Chapter 3
A Matter of National Security
Climate change presents a clear and present danger to our military.
“A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions.”
Climate change isn’t just a threat to public health, the environment, and the economy. It poses “immediate risks to U.S. national security,” warned a 2014 Pentagon report.
Climate change could necessitate military responses to humanitarian crises, such as mass migrations or political instability, including armed conflicts, as a result of food and water shortages. At home, rising sea levels and flooding puts coastal military installations at risk while extreme weather threatens to disrupt training.
“The national security risks of projected climate change are as serious as any challenges we have faced,” warned a group of retired generals and admirals who serve on the military advisory board for CNA Corporation, a nonprofit military research organization. Climate change, they warned, could be detrimental to military readiness.
The American Security Project, a Washington D.C.–based think tank whose board includes retired generals and admirals, called climate change “a clear and present danger to the United States through its effects on our global allies as well as its direct effects on our agriculture, infrastructure, economy, and public health.”
Climate change threatens to make fragile states even more fragile.
“The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources, new suffering from drought and famine, catastrophic natural disasters, and the degradation of land across the globe,” according to a White House national security report.
“While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas,” the U.S. Department of Defense said in a 2010 review of its priorities.
In a May 2015 report, the White House called the national security implications of climate change “far reaching, as they may exacerbate existing stressors, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and political instability, providing enabling environments for terrorist activity abroad.”
National security experts refer to climate change as a “threat multiplier’’ because of its potential to exacerbate troubles like food and water shortages and competition for resources. Climate change is enough of a national security concern that it was discussed in the 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment, presented to Congress by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence.
Among other concerns: Sea ice in the Arctic is melting, opening new waterways that could lead to competition — and international tensions — over natural resources. It also could open up new routes for smuggling and trafficking, warned a 2014 U.S. Department of Homeland Security report.
Sea-level rise could threaten coastal U.S. military bases. A National Intelligence Council report found more than 30 American military installations at risk from rising sea levels.
Norfolk, Virginia, home of the world’s largest naval base, was singled out by the National Climate Assessment as vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels.
“As sea level has risen over the last century, utilities suspended beneath old single-deck piers have become increasingly vulnerable to damage from seawater immersion and are less accessible for maintenance,” retired Captain Joseph Bouchard, commanding officer at Naval Station Norfolk from 2000 to 2003, has said. “Utility outages have a serious impact on the readiness of ships at the piers.”
Hampton Roads, which includes Naval Station Norfolk and other military facilities, faces a projected sea-level rise of 1.5 feet over the next 20 to 50 years.
On the Alaskan coast, thawing permafrost, decreasing sea ice, and rising sea levels have increased coastal erosion at several U.S. Air Force early-warning radar installations. At one facility, 40 feet of shoreline has been lost as a result of erosion, damaging half of a runway and preventing large planes from landing there, according to a Government Accountability Office report.
“Daily operations at these types of remote radar installations are at risk due to potential loss of runways, and such installations located close to the coastline could be at risk of radar failure if erosion of the coastline continues,” the report said.
In the West, droughts and longer wildfires threaten military training.
Climate change also poses “potentially destabilizing threats to our international installations that hold strategic importance to the U.S. military,” according to the American Security Project.
“Climate change threatens to make fragile states even more fragile, which can lead to the potential for destabilizing violence, which can present direct security challenges to the United States and its allies,’’ said the Center for Climate and Security.
The military, as the nation’s single-largest energy consumer, is taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint and save taxpayer money through more energy efficiency and greater use of cleaner energy sources such as solar, wind, and advanced biofuels.
NRDC is working with the army to transform West Point into a net-zero energy base by 2020. The U.S. Air Force estimates that its $1.1 billion energy bill in 2012 would have been $300 million higher if not for efficiency and conservation measures undertaken over the past decade, according to a January 2014 report by the Pew Charitable Trust on the military’s deployment of clean energy technologies. In Arizona, all the electricity for the army’s Fort Huachuca will be generated by the sun during peak daylight hours, following installation of one of the largest solar arrays on a Defense Department installation, reported Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2).
The military has been looking into greater use of renewable energy such as solar-powered tents and greater energy efficiency for years — a lesson learned from the high casualty rates on fuel-delivery convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as rising fuel prices.
Marines are carrying roll-up solar mats instead of heavy spare battery packs to power laptops, radios, GPS systems, and other battle gear. The lightweight solar panels allow soldiers to move faster and farther and eliminate the need for dangerous fuel convoys or helicopter runs to drop off batteries.
“In Iraq and Afghanistan, our oil addiction demanded long, difficult supply lines that were dangerous and expensive,” said retired Army brigadier general Steven Anderson, the military’s senior logistician in Iraq for 15 months in 2006 and 2007 and a member of E2. “Including overhead, it costs taxpayers more than $30 billion annually for the fuel these military operations require.”
“One in 24 fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan ended in an American casualty, with more than 3,000 Americans killed in fuel-supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 alone,’’ wrote Michael Breen, executive director of the Truman National Security Project, in the San Francisco Chronicle.
“The Pentagon says climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.”
“Less energy use means fewer convoys, and fewer convoys mean fewer casualties,” Army Secretary John McHugh wrote in a 2012 blog post. “If we can find ways to better use and conserve our energy sources, we will, quite literally, be saving lives.’’
In 2012, energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements, such as tactical solar gear at combat outposts in Afghanistan, saved roughly 20 million gallons of fuel — taking 7,000 truckloads worth of fuel off the battlefield.
Additional information about the national security implications of climate change can be found in studies by the CNA Corp’s military advisory board, Center for Climate Security, Council on Foreign Relations, and Defense Science Board.
“The Pentagon says climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it,” President Obama said in his 2015 State of the Union address.
“We need to act — and we need to act now,” the president said at the U.S. Coast Guard commencement in May 2015 in New London, Connecticut. “Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security.”
Peter Lehner, NRDC’s executive director, added, “The military’s clear-eyed perspective on climate change contrasts sharply with the denial, ducking, and dodging that marks the stance of some members of Congress, who seem to think the issue will disappear if they continue to ignore it.”
From Clean Power: The Case for Carbon Pollution Limits
Next chapter: Save the Animals →
