continental U.S. (CONUS) army installations and operations from projected changes in climate are diverse in both consequence and timing of impacts. Three levels of impacts can be identified. At the highest level of impact, an installation may no longer be able to support current and future mission requirements. At the intermediate level of impact, missions could be accomplished, but would require adaptive actions to prevent, remediate, or repair impacts, which could carry high costs and require significant time for planning and implementation. Other impacts at this level could be acute (e.g., flooding and tornado events), with high short-term costs and short-term disruption, but would not prevent mission accomplishment over the long-term. At the lowest level of impact, operations may need to be modified, but could be accomplished within established processes and with no significant commitment of additional resources. These impacts on army installations can be described through three broad categories: installation missions (including training, testing, industrial base operations, and logistical and deployment support), the built infrastructure, and the lands and ranges that support these installation missions (Hayden, 2014). According to the DoD 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, the potential harmful effects of climate change on the department concern; plans and operations, training and testing, built and natural infrastructure, and acquisition and supply chain management. From military bases being engulfed by rising seas to increased weather extremes, such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts and floods, there is much that the U.S. military has to be concerned for in terms of future training and operations.

Even though climate change doubt is manufactured at a large scale, this cannot be an excuse for the military to delay action. Military planners know that, as military strategist Carl Von Clausewitz wrote, “All action must, to a certain extent, be planned in mere twilight” (DoD, 2014). In order for the U.S. military to ensure sustainable operations in years to come, it must lead into the future by example. The White House’s vision for the U.S. military is that it leads with purpose, strength, capable partners, instruments of U.S. power, and long term perspective (2014). In order to accomplish these objectives, the U.S. military must; spearhead further research of climate change, lead and facilitate the transition to renewable energy/technology and overall greenhouse gas reductions, monitor and enforce binding climate change agreements, strengthen its multilateral cooperation’s, and train more to be a global first responder to natural, diseases and climate based armed conflict. If the military is to fulfill its role as the upholder of American and global security, it’s crucial that research into the most prevenient security threat is increased.

Because climate change is such a complex issue with no one clear cut solution, its effects must be studied by the U.S. military. Both the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the White House call for climate-impact assessment at all of the DoDs permanent installations. Several studies have been completed or are currently underway by the individual military service branches, and DoD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). This program recently launched a comprehensive research project to examine climate-change effects on coastal installations (SERDP, 2013). SERDP is using case studies to quantify the potential effects of near-term sea-level rise and storm activity on coastal infrastructure and Pacific Islands and atoll systems that are home to critical U.S. military installations. As information about the coming effects of climate change grows, so to should the military’s ability to be a catalyst for other countries to quickly pursue sustainable development.

Because the military is a massive producer of greenhouse gas emissions, it has a responsibility to lead and facilitate the transition to renewable energies and technologies. According to the National Research Council, the “military ought to play an important role in reducing the US contribution to global GHG emissions, both through direct reductions and by providing a large market and consumer base for low-energy emission technology” (America’s Climate Choices, 2010). To increase overall energy efficiency, each branch of the military must decrease overall energy consumption while increasing in renewable fuels, pursue LEED certified building techniques and aid underdeveloped countries to do the same. According to the DoD’s 2010 GDR:

“The Department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy price fluctuations.”

In more recent years, this view has been dealt with even more sincerity. Admiral Roughead, chief of naval operations, has stated that, “We have the great opportunity together to be early adopters of new energy technologies that will improve our security and will one day have a broader utility to the nation and world.” Also, the Secretary of the Navy has said that, “Changing the way we use and produce energy is fundamentally an issue of national security, it is an economic necessity, and it is the responsible thing to do as custodians of the environment” (Papp, 2013). Further, adapting to climate change “will be extremely expensive. Developing countries with their small reserves of capital, shortages of scientists and engineers, and weak central governments will be the least able to adapt, and the gap between the developed and developing worlds will almost certainly widen” (Mathews, 1989). Because of its global influence, the military must not neglect to assist in helping the world achieve a zero net carbon future.

            For a sustainable future to be reached, the U.S. military must aid in the monitoring and enforcing of global, binding, climate change agreements made during events like COP21. According to the White House, The DoD and National Intelligence Council systems could, and should, play an important role in providing coverage of large regions of the globe and in monitoring local or point sources in remote or hostile locations so major world leaders can impose sanctions to keep them in check (2015). In order for the military to fill such a role, it must strengthen its multilateral cooperation’s with other security institutions.

            The U.S. military must increase its partnerships with other militaries so that it may work bilaterally with other countries. This is needed because, diplomacy, intelligence, military force, and economic aid are components of an integrated and coherent strategy for addressing climate change adaptation in the context of national and global security (CNA, 2007). In order to do this, “NATO and other economic and military organizations should be studies as models for international cooperation to combat climate change” (Campbell, 2008). Civilian strategists and active-duty and retired military officers at a conference at the U.S. Army War College titled The National Security Implications of Global Climate Change concluded that, “climate change– related security problems likely would require multi-agency cooperation, especially for domestic emergency management, and typically multinational action” (Douglas, 2007). In 2008, the CNA advised that:

“DoD go beyond military dimensions with the U.S. government to seek to enhance the resilience of the international community in the face of climate related threats by strengthening the governance, health care, and disaster prevention and relief capabilities of foreign countries. They noted that the recent creation of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) seems to serve such a purpose. The authors also recommended that the United States help limit climate change through unilateral and multilateral measures; the Department of Defense could contribute through more efficient use of energy and other measures” (Campbell).

 While military forces have roles in disaster relief, the broader impact of serious climate change will require multinational, multi-agency cooperation on a scale heretofore unimaginable and could provide no-fault ground for global cooperation (Douglas, 2007). As the military strengthens its ties with over governments, it should also be prepared to respond to a variety of climate change induced disasters around the globe.

            At this viscera of this plan for future operations is the concept that U.S. military would train more to be a global first responder to natural disasters, diseases and climate based armed conflict. America and the U.S. military is the world leader in fighting pandemics, including HIV/AIDS, and in improving global health security. At home, they must strengthen their ability to prevent outbreaks and ensure sufficient capacity to respond rapidly and manage biological incidents. As an exemplar of a modern and responsive public health system, they should accelerate work with partners through the Global Health Security Agenda in pursuit of a world that is safer and more secure from infectious disease. In order to save lives by strengthening regulatory frameworks for food safety and developing a global system to prevent avoidable epidemics, detect and report disease outbreaks in real time, and respond more rapidly and effectively. They should also continue to lead efforts to combat the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria (White House, 2014). In the future, military responses will likely come in different forms. If military forces are deployed for the purpose of engaging in humanitarian or search and rescue operations, for instance, their involvement may actually relieve the plight of the migrants and prevent further tragedy. If, on the other hand, military troops and assets are deployed solely for interdiction or enforcement, they may exacerbate the migrants’ suffering. The longer term dilemma for states—and for the world in general—is how to accommodate the predicted surge in environmental migrants. This is not merely a logistical or immigration question, it is also a moral one. International migration can be a coping mechanism that provides relief to those suffering, as was seen in the case of the tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Katrina (Smith, 2007). It is the duty of the U.S. military to serve and protect those which it has influence over. Therefore the role of future military operations will more coincide with humanitarian aid and the suppression of conflict in terms of global climate change.

            In order for the U.S. military to ensure sustainable operations in the context of global warming, the above mentioned actions steps must be put into practice before it is too late. “The cost of climate change will be measured in lost lives, lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses. Hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief. In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have to deny it-they’re busy dealing with it” (Obama, 2013). If one thing is for certain, it is that the U.S. military has been and will continue to be busy dealing with climate change and the security threats that it imposes.

           

Works Cited

 

Busby, J. (2015). Climate Change and National Security. US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, ADA613137, 1-17.

 

Campbell, K. M. (2008). Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security. Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/csbsju/reader.action?docID=10338437&ppg=1

 

Center for Naval Analysis Corporation, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change (Alexandria, Va.: CNA, April 2007).

 

Christian Aid, (2007). Human Tide: the real migration crisis. Retrieved from http://www.christianaid.org.uk/Images/human-tide.pdf

 

Douglas, V. (May 1, 2007). “Global Climate Change: National Security Implications,” Strategic Studies Institute Colloquium Brief (Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: U.S. Army War College).

 

White House, (2014). National Security Strategy, Executive Office of the President. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA616357

 

Fitzgerald, E. K. & Cordesman, A. H. & Arleigh, A. (2009). The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Center for Strategies & International Studies. Retrieved fromhttp://csis.org/files/publication/090809_qdrahc_revised.pdf

 

Hayden, T. J. et al. (2013). Department of the Army: High-level Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Retrieved from http://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/ES/doc/ArmyHigh-LevelClimateChangeVulnerabilityAssessment2013final.pdf

 

High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility (New York: United Nations, 2005), p. 15.

 

Houser, T. & Hsaing, S. & Kopp, R. & Larsen, K. (2015). Economic Risks of Climate Change: An American Prospectus. New York. Columbia University Press. Retrieved fromhttps://books.google.com/books?id=0QTSBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&dq=us+military/climate+change&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwA2oVChMIlamLq-zTyAIViXceCh01nArL#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Hsiang, S. M. & Burke, M. & Miguel, E. (2013). Quantifying the Influence of Climate Change on Human Conflict. Science, 341(6151), DOI: 10.1126  

 

Hsiang, S. M. & Meng, K. C. & Cane, M. A. (2011). Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate change. Nature, 476(438), DOI: 10.1038

 

Mathews, J. T. (Spring 1989). Redefining Security. Foreign Affairs, 68(2): 162-177, DOI: 10.2307. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20043906.pdf?acceptTC=true

 

Maxwell D. T. (April 1974). “The Legitimate Claims of National Security,” Foreign Affairs 52: 575– 94.

 

National Research Council, (2010). America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change: Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington D.C., The National American Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/csbsju/reader.action?docID=10439400&ppg=1

 

Obama, B. H. (June 25, 2013). President Barrack Obama’s speech on Climate-Change, Georgetown University.

 

Office for the Deputy under Secretary of Defense (2014). Department of Defense 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Installations and Environment. Retrieved fromhttp://www.proactivewaterworks.com/tellerenergy/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/DOD_2014_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Roadmap.pdf

 

Janet L Sawin, “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat Than Terrorism,” Global Security Brief 3 (Washington: Worldwatch Institute, April 2005). See also Gregory D. Foster, “A New Security Paradigm,” Worldwatch, January– February 2005, p. 45.

 

Justice, N. G. & Vane, M. A. & Stevenson, M. H. (2010). Power and Energy Strategy White Paper. Army Capabilities Integration Center – Research, Development and Engineering Command, Retrieved fromhttp://www.arcic.army.mil/app_Documents/ARCIC_WhitePaper_Power-and-Energy-Strategy_01APR2010.pdf

 

Myers K (2005) Racetalk: Racism Hiding in Plain Sight. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

 

Papp, R. J. (2013). U.S. Coast Guard Artic Strategy – Vision for Operating in the Artic Region: Ensure safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in the Artic. Retrieved fromhttp://www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf

 

Reichert, J. & Cuttino, P. & Lightbody, L. & Lubetsky, J. F. (2010). Reenergizing America’s Defense: How the Armed Forces are Stepping Forward to Combat Climate Change and Improve the U.S. Energy Posture, The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate, Retrieved from

 

Reuveny, R. (2007). Climate change-induced migration and violent conflict. Political Geography, 26: 656-673. Retrieved fromhttp://ac.els-cdn.com/S0962629807000601/1-s2.0-S0962629807000601-main.pdf?_tid=1bcfa278-912c-11e5-ab2f-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1448205613_835f5ae2ae818cc34b44550369e3c8f7

 

Rudy Abramson, “Nunn Sees Military Role in Aiding Environment,” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1990, p. 31

 

SERDP, (2013). Mission Description and Budget Item Justification, Office of Secretary of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/OSD/stamped/0603716D8Z_3_PB_2013.pdf

 

Smith, P. (2007). Climate Change, Mass Migration and the Military Response. Elsevier/Foreign Policy Research Institute, 51(4), 617-633. Retrieved fromhttp://ac.els-cdn.com/S0030438707000786/1-s2.0-S0030438707000786-main.pdf?_tid=c70edea2-912b-11e5-b6dc-00000aacb362&acdnat=1448205471_393d0ac555b8977855791b8fd90a3f09

 

 

Politics/Policy: Environmental Ideology

     When it comes to addressing climate change, In the past, we have approached the issue with a communal sense of procrastination. With a lack  of any direct immediate gratification, and the almost guaranteed need for long term involvement, its easy to see why no definite, binding, treaty has been globally agreed upon yet. Not to mention the fact that drastically reducing our global carbon emissions would require a considerable change in lifestyle. Our inability to rally around such an incredibly complex and threatening problem as global warming may very well lead us to an ultimatum that will test the core of our humanity. 

     To aid us in better understanding the multiple views toward climate change, we will look at four ideal environmental world views. The first are the market liberals who support free market/free trade and the uninterrupted growth of markets for fix a variety of issues. They also strongly support the use of technology to combat climate change and other environmental issues. The second are the institutionalsits support a strong role of government to build on market liberal practices. Third are the bioenviornmentalists who wish to protect the environment at all costs from human exploitation. They see too much growth as bad and irresponsible. Also, there are the Social greens who see direct correlations and connections between social and environmental problems. They often passionately take on a variety of social justice issues and see power struggles all throughout society. 

     These ideals are often behind many political decisions that are made concerning global warming. The following are a few academic sources on environmental ideals and how they impact our decisions. 

Applying Social Psychology to the Study of Environmental Concern and Environmental Worldviews: Contributions from the Social Representations Approach

Impacts of Religion on Environmental Worldviews: The Teton Valley Case

Specialization among Off-Highway Vehicle Owners and its Relationship to Environmental Worldviews and Motivations

Technological Solutions

     Are any geoengineering solutions viable or realistic? What are the some of the leading proposed technological fixes for staving off global warming, and how feasible are they really? Many are currently searching for a quick an relatively inexpensive way to solve humankind's most vexing environmental problems.
     One of the proposed for reducing global warming involves deflecting heat away from the Earth's surface with solar shields or satellites with movable reflectors. The ideas was inspired by the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions. Another technological fix involves sequestration, the the storage of CO2 wither deep underground or deep in the Ocean.
     Another technological fix involves sequestration or the storage of CO2 wither deep underground or deep in the ocean. The idea has even been lobbied to dump mass amounts of fertilizer into the ocean as a form of nourishment to spark the growth of marine food production and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
   Yet another way of altering the sea for the sake of climate is engineered weathering. Studies from Harvard have strived to replace some of the oceans' carbonic acid with hydrochloric acid. Doing so should is predicted to accelerate the underwater storage of CO2 which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.
     To go even further, a sort of Hail-Mary pass that attempts to save us in the event were unable to cut our carbon emissions is solar greoengineering. In consist of shooting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight from Earth or spraying fine sea salt into the sky whiten clouds. All this would increase Earth's overall surface albedo, causing more sunlight to be reflected back into space, decreasing the strength of the green house effect.
    Because the full effects of geoengineering cannot be predicted, especially far into the future, it is often seen as a last resort to our climate dilemma, but even then, will it be worth it? What happens even if a single country becomes desperate enough to make the decision to implement strong geoengineering efforts in pursuit of a quick, but temporary fix. Then, it may be very likely that the real tragedy of the commons will be fully realized.
   Instead of trying to conquer climate change in one fell swoop, it's highly likely that the fix to our problems will come from a more gradual, global, cooperation to pursue a variety of  new energy solutions.




Want to find out if you have what it takes to save the world from climate change? Here is game to test your ability to strategically lead a European country into a sustainable future.
BBC Climate Challenge

U.S. Military Policy: Resource Guide

U.S. Military / Climate Change / News

Now the Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us (Common Dreams News Center) February 22, 2004

Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security (The New York Times) August 9, 2009

Department of Defense: Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Council of Foreign Relations) March 11, 2014

US Military: Climate Change is a Key Security Issue (Sustainable Technology Forum) February 2, 2010

US Military Warned to Prepare for Consequences of Climate Change (The Guardian) September 9, 2012

U.S. National Strategy for the Artic Region (Council on Foreign Relations) May 10, 2013

Department of Defense: Arctic Strategy (Council on Foreign Relations) November 1, 2013

Climate Change Deemed Growing National Security Threat by Military Researchers (New York Times) May 13, 2014

Four-Star Warning: Generals dub Climate Change a Security Risk (NBC News) May 13, 2014

Report: Climate Change Poses Security Threat (Military.com) May 14, 2014

The age of climate warfare is here. The military-industrial complex is ready. Are you? (The Guardian) May 30, 2014

Climate Change Threatens National Security: This issue is about science, not politics, and the military is taking it very seriously (Pittsburg Post-Gazette) July 5, 2014

U.S. Department of Defense: Secretary Hagel’s remarks at the Conference of the Defense Ministers of the Americas (DoD) October 13, 2014

Council on Foreign Relations: Department of Defense: Climate Change Adaption Roadmap 2014 (Council of Foreign Relations) October 13, 2014

Climate Change Brings New Military Challenges as New Changing World Spurs Competition (Huffington Post) October 13, 2014

Military: Climate Change makes US more Vulnerable (USA Today) October 14, 2014

Pentagon Report: US military considers climate change a ‘threat multiplier’ that could exacerbate terrorism (Newsweek) October 14, 2014

The pentagon’s War on the Global Climate: Obama’s foolish green agenda interferes with the military’s core mission (Washington Times) October 20, 2014

Department of Defense Plans for Adaption in Light of Climate Change (Chemical and Engineering News) October 20, 2014

The Military Takes on Climate Change Deniers (Politics/Policy) October 27-November 2, 2014

Pentagon Says Climate Change a Security Risk (TCE News) November 2014

Climate Change Helped Fuel the Syrian Conflict, new paper finds (Huffington Post) February 3, 2015

Climate Change is Major Threat to Readiness, expert says (Army Times) September 23, 2015

National Security and Foreign Policy Leaders Warn of Climate Change Threat, Call for U.S. Leadership (Partnership for Secure America) October 22, 2015

full text of statement

Fight Climate Change for Global Stability, say US defense and diplomacy elite (The Guardian) October 22, 2015

U.S. Military Policy: Resource Guide

                                    U.S. Military / Climate Change / Official Websites

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Installations and Environment
DENIX: DoD Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange
DDESB: DoD Explosives Safety Board
DoD Open Government
DoD's Environment Research Programs
U.S. Department of the Interior
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Armed Forces Pest Management Board

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

United States Department of Defense

Partnership for a Secure America
Preserve America
 U.S. Navy Energy, Environment and Climate Change: Task Force Energy

Air Force Installations, Environment & Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

The White House’s blog

Climate Change Impacts in the United States

United States Central Command

U.S. Army

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Navy

U.S. Air Force

    U.S. Military / Climate Change / Helpful Tools

The Truman Project / Veterans

Navy Task Force Energy: Fleet Readiness Power Point

Naval Aviation Enterprise Air Plan: Poster

Fact Sheet: Reducing Cost of Future Flood Disasters

Navy's Artic Roadmap: Briefing Charts

Homeland Security: Evolution of Strategic Review

Video: Military selling Climate Change as Security Issue



U.S. Military Policy: Resource Guide

U.S. Military / Climate Change / Primary Sources

The White House. (2015). Findings from Select Federal Reports: National Security Implications of Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/National_Security_Implications_of_Changing_Climate_Final_051915.pdf

This very recent synthesis and summary, from the White House, of a variety of major sources cited below eloquently sums up the threat that climate change poses to security of the United States of America. The report summarizes the domestic and international security implications of climate change while predicting the demands it will place on military resources. The White House concludes its findings with a pledge, that the U.S. is preparing with strong resilience measures in order to address the changing dynamics of a warming planet.   

America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington D.C., The National American Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/csbsju/reader.action?docID=10439400&ppg=1

This text, under the technical chapters in part II, chapter 16, explains the relationship between climate and national security in terms of military operations and international relations. Also within chapter 16 there is a portion dedicated to the prospect of binding international agreements under treaty verification. Additionally, the relationship between climate change and human security is discussed in a broader sense which is followed by future research needs of the U.S. military concerning climate change.

America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council (2010). Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington DC, USA: The National American Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/csbsju/reader.action?docID=10439397&ppg=17

In this text book, under Rationale and mechanisms for global engagement in climate change adaption (chapter 6), various issues of U.S. National Security are covered. Rationale for U.S. engagement in adaption to climate change at the global scale are discussed in depth. The issues consist of global unrest brought on by a lack of necessary resource availability which could lead to future armed conflicts. A decrease in water quality and supply are mentioned as specific threat multipliers that the U.S. military will face for decades to come. The text also mentions the need of the military to act as a global first responder to natural disasters, which will only increase with more sever are and unpredictable weather anomalies.

Barnett, J. (2003). Security and Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 13, 7-17. Retrieved from

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959378002000808/1-s2.0-S0959378002000808-main.pdf?_tid=160f88ba-7851-11e5-8993-00000aacb360&acdnat=1445472716_23fcbcedf6ac892683ca8242bff62400

This article explores the ranges of possible connections between climate change and national security. In doing so, it looks at human security concerns and future military roles under the assumption that climate change may trigger violent conflict. This peer-reviewed paper also dives into discussion of both mitigation and adaption of climate change. Overall this source provides evidence to why climate change is a national security issue.  

Busby, J. (2015). Climate Change and National Security. US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, ADA613137, 1-17.

This paper comes from the Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. It was written under the CCAPS (Climate Change and African Political Stability) program which is funded by the DoD’s Minerva Initiative. The initiative is a university-based, social science research program focused on areas of strategic importance to national security policy. In the paper, basic questions are answered, such as does climate change constitute a national security threat to the U.S. and how do the U.S. security and academic communities describe the security implications of climate change? This source also provides science, U.S. Military and Intelligence community, think tank, academic and CCAPS resources for further study.

Campbell, K. M. (2008). Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security. Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved from   http://site.ebrary.com/lib/csbsju/reader.action?docID=10338437&ppg=1

This book gives a compressive perspective about national security and climate change. Within the text, various predictions of future national security consequences of climate change are made. The source also provides a detailed history of the U.S.’s DoD redefining security beyond the cold war and the long-standing debate concerning redefinition. The question what can be done? Is also pondered, in terms of global cooperation to combat climate change extensively in subsequent chapters.

Dale, C. (2014). The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Defense Strategy: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Retrieved from http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43403.pdf

Section 118, Title 10 of U.S. Code requires the Department of Defense (DoD) to submit a report to congress concerning its most recent QDR process no later than when the President has to submit his budget request for that particular fiscal year. The purpose of this report is to “delineate a national defense strategy” for the U.S. and provide insight to the necessary steps to be taken in order to implement such a strategy.

Daniels et al. (2015). U.S. Department of Energy: National Strategy for the Artic Region (NSAR) – Ten Year Renewable Energy Plan, Office of Indian Energy, Retrieved from

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f21/NSARDraftPlan_v6.pdf

NSAR gives insight into the U.S. government’s “strategic priorities for the artic region.” Such priorities put the U.S. in a place to take full advantage of “emerging opportunities” that will be presenting themselves in the following ten years, in terms of renewable energy. This effort displays the areas for federal agency engagement in order to increase renewable energy along with overall energy efficiency in the artic region.

Donley, M. B. (2010). Air Force Energy Plan. Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics & Office of Primary Responsibility, Retrieved from

http://www.safie.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091208-027.pdf

This plan serves as the framework for all Air Force personnel in communicating Air Force energy objectives. This plan not only lays out the action steps for the Air Force to reach these objectives, but also specifies the command responsible for executing each phase.

Executive Office of the President (2014). National Security Strategy. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA616357

This paper from the President outlines the strategic position that the U.S. is currently engaged in at this moment concerning national security. This ambitious agenda, concerning many other issues than just global warming, put forth by the President will take many presidencies to fully implement.

Fitzgerald, E. K. & Cordesman, A. H. & Arleigh, A. (2009). The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Center for Strategies & International Studies. Retrieved from http://csis.org/files/publication/090809_qdrahc_revised.pdf

This working draft of the 2010 quadrennial defense review is written to develop new policies, capabilities and initiatives of the U.S. Department of defense. Although past defense reviews have been followed by a “strategy-reality gap” in the past, there is a greater concern for real policy to be enacted in terms of climate change mitigation.  The 2010 QDR has the potential to be the next step in reform processes to the current path the U.S. military is heading down, in the context of military spending in relation to climate change.

Greenert, J. W. (2009). US Navy Arctic Roadmap. Task Force Climate Change / Oceanographer of the Navy, Retrieved from

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/11/us-navy-arctic-roadmap-nov-2009.pdf

Science shows that anthropogenic climate change is being most felt in the artic regions. Because the “artic is primarily a maritime environment” the Navy bases its policies, strategies, force structure and investment on it the attic’s ever changing state. This roadmap will be updated and refined to correctly follow all subsequent QDRs.

Greenert. J. W. (2014). The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030. Task Force Climate Change, Retrieved from

 http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

This policy plan, put forth by the U.S. Navy is in response to the opening for the Arctic Ocean and the impact this has on national security implications and future naval capabilities. These future naval responses will be based out of the state of the Alaska and the surrounding arctic region, in partnership with Canada. The purpose of Task Force Climate in the Navy is to better understand the changing environment of the arctic region.

Hayden, T. J. et al. (2013). Department of the Army: High-level Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Retrieved from

            http://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/ES/doc/ArmyHigh-LevelClimateChangeVulnerabilityAssessment2013final.pdf

This report was prepared by the Engineer Research Development Center for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army. The objective or purpose of this report is to provide the Assistant Secretary with a broad overview of potential vulnerabilities of various Army installations to climate change. Ultimately, the report will be used to inform Army leadership and planners, at all levels in charge of installation management, of climate change impacts on training, operations and facilities.

Houser, T. & Hsaing, S. & Kopp, R. & Larsen, K. (2015). Economic Risks of Climate Change: An American Prospectus. New York. Columbia University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=0QTSBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&dq=us+military/climate+change&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwA2oVChMIlamLq-zTyAIViXceCh01nArL#v=onepage&q&f=false

 Under the unquantified impacts of climate change in part 4 of the text, chapter 20 is titled national security. This chapter unpacks the ideas of how the U.S. military plans for contingencies in the future, all while keeping in mind indirect international impacts, amidst the uncertainty of the effects of anthropogenic climate change. This chapter begins with an excellent quote from General Gordon Sullivan describing that waiting for 100% certainty before action is not the way of soldiers before battle and therefore should not be the way of the American public.

Justice, N. G. & Vane, M. A. & Stevenson, M. H. (2010). Power and Energy Strategy White Paper. Army Capabilities Integration Center – Research, Development and Engineering Command, Retrieved from

http://www.arcic.army.mil/app_Documents/ARCIC_WhitePaper_Power-and-Energy-Strategy_01APR2010.pdf

The paper provides an outline of power an energy capabilities that support the Army’s needs in both the near and long-term. “Considering the complexity of modern military systems and operational environments, there is no reason to a ‘silver-bullet’ solution.” The authors of this paper, instead suggest the implementation of incremental improvements in power and energy density and efficiency through the pursuit of a variety of options.

Kelly, J. V. (2013). Department of Homeland Security: FEMA’s Initial Response in New York to Hurricane Sandy. Office of Inspector General, Retrieved from https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-124_Sep13.pdf

Report summarizing the initial response from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the impacts of Hurricane Sandy in New York from November 2012 to May 2013. This report does not include any recommendations in terms of an after action review for FEMA, rather it simply summarizes the audit that took place of FEMA officials during the time they initially dealt with the crisis. The results of the audit are as follows, “FEMA provided an effective and efficient response to the damages caused by Hurricane Sandy.”

Kendall, F. (2014). Department of Defense Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan FY 2014. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Retrieved from

http://denix.osd.mil/sustainability/upload/DoD-SSPP-FY14-FINAL-w_CCAR.pdf  

This is an annual report of the DoD SSPP which lays out the DoD’s plan for sustainability through the fiscal year 2020. This plan addresses climate change because of its impact on national security. The DoD seeks to withstand a ready and resilient force that will be able to respond to global instability, the opening of the arctic and increasing sea level storm surges near coastal installations. In the past, the DoD has made improvements on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, facility energy and water consumption, petroleum based fuel and solid waste. In the short term, its goals include pursuing renewable energies, researching more about the impacts of climate change and sustainable procurement. The overall objective of the DoD’s SSPP is to promote sustainability in the everyday fabric of the DoD mission going into the future.

Longstein, K. & Pimpedly, J. (2014). Peace Corps Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Retrieved from http://files.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/policies/2014_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Plan.pdf

This policy plan is designed to preserve the Peace Corps mission in the midst of a changing climate. The Peace Corps’ mission, concerning climate change, is to “provide leadership in enhancing programs that build capacity and strengthen resilience among the most vulnerable countries where volunteers serve.” To do so, it aims to integrate adaptation into all parts of its operations, both at home and abroad which include country post logistics and services. 

Lozar, R. C. & Hiett, M. D. & Westervelt, J. D. & Weahterly J. W. (2011). Anticipating Climate Change Impacts on Army Installations. Champaign, Illinois: Engineer Research and Development Center – Construction Engineering Research Lab. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA559185  

As climate change leads to habitat change, there will also be changes to training sites on U.S. Army Instillations. This report explores how results from global climate models can aid in the forecasting challenges to habitats and species while also estimating potential effects on erosion at all 130 continental U.S. installations. This is key because both the Federal government’s requirements regarding the maintenance of threatened species and erosion will have a major impact on military training operations in the future. The purpose of this report is to provide insight into the probable changes of operations that will be required for the instillations to carry on their responsibilities to stay mission capable in the future.  

Lute, J. H. (2012). Department of Homeland Security Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Appendix%20A%20DHS%20FY2012%20Climate%20Change%20Adaptation%20Plan_0.pdf

This CCA roadmap from the DHS is in response to a government mandate, back in 2009, requiring all federal departments to comply with U.S. government’s efforts to develop a national CCA strategy. This particular roadmap consists of 42 identified actions which seek to ensure security, resilience and customs and exchange with the world across all care mission areas in the face of climate change. Overall, there are four strategic objectives of the DHS, manage climate change risks (17 actions), protect and ensure resilience of critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR) (5 actions), ensure nation’s resilience to more frequent or extreme weather events and natural disasters (8 actions), and contribute to safety, stability, security and environmental protection in the arctic (12 actions).

Napolitano, J. (2013). Department of Homeland Security Climate Action Plan. Community and Infrastructure Resilience Working Group, Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf

This climate change action plan is broken into three sections, the history of climate change adaptation (CCA) at DHS, aligning with the president’s action plan, and action steps that the DHS plan to implement. The overall purpose of these annual reports from the DHS are to “evaluate agency climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the efforts of climate change on the agency’s operations and mission in both the short and the long term.” Then audience of these plans are the American public, policy makers, stakeholders and heads of both I/NGOs. 

Office for the Deputy under Secretary of Defense (2014). Department of Defense 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Installations and Environment. Retrieved from

http://www.proactivewaterworks.com/tellerenergy/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/DOD_2014_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Roadmap.pdf

Climate change will affect the Department of Defense’s ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security. In this military plan of action, the department of defense is responding to climate change in two ways, adaption and mitigation. Throughout the roadmap, adaption is covered in depth, while mitigation is not. This document contains very progressive statements concerning climate change from top military leaders and Chuck Hagel himself. This policy framework for climate change adaption planning is formatted in terms of three major adaption goals which are fleshed out under four categories, plans and operations, training and testing, built and national infrastructure, and acquisition and supply chain.

Office for the Deputy under Secretary of Defense (2012). Department of Defense 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Installations and Environment. Retrieved from

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf

This brief goes hand in hand with the 2012 climate adaption roadmap from the homeland security. Much of this document is founded upon the principles of the QDRs which are issued by the Secretary of Defense. The four broad goals of the DoD is to define a coordinating body to address climate change, utilize robust decision making approaches, by in climate change considerations into pre-existing processes and partner with other governmental agencies to overcome the challenges of climate change. Throughout this paper are a variety of impactful quotes of both heads of government and military concerning the risks that climate change pose for this nation’s future.

Papp, R. J. (2013). U.S. Coast Guard Operational Sustainability Performance Plan. Department of Homeland Security, Retrieved from

https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg4/cg46/docs/final_ospp_2012.pdf

Because the main goal of the U.S. Coast Guard is to protect America’s marine and coastal environment, they have great interest in promoting sustainability in maritime regions. In this plan, there are a variety of SMART goals under the following categories; facilities progress towards statutory requirements, communications system and navigational aid greenhouse gas reduction and shipboard greenhouse gas reductions. This plan, along with plans from other branches, are largely in response to the President’s Executive Oder 13514 “Federal Leadership in Environmental Energy, and Economic Performance.” This EO sets a variety of sustainability goals for Federal Agencies to improve upon environmental, energy and economic performance in a measureable way. 

Papp, R. J. (2013). U.S. Coast Guard Artic Strategy – Vision for Operating in the Artic Region: Ensure safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in the Artic. Retrieved from

http://www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf

This strategy begins with a brief overview of the interaction that the U.S. has played in the Arctic region form shipping and transit to oil production and natural resources. Since maritime activity is increasing as the Arctic ice rereads, it is crucial that all institutions that directly interact with this region continually update their strategies for sustainable development. This plan has an operational horizon of ten years and consists of improving awareness of the Arctic region, modernizing governance of the Arctic region and broadening partnerships of organizations that have direct influence over the Arctic region.

Ragnhild, N. & Gleditsch, N. P. (2007). Climate Change and Conflict. Political Geography, 26, 627-638.

Climate change is widely expected to exacerbate resources, causing future armed conflicts. Social scientists are now beginning to investigate the security concerns of climate change more systematically. This source also contains a very rich list of references that provide a multitude of case studies of how resource scarcity has brought on armed conflict, especially lack of water availability in the Middle East.

Reichert, J. & Cuttino, P. & Lightbody, L. & Lubetsky, J. F. (2010). Reenergizing America’s Defense: How the Armed Forces are Stepping Forward to Combat Climate Change and Improve the U.S. Energy Posture, The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate, Retrieved from

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/global_warming/pewreenergizing20americas20defense20reportpdf.pdf

This document from the Pew Project begins with a letter to the American public from retired Senator John W. Warner. In it, he gives a very insightful background into the history of U.S. military involvement with dealing with climate change over the past decade. In the report that follows details many of the initiatives of the DoD concerning climate change and the military’s “energy posture.” Because “energy and the way we use it are far-reaching national security issues” it’s no wonder how climate change has also becomes classified as a national security risk.

Riddle, K. W. (2014). U.S. National Artic Strategy: Preparing Defensive Lines of Effort for the Artic. National Defense University Norfolk Va. Joint Forces Staff College. Retrieved from

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA600206

This paper provides a strategic assessment of the Arctic, from the DoD perspective, and lends recommendations to top military officials to prepare defensive lines of effort, should they be needed in 10-15 years or beyond. This paper is in response to increase of economic opportunities in the Arctic and the U.S. lack of the infrastructure, command and control and Arctic-capable assets to meet national strategic objectives. Since 2009, the U.S. has progressively released strategic documents outlining the U.S. interests and national objectives in the Arctic. These documents do not adequately address all the strategic risks at stake in the Arctic and do not provide clear guidance to the DoD for defensive lines of effort. The U.S. strategic approach to the Arctic is that of accepting the current stable and conflict free Arctic region as remaining the same in the future. This strategic approach is adequate for the near term; however, it lacks specific guidance to DoD on how to prepare for possible conflict in the future. Recent events involving Russia in the Ukraine and China in the South China Sea provide historical context to the willingness of nations to use military means to defend their national interests. Without adequate defensive posturing, competition over Arctic resources could become the first direct existential threat to U.S. sovereignty.

Rogers, W. (2010). Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and America’s Air Forces. Center for a New American Security: Strong, Pragmatic and Principled National Security and Defense Policies, Retrieved from

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/Promoting_Dialogue_ClimateChange_AirForces_Rogers_April2010_code408_workingpaper_1.pdf

This working paper outlines the significant changes that climate change would impose on future U.S. Air Force missions around the world. Both the Air Force and the Navy, in particular, are assessing their short and long term energy strategies in order to mitigate the effects of climate change. Because climate change has the potential to change operating and strategic environments, it is classified as a threat multiplier for the U.S. Air Force and other services branches. As of now, however, analysts have not adequately explored what effects climate change could have on the U.S. Air Forces specifically.

Salem, A. & King, C. & Fox, S. & Haley, R. & Klotzbach, M. (2009). Best Practices in the Navy’s Energy Programs: Strategic Communication Factors Operating in the Tactical Forces. Center for Defense Management Research, Retrieved form

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Schools/GSBPP/docs/CDMR/Strategic_Communication_and_Energy_Conservation.pdf

This document from the Center for Defense Management Research reviews past documents of existing Navy energy conservation programs in order to provide critique to those practices. A wide variety of Navy tactical forces’ personnel were also interviewed regarding their insights into effectiveness of current programs. The recommendations to the head policy makers in the Navy include, but are not limited to, expanding and improving existing programs, tailoring communication themes between programs, further development of risk communication plans, designing a process for evaluating conservation capabilities and to support an integrated schematic communications process.

Salehyan, I. (2008). From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet. Journal of Peace Research, 45(3), 315-326

This article challenges the view that climate change and scarcity of resources will directly impact future political violence. It instead focuses on the effects of climate change on armed conflicts while taking into consideration a variety of political and social variables to better understand where and when conflicts are likely to occur. Afterwards, the article discusses methods to improve future research on the climate change-conflict connection. It also gives broad suggestions for policy makers.

Smith, P. (2007). Climate Change, Mass Migration and the Military Response. Elsevier/Foreign Policy Research Institute, 51(4), 617-633.

This paper focuses on the U.S. military response to various weather disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, as case studies that can be used to predict how the military will react to natural disasters around the world in decades to come. In the context of the emerging century’s international migration, there is much speculation to what role the U.S. military will play in aiding in the relocation of “climate change refugees.”

The White House. (2013). The President’s Climate Action Plan. Executive Officer of the President, Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

In this action plan, the president lays out a brief overview of the major goals for the U.S. to follow in order to ensure a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. By 2020, Obama has pledged that America will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels if all other major economies agree to lower their emissions as well. The rest of the plan, which consists of three main executive actions are cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change and leading international efforts to combat global climate change and prepare for its impacts. Ultimately this plan calls for mitigation and adaptation of the U.S. and its allies. 

The White House (2013). National Strategy for the Artic Region. Executive Officer of the President, Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf 

This document sets forth the priorities that the U.S. has in the Arctic region followed by its strategy to protects its interests. The strategy consists of three main goals, advancing U.S. security interests, pursuing responsible Arctic stewardship and strengthening international cooperation in the Arctic.  These general approaches are based upon four fundamental principles, safeguarding peace and stability, making decisions with the best available information, pursuit of innovative agreements and consult and coordination with Alaskan natives.

Tillostson, M. P. (2010). Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 15 Year Energy Strategy. Navy Expeditionary Combat Command. Retrieved from http://www.public.navy.mil/necc/hq/Documents/NECC%2015%20YEAR%20ENERGY%20STRATEGY%20PT1.pdf

This document from the NECC outlines the energy consumption goals of the U.S. Navy to meet by the FY 2025, and before. By 2020, the Navy plans to reduce fuel consumption by 15% by changing how it equipment is used; and also increase fuel efficiency of end items by 15%. For 2025, this fifteen year strategy hopes to reduce energy consumption, improve energy efficiency and increase alternative energy use in expeditionary forces. In order to do so, the Navy will; reduce the number of convoys to forward operating bases, meet energy reduction goals/mandates, reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas and other harmful exhaust emissions, implement behavioral, operational, and procedural changes, develop hardware and software for equipment to be more compatible, along with a variety of other steps. 

Vice Chief of Naval Operations (2010). U.S. Navy Climate Change Roadmap. Task Force Climate Change / Oceanographer of the Navy. Retrieved from http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf    

Along with the Army, the U.S. Navy also put forth a climate change roadmap, outlining its plan to deal with anthropogenic climate change in the decades to come. The document also refers to climate change as an overall threat multiplier for U.S. national security. Climate change will affect the type, scope and location of future Navy missions. This roadmap outlines the Navy’s plan to observing, predicting and adapting to climate change through a variety of comprehensive action steps and desired effects for FY10-14. Although this paper does not mention climate change mitigation efforts (described in Navy’s Energy Strategy by Task Force Energy) it is intended to serve as a comparison document to the Navy’s Arctic Roadmap, released in 2009.

U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers. (2014). Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Climate Preparedness and Resilience Steering Committee, Retrieved from

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/Sustainability/Performance_Plans/2014_USACE_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Plan.pdf

This plan was put together under the committee on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (CCPR). This plan will be updated annually in the future and is made publically available to the general public, stakeholders, policy makers and the White House staff. This plan contains descriptions of programs, policies and plans that are already being fully implemented by the Army. This plan also suggests a variety of additional actions that the USACE will take in both the short and long term future to manage climate risks and build overall resilience. Such vulnerability assessments support the identification of climate change impacts on / and risks to, mission capabilities, operations and programs.   

U.S. Department of State (2013). FY13 Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/203934.pdf

The DoS, like the DoD, recognizes the potential for climate change to be a “threat multiplier” for U.S. national security. As a lead institution for the conduct of American diplomacy, the DoS’s plan highlights the importance of rapid and effective action, even before all information is fully gathered and analyzed, to address the global challenges of climate change. The DoS therefore plans to full a crucial leadership role for the rest of developing nations to follow in terms of strengthening resilience among the most vulnerable of countries to climate change through one on one partnerships.

USCENTCOM (2014). Climate Change Assessment. Retrieved from http://web.ornl.gov/sci/knowledgediscovery/QDR/docs/USCENTCOM_Climate_Change_Assessment.pdf

The U.S. Central Command explains the ability that climate change has to exacerbate hazards I certain climatic conditions around the globe. This brief gives military insight into the many effects climate change will have on increasing the number and scale of a variety of natural occurrences from heat waves and wildfires to floods and typhoons, both regionally and globally. Ultimately this document further explains why climate change is such a large threat multiplier to U.S. national security/interests.

Wolfenbarger, J. C. (2013). Strategic Plan 2013. Air Force Material Command, Retrieved from,

http://www.afmc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130122-013.pdf

Four the next three to five years, this documented is intended to guide Air Force command’s actions. This plan provides a strategic context and guidance to influence the Agile Combat Support Core Function lead Integrator’s (ACS CFLI) heads both in the near and long term. Under this plan, some of the priorities of the Air Force are to continue strengthening the Air Force nuclear enterprise, modernize air and space inventories, organization and training, and recapture question excellence. All these priorities fall under three main missions, winning the fight, strengthening the team and shaping the future.

Wuebbles, D. J. (2014). Potential effects of climate change on global security. Environmental system Decision, 34, 564-577.  

The article makes clear that climate change exacerbates other stressors or, in other words, is a threat multiplier. The main focus of this paper is to look into the future of climate change with varying predictions of how it could affect both national and global security.