Published: Sunday, August 30, 2009
GUEST COMMENTARY / KICKING THE CARBON HABIT
Military leaders sound climate alarm
Never mind the lonely polar bear atop a shrinking ice floe.
A more potent symbol for climate change would be an American soldier dodging bullets in a drought-smashed failed state.
Military experts are concerned that climate change could result in more American troops being sent into harm’s way.
Drought, rising sea levels, and more frequent episodes of extreme weather could tip fragile countries over the edge, breeding extremism and conflicts requiring U.S. military intervention.
Climate change “acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world,” says a 2007 report published by an advisory panel of retired general and flag officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
The panel, which advises the Center for Naval Analysis, a Washington, D.C., think tank, includes a former Army Chief of Staff, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and former commanders-in-chief of Pacific and Central Commands.
In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and secretary of the Navy, warned, “Global climate change has the potential, if left unchecked, of adding missions to the already heavy burdens of our military and other elements of our nation’s overall national security.”
Distinguished military leaders are not in the habit of exaggerating. By training and turn of mind, commanders whose decisions have life-and-death consequences base their threat assessments on facts and trend lines, not on ideological spin.
One source of their climate-related security concerns is projected impacts on places where America has strategic interests.
Africa is one such place. Many Americans may think of the continent as a faraway place with little relevance to their lives, but America obtains more oil from Africa than it imports from the Persian Gulf. The continent is an important source of strategic minerals.
Scientists project that a changing climate will worsen Africa’s droughts. Water shortages and drought-impaired food productivity could exacerbate tribal and sectarian tensions, leading to failed states. As the 2007 report pointed out, “The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism.”
In its 2007 report and a follow-up study released last May, the panel recommended that the U.S. reduce climate risks by making a long-term commitment to change the nation’s energy menu.
At last month’s Foreign Relations Committee hearing, retired U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn said such a commitment “requires moving away from fossil fuels, and diversifying our energy portfolio with low-carbon alternatives. It requires a price on carbon. And perhaps most importantly, it requires action now.”
Security is closely linked to energy, even if climate change were not an issue. Heavy oil dependence is a strategic liability. It entangles the U.S. with hostile regimes and heightens the risks of involvement in geopolitical conflicts, as well as draining wealth from our economy and exposing families and businesses to damaging fuel price spikes.
The absence of complete information about climate risks is not an excuse for doing nothing. Gen. Gordon Sullivan, the advisory panel chairman who also served as Army Chief of Staff from 1991 to 1995, said commanders know from experience that waiting too long to act against a threat can result in deadly consequences.
“If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield,” Sullivan wrote in the 2007 report.
That’s not a chance that America should take. Congress should listen to military experts who have laid out the facts. Swift and forceful action is needed now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop low-carbon energy resources that will serve our country’s needs without putting our country at risk.
Jim DiPeso is policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection (www.rep.org), which has an office in Seattle.
A more potent symbol for climate change would be an American soldier dodging bullets in a drought-smashed failed state.
Military experts are concerned that climate change could result in more American troops being sent into harm’s way.
Drought, rising sea levels, and more frequent episodes of extreme weather could tip fragile countries over the edge, breeding extremism and conflicts requiring U.S. military intervention.
Climate change “acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world,” says a 2007 report published by an advisory panel of retired general and flag officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
The panel, which advises the Center for Naval Analysis, a Washington, D.C., think tank, includes a former Army Chief of Staff, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and former commanders-in-chief of Pacific and Central Commands.
In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, retired Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and secretary of the Navy, warned, “Global climate change has the potential, if left unchecked, of adding missions to the already heavy burdens of our military and other elements of our nation’s overall national security.”
Distinguished military leaders are not in the habit of exaggerating. By training and turn of mind, commanders whose decisions have life-and-death consequences base their threat assessments on facts and trend lines, not on ideological spin.
One source of their climate-related security concerns is projected impacts on places where America has strategic interests.
Africa is one such place. Many Americans may think of the continent as a faraway place with little relevance to their lives, but America obtains more oil from Africa than it imports from the Persian Gulf. The continent is an important source of strategic minerals.
Scientists project that a changing climate will worsen Africa’s droughts. Water shortages and drought-impaired food productivity could exacerbate tribal and sectarian tensions, leading to failed states. As the 2007 report pointed out, “The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism.”
In its 2007 report and a follow-up study released last May, the panel recommended that the U.S. reduce climate risks by making a long-term commitment to change the nation’s energy menu.
At last month’s Foreign Relations Committee hearing, retired U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn said such a commitment “requires moving away from fossil fuels, and diversifying our energy portfolio with low-carbon alternatives. It requires a price on carbon. And perhaps most importantly, it requires action now.”
Security is closely linked to energy, even if climate change were not an issue. Heavy oil dependence is a strategic liability. It entangles the U.S. with hostile regimes and heightens the risks of involvement in geopolitical conflicts, as well as draining wealth from our economy and exposing families and businesses to damaging fuel price spikes.
The absence of complete information about climate risks is not an excuse for doing nothing. Gen. Gordon Sullivan, the advisory panel chairman who also served as Army Chief of Staff from 1991 to 1995, said commanders know from experience that waiting too long to act against a threat can result in deadly consequences.
“If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield,” Sullivan wrote in the 2007 report.
That’s not a chance that America should take. Congress should listen to military experts who have laid out the facts. Swift and forceful action is needed now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop low-carbon energy resources that will serve our country’s needs without putting our country at risk.
Jim DiPeso is policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection (www.rep.org), which has an office in Seattle.
Comments
(