U.S. Leadership in Addressing the Climate Change Threat to Global Security

 

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the United States will sharply curb emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants between now and 2030. This is an important step forward in addressing the security threat posed by climate change, which is a key driver of international conflict and which if left unchecked will likely require action by the U.S. military that would strain its capacity. While the EPA plan has drawn criticism from conservatives in Congress who have complained that it will be expensive and hurt jobs, especially in the mining industry, these myopic critiques overlook the long-term hazards of climate change. The new plan sends a message to the international community that the United States is willing to do its share to address climate change, and only a week after the announcement of the plan, the world is already starting to respond to American leadership. The more the international community can work together to respond to the challenges posed by this vital national security issue, the safer the United States will be.

New EPA standards demonstrate to the world that the United States is serious about climate change, while encouraging innovation at home. Last week, the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. According to the EPA, the proposal will “Cut carbon emission from the power sector by 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the United States for one year” through a state-federal partnership by 2030. Russell Gold, Senior Energy Reporter at the Wall Street Journal, wrote, “Will the new EPA standards provide a regulatory signal to the markets for more efficiency and lower-carbon fuels? Yes, absolutely. It might not be a big push, but it’s a push in that direction. When and if the market makes an improvement, it will spread globally.” Sharon Burke, Senior Advisor with New America’s International Security Program and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy, wrote that “one of the intentions of this rule change, as EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy made clear, is to spur innovation, in energy supplies, efficiency of use, and environmental controls and remediation.” [EPA, 6/2/14. Russell Gold and Sharon Burke via New America Foundation, 6/5/14]

With the new standards, the United States is leading by example. “Historically, U.S. climate inaction has been a major impediment to global climate progress. Many other major emitters have been unwilling to take action until the U.S. takes the lead. They’ve even used U.S. inactivity as an excuse not to act on climate in their own countries. It’s an excuse that’s even been picked up by opponents of action on the climate crisis in the U.S., as they’ve argued that the U.S. shouldn’t act if China and India do not,” wrote Steve Herz, Senior International Climate Policy Advisor at the Sierra Club. A day after the announcement of the new carbon emission standards, the chairman of China’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change announced that the Chinese government “will use two ways to control CO2 emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap.” That’s a strong response to American leadership, wrote Herz: “By taking action to combat climate disruption, the U.S. has demonstrated the power of President Obama’s leadership on climate in the world’s largest economy – and it clearly shows that when America takes the initiative, other major carbon emitters will act as well.” [Steve Herz, 6/3/14]

 

Climate change is an immediate threat to U.S. national security that, if left unchecked, will drive resource scarcity, increase international conflict, and stretch the capacity of the U.S. military.

Climate change is a driver of international conflict, including terrorism. As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the January 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment, “Extreme weather will increasingly disrupt food and energy markets, exacerbating state weakness, forcing human migrations, and triggering riots, civil disobedience, and vandalism. Criminal or terrorist elements can exploit these weaknesses to conduct illicit activity, recruit, and train.” Last month, a board of 16 retired flag officers issued an update to a landmark 2007 CNA report, writing that “The potential security ramifications of global climate change should be serving as catalysts for cooperation and change. Instead, climate change impacts are already accelerating instability in vulnerable areas of the world and are serving as catalysts for conflict.” [James Clapper, 1/29/14. CNA, 5/2014]

Climate change will increase the burden of humanitarian missions on the U.S. military. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of catastrophic weather events, the United States will increasingly be called on to provide humanitarian relief. “In recent years, local food, water, energy, health, and economic security have been episodically degraded worldwide by severe weather conditions. These include more frequent or intense floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes, cyclones, coastal high water, and heat waves,” Clapper noted in his Worldwide Threat Assessment. “This trend will likely continue to place stress on first responders, nongovernment organizations, and militaries that are often called to provide humanitarian assistance.” [James Clapper, 1/29/14]

The cost of inaction, both to the U.S. military and the country as a whole, is greater than the cost of proactive measures like curbing carbon emissions now. In testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee last month, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs Tom Morehouse noted that, “At the installation level, climate risks may disrupt training, testing, and direct support to ongoing operations. In fact, the National Intelligence Council estimates over 30 US military installations face elevated risks from rising sea levels.” Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.) put it succinctly in the 2007 CNA report: “We will pay for this one way or another…We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll. There is no way out of this that does not have real costs attached to it. That has to hit home.” [Tom Morehouse, 5/21/14. Anthony Zinni via CNA, 4/2007]