“The number one threat to [American] national security is climate change.” Certainly this statement from former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake catches many by surprise, especially considering that the United States faces the threats of rising powers, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. But the widespread effects of climate change on American industry and trade, military logistics and supply chains, international stability, and the lives and property of millions of people make it a threat that the United States must address, and must address soon.
American National Security at Risk: Resources
Climate change will threaten United States national security in a number of important and diverse ways. First, importers of natural resources will be vulnerable to disruptions of supplies, particularly when those resources are highly concentrated, demand is rising, or substitutes are non-existent or limited. Some suppliers may simply manipulate the market with the intent of raising revenue, but unfriendly ones may see their strategic endowment as an opportunity to withhold the resources that grease the axel of the American economy and military to influence American policy.
Such an expected manipulation of strategic natural resources has significant precedents. In October 1973, for example, the Arab nations and OPEC announced an embargo on oil exports to the United States to castigate it for its support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. It is plausible that resource-wealthy nations will collude in the future—when resources are scarcer and the U.S. consumes more—to advance their own strategic interests.
Oil, the most important resource to the United States economy and military (the United States is the largest consumer of energy in the world and the Department of Defense is the largest consumer of energy in the United States), represents the archetype for all other sensitive resources. It is primarily concentrated in the Persian Gulf, countries such as China and India are demanding more by the day as their economies modernize and their citizens demand more of the developed world’s amenities, and for the time being substitutes are sparse. If the U.S. maintains its dependability on foreign oil, it will become hostage to the interests of oil rich states as it competes more and more with countries across the globe for the precious resource.
There is a consensus among those who deny and those who acknowledge the existence of global warming, therefore, that the United States must find alternatives to foreign oil. Some believe that the United States should invest in coal and corn-based ethanol, whereas others see hybrid electricity and solar energy as the answer. Sharon E. Burke and the Center for a New American Security, however, urge the country to analyze the secondary impact of such alternatives. Coal exacerbates global climate change, corn-based ethanol raises food prices and spurs political unrest abroad, electric batteries contain minerals such as lithium that are sometimes as densely concentrated as oil, and solar panels require resources like gallium, for which 40 percent of U.S. consumption comes from China. As of now, there is no ideal substitute to foreign oil, so the U.S. must do what it can to diversify energy consumption to reduce its excessive dependency on foreign oil and minimize the impact of any individual energy threat.
Instability Abroad
The second way climate change will affect United States national security stems from what has been termed the “resource curse” or “paradox of plenty”. As the global demand for limited resources increases, their prices increase, making them more valuable to local populations. Unfortunately, they are often procured by state-owned companies, and the government siphons the profits, leaving the population destitute. The corruption and lack of accountability lead to tension and occasionally armed rebellion. As domestic conflicts grow, they have a greater potential of spilling into neighboring states and affecting regional stability. This is particularly worrisome and relevant for the United States, which, as an economic power, seeks international stability for the sake of trade flows, and as the lone hegemon, feels it has the political and moral obligation to help bring that stability to the world. On the other hand, even if it does not permeate international borders, armed conflict may progress into civil war and result in the overthrow of the national government, forcing the U.S. in some cases to deal with a weak, protectionist, or hostile replacement government that is detrimental to U.S. strategic interests., again all of which would be detrimental to U.S. strategic interests.
Natural Disasters and Humanitarian Aid
Thirdly, global warming will generate natural disasters such as wildfires, droughts, flooding, and severe storms, spawning humanitarian crises and posing a direct threat to the lives and property across the world. Moreover, since the U.S. Department of Defense is better resourced than most civilian agencies and more equipped to operate in unstable conditions and reach isolated locations, the American military will play a larger role as disaster rates rise in evacuating the local populations of inflicted areas, delivering aid, and rebuilding damaged infrastructure. It is likely to see many more missions in the mold of its 2004 tsunami relief effort, in which it delivered 24 million pounds of relief supplies and equipment to Indonesia and other devastated areas, so it must be suitably prepared to handle the widespread devastation and capable of responding anywhere in the world at any time.
Military Supplies, Infrastructure, and Personnel
Lastly, U.S. military supplies, infrastructure and, personnel are directly jeopardized by climate change. In addition to oil, the military requires several other rare commodities for its weapons and technology. If access to these essential supplies is restricted, American military supremacy could be compromised. Similarly, the United States maintains military bases across the globe, with some situated in climatically sensitive locations. The United States Fleet Forces Command (Atlantic Fleet), headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia and the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean, for example, both sit just a few feet above sea level and are thus endangered by rising oceans. Losing these bases would deprive the military of strategic launching points for military and humanitarian missions and limit the military’s ability to reach anywhere at any time. American servicemen, too, must be prepared to adapt because they will soon face harsher conditions, such as longer heat waves and mightier storms at sea, that will threaten the health and lives of U.S. soldiers
Policy Prescription
The need to prepare for the effects of climate change and adapt to the changing circumstances is urgent. Decisions today about consumption and production have an effect on the magnitude of climate change and thus the severity of the threats to U.S. national security in the future. If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependency on foreign oil now, the military will have fewer concerns. But regardless of America’s energy decisions, climate change is already occurring. Since national security capabilities require decades to research, develop, build, and integrate into the military, the U.S. needs to design the equipment now to protect the nation in twenty to thirty years in what may be a drastically different environment.
These changes need to begin with ordinary American citizens. Though they have little influence in developing national security strategy, they must recognize the threat climate change poses, reduce their individual energy consumption to help mitigate its effects, and encourage the Department of Defense to adapt and lead the charge in fighting its consequences.
The Department of Defense, however, may also need to be spurred by academics and private research institutions to move in the right direction. Until now, there has been little scientific data on the concrete effects of climate change. The Department of Defense, therefore, has taken few steps to prepare for the future. Academics and private research institutions must communicate the science in terms of risk management and plausible scenarios, emphasizing that while it is difficult to portend the specifics of climate change, a dangerous future looms. The Department of Defense has spent billions of dollars in the past, building weapons and training personnel, to prepare for potential problems, and if convinced of its danger, would likely respond similarly to address the risks of climate change. Moreover, vulnerability assessments that detail climate projections, demographic changes, and state fragility would give the Department of Defense the specifics it needs to appropriately prepare for the future, including investing in prevention, preparedness, and resilience. Just as early, preventative medical care is cheaper and more effective than treating an established disease, the costs of investing in stability and infrastructure in vulnerable states and regions are minor when compared with those of military responses to devastated areas.
Conclusion
Though the American military cannot defeat climate change with force, it must still appreciate the threat it poses to American safety and prosperity. It must prepare for the unconventional threat of climate change to the United States, adapt to changing circumstances, and defend the country as it moves into an unfamiliar future.
