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.”
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
No comments:
Post a Comment