National Security and the Politics of Climate Change

Following the election, conservative senators who either deny climate change is occurring or deny that it is caused by human activity are poised to assume key chairmanships in the Senate, including Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). This follows the release of a recent report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that upgraded its certainty that human activity is causing climate change to 95% – up from 90% in a previous report. The report also highlighted a number of national security implications of climate change – something the Pentagon takes seriously and for which it is planning – ranging from the displacing of populations to slower economic growth. Unless dramatic action is taken soon, the report determines that ecological tipping points will be crossed in the twenty-first century that would cause irreversible climatological disaster, undermining the ecological security of the global system.

Following the election, conservative senators who deny climate change or deny that it is caused by human activity are poised to take key committee posts – just as U.N. scientists increase their certainty to 95 percent that climate change is caused by humans. 

 Key congressional conservatives: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), likely the next Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has a history of opposing progress on addressing climate change, oscillating between denying climate change outright and claiming it may not be problematic for global society. The New Republic reviews his record: In 2003, Sen. Inhofe said “increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives,” and in 2012, he cited the Bible to argue that human beings could not be playing a role in climate change – the same year he published a book entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. Meanwhile, NPR notes that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is likely to be the next Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and that she acknowledges climate change but does not acknowledge human activity’s role in causing the process. Troublingly, talking about a volcanic eruption in Iceland, Sen. Murkowski said, “The emissions that are being put in the air by that volcano are a thousand years’ worth of emissions that would come from   all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe,” to which Princeton Professor Michael Oppenheimer responded, “It’s simply untrue. I don’t know where she gets that number from.” [New Republic,       11/5/14. NPR, 11/6/14]

Public opinion on climate change complicates the politics: According to Pew Research data, 84% of Democrats believe there is “solid evidence the Earth is warming,” compared to 61% Non-Tea Party   Republicans and only 25% Tea Party Republicans. 64% of Democrats think human activity is the main cause of global climate change, whereas only 32% of Non-Tea Party Republicans and 9% of Tea Party Republicans think so. [Pew, 11/1/13]

But the scientific consensus is clear – and increasing in its certainty that human activity causes climate change: In stark contrast to some radical conservative views, the recent U.N. report on global climate change has upgraded its assessment of the likelihood that human activity is the primary cause of climate change to “extremely likely”– quantified at 95% certainty – which is an upgrade from the 2007 version of the report that determined human activity was “very  likely” the main cause of climate change – quantified then at 90% certainty.

The new U.N. climate change report highlights multiple severe impacts climate that change is projected to have on international security.

Food production: The report notes that “All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change, including food production, access, use, and price stability.” In some scenarios, the production of  “wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions” is projected   to decline “more than 25% compared with the late 20^th century.”

Economic growth and income: “Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature…but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate.” The report continues, “With recognized limitations, the existing incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for warming of ~2.5 °C above pre-industrial levels are 0.2% to 2.0% of income.”

Exacerbation of poverty: The report describes a confluence of climate change factors that will exacerbate poverty, explaining that “climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing poverty traps and create new ones, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger…Climate change impacts are expected to exacerbate poverty in most developing countries and create new poverty pockets in countries with increasing inequality, in both developed and developing countries.”

Displacement of populations: “Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people,” the report explains. “Displacement risk increases when populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts.” [IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report, 11/1/14]

Action is needed now to make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid irreversible global ecological disaster – waiting will only increase the costs. The Washington Post summarizes that “Scientists and policymakers have set a goal of restraining the average global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, on grounds that a higher increase would change the climate so dramatically that neither humans nor natural ecosystems could easily adapt.” However, while the 2 degrees standard was adopted at the 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen, the conference expressed that even 2 degrees may not be sufficient to avoid massive ecological disaster, and that 1.5 degrees should be considered. Underscoring the need for decisive action now, the most recent U.N. climate change report finds that “Scenarios that are likely to maintain warming at below 2 [degrees Celsius] are characterized by a 40% to 70% reduction in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions by 2050, relative to 2010 levels, and emissions level near zero or below in 2100.” Without additional actions to reduce emissions, baseline scenarios project a temperature increase of “2.5 °C to 7.8 °C when including climate uncertainty.” [Washington Post, 11/2/14. IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report, 11/1/14]

 

A U.S. Navy SH-60F Sea Hawk helicopter conducts a flood damage assessment in Thailand.  Official U.S. Navy Flickr, 10/22/11