The Military
The current Commander in Chief of the armed forces has not been one to take global warming seriously. So down the chain of command, nobody is going to say boo about it. It violates the code of conduct at the foundation of military discipline. But what are we to make of eleven 3-star and 4-star admirals and generals who, upon retirement, found it incumbent upon themselves to sound an urgent alarm about global warming?
Take a look for yourself at "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change." The authors, all with more than 30 years of military service, much of it during the Cold War, view global warming as a national security risk as big as any the nation has ever faced. That's not the position they started when they began their analyzing the problem.
They began by receiving a briefing from Jim Hansen,
"arguably one of the top scientists in the world, in the United States, certainly. And he never got through the first sentence and we were attacking him. I think that's my shorthand of saying that we all came to this with a certain degree of skepticism."
Those were the words of the General Gordon Sullivan before the Council on Foreign Relations. By the time their six month study of the problem concluded, they were convinced the risks posed by global warming to national security were "high" and "potentially catastrophic."
Why? One of their key findings sums up the answer: "Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges."
As the strong arm of the US government in the geo-politics of petroleum, these military men are seeing that global warming is going to make their assignment more demanding than ever before, and are calling for an urgent response.
The Burden of Petro-Politics
Oil Choke Points
Take a look at the choke points where the flow of oil -- and global economic stability -- can be shut down with relative ease. These are geographic realities that have imposed a heavy burden upon national security -- in terms of military expenditures alone, about $5 to $6 billion a year over the last 30 years. Now you'd have to add in the $500 billion already spent on the war in Iraq. It's a huge cost, like global warming itself, that is not figured into the price of a gallon of gas at the pump.
America's military involvements are sold to the public in many ways, but never as necessary for protecting oil supply. But once in a while, that truth emerges quite explicitly. In The Age of Turbulence, his recently released memoir, Alan Greenspan had this to say:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what every everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
Not hard to believe since Iraq's reserve are second in size only to Saudi Arabia's. This thread of the story is seldom the main theme of reporting on the war, but it does sometimes get the spotlight as these reports from the US, the UK and Israeli media demonstrate.
It's why the military men are concerned about energy dependence in their examination of global warming, and why their assessment of risk begs a rethink of the military mission they are being asked to fulfill. The greatest support we can provide the military is to address the causes of global warming, because the US will thereby reduce its energy dependence, improve its national security and contain the scope of the military mission, which is already under great strain.
Multiplier of Instability
We know that global warming will bring its most devastating consequences upon the world's poor, and so often consider responsibility in moral terms. Military men bring a colder logic to bear, a ruthless analysis of what that would mean for national and global security.
Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states.
Unlike most conventional security threats that involve a single entity acting in specific ways and points in time, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies.
The Five Recommendations of the Military Advisory Board
1. The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.
2. The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
3. The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
4. The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.
5. The Department of Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.
Related Links:
