Center for a New American Security

In January, we released our 2010 Wish List of the natural security-related policies that we most hoped to see. As the year draws to a close, let’s see if we got what we’d wished for.

1. Successful follow-up from the MEAT (i.e., fewer troops lost to attacks on fuel convoys than in previous years).
   
   This is obviously difficult to calculate, though I would assume that sometime next year we’ll see some figures from the 2010-established Director of Operational Energy’s office or from the services. Meanwhile, some energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies did deploy after testing at Quantico and Twentynine Palms. Congrats to the Marines on these efforts, and to all of the services for their energy efforts in 2010.
2. A more prosperous America – the foundation of security.
   
   I’d vote that this wish came true, though we still have a long way to go. I personally have fewer unemployed or underemployed people in my close network than I did at this time last year, and stats for the last quarter of 2010 seem to indicate that the country is a little better off than last year. Here’s hoping that progress on U.S. economic power continues.
3. Greater overall attention to nuclear energy, but less attention that discusses energy while ignoring proliferation concerns.
   
   We got another one! Attention to Iran’s nuclear recalcitrance, countries like Vietnam and Jordan embracing nuclear energy, the New START debate, and other factors all brought these two silos closer together through 2010. Next step: more integration in academic study as well.
4. Reduction in U.S. greenhouse gases from 2009, by whatever means.
   
   Hard figures for 2010 are TBD, but we’re going to be optimistic. It is likely that a combination of economic conditions and deployment of renewable and efficiency technologies helped lower our emissions this year.
5. Deeper work on the relationships among land use, climate change and security.
   
   We saw more of this type of work in 2010, but much has yet to be done. The Wilson Center’s Asia program released a great report earlier this year specifically assessing the tensions between private investments, farmland and food security: Land Grab? The Race for the World’s Farmland. (See our review on the blog here.)
6. What Geoff said.
   
   In response to a question by Nicholas Kristof, Geoff Dabelko of the Wilson Center provided a wishlist for 2010 that centered on questions of how “scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and communities better research and analyze” the interconnections among resource issues, development issues, and development components such as microfinance. He also hoped that we’d all turn more focus to solutions and away from problem definition. Unfortunately, we don’t think the nation has made a ton of progress on the concepts Geoff identified. His entire post is worth re-reading, especially in light of the debates on Central and South Asia that we’ll be having in early 2011.
7. Greater visibility on minerals supply chains.
   
   Greater visibility might not be the right term, but the U.S. government did pay greater attention to minerals in 2010 – a first step in promoting greater visibility and information sharing with the private sector. DOD briefed Congress on its rare earths report this fall (I’ve not seen the full report, but from what the media reported I have doubts that I’ll agree with its findings). Trumping that, David Sandalow held a public release event a few weeks ago at CSIS for DOE’s 171-page report on critical materials for clean energy – and promised that DOE’s work would continue in 2011.
8. More feedback from Natural Security Blog readers! Your feedback is invaluable: please keep commenting on the blog below, or hit us on Facebook or Christine/Will on Twitter.
   
   Yes, we’ve gotten more followers on Twitter, more comments on the blog, and more feedback from you this year over 2009. We’ll work to be even more engaging in 2011!

The year 2010 is drawing quickly to a close. It’s been a great year for CNAS’s natural security program. We have more of you, dear readers, than ever before. Media coverage of these timely and important issues is way up. CNAS’s events on resources and security have been packed. Important books describing these challenges, such as The Future History of the Arctic and our colleague Bob Kaplan’s Monsoon hit the shelves. We’ll be commemorating the best of 2010 this week for the blog, beginning today with our list of the top natural security reporters of the year. In no particular order, here are our top 5:

1. Andrew Higgins (with Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus) of The Washington Post, for excellent coverage of DOD’s bizarre dealings for moving operational fuel through Kyrgyzstan.  What a tale: non-transparent deals with a former burger joint operator in Kyrgyzstan, people who don’t seem to know anything about energy logistics awarded millions in DOD contracts to get fuel, the Kyrgyz government protesting that they weren’t getting a cut (with Russian interests naturally involved), and more. This is what we have to do to get adequate petroleum supplies into Afghanistan? We were quite surprised that the country has not been more outraged about these articles. We're hoping that Higgins takes the opportunity to turn this into a full-length book of real-life Central Asian mystique, shady dealings, and burger recipes.
2. Keith Bradsher at The New York Times for keeping rare earths coverage at a steady clip through 2010. This is a case where no one is going to have the full story, but he’s done the best we’ve seen – and starting well before Chinese companies cut off supplies to Japan.
3. The Reporters at Climate Desk for their work to bring solid climate change reporting to the fore. Bad science reporting has been terrible for our national dialogue – and particularly for analyzing the security and foreign policy implications of climate change. The reporters for Climate Desk represent the best journalism in correcting this.
4. Rajiv Chandrasekaran also of The Washington Post for his story highlighting that resource issues can become intertwined with tensions between short-term military gains and long-term development. Click here to see his April 2010 story, “U.S. military, diplomats at odds over how to resolve Kandahar's electricity woes.” Please note: the issues he describes hint toward major problems that will likely confront the United States more frequently in this century’s security environment.
5. Steve LeVine for launching the blog “The Oil and the Glory” and for his reporting in Foreign Policy. I’m not sure if he would count himself now as a journalist/reporter or as an author. We’ll include him in this year’s awards regardless.

I bet you find yourself now asking: what the hell are the “Awards for Natural Security Journalism?” Does it shine like an Oscar? Come with a large financial prize, like a MacArthur genius grant?

Sadly, no. We don’t have the resources for all of that. But we still wanted to recognize the great work that these reporters have done in 2010. To the winners: We’d be happy to buy you a fancy coffee or adult beverage to kick back and discuss natural security trends the next time you’re near CNAS, in thanks for your great work. 

On behalf of the natural security crew, now dispersed away from the east coast, we wish you a happy long weekend as we take a few days off to enjoy holiday fun with our families. Be safe and happy as you celebrate, and take a moment to remember those serving the country who can’t celebrate with us this year. Also give at least one listen to the best Christmas song ever. I will toast you all with a glass of this wonderful Ohio craft brew this weekend.

1. The real concerns (and potentially limiting factors) about embracing nuclear energy in the Middle East/North Africa region are more extensive than I suspected. This is especially the case for: dampening tourism in areas on coasts or near lakes (given the need to locate most types of reactors near major water sources); the waste problem; and – this one surprised me most – the cost of decommissioning plants once they are retired. As a side note, several people I met also voiced concern that nuclear reactors would provide targets too attractive to potential adversaries.

On Wednesday, the State Department released its Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), a strategic review intended, in part, to help the State Department better leverage its current resources and find opportunities to strengthen its bureaucracy in pursuit of U.S. diplomatic and development interests.

Not surprisingly, the QDDR incorporates important natural security elements. The State Department particularly focused on energy and climate change (by my count, energy appears 60 times in the review; climate change appears 50 times). By July 2011, the QDDR states that the State Department will establish an Undersecretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, recognizing that these issues “are ever more important in international affairs and these issues are becoming increasingly interconnected.” The review also states that by July 2011, the State Department will create a new Bureau for Energy Resources. “By establishing a Bureau of Energy Resources, we can bring together under a single Assistant Secretary State’s diplomatic and programmatic efforts on oil, natural gas, coal, electricity, renewable energy, transparent energy governance, strategic resources, and energy poverty,” according to the review.

Be sure to peruse the entire document and don’t forget to check out CNAS’s coverage and commentary on the QDDR here. And just in case it is of interest, “natural resources” appears twice in the review; “strategic resources” also appears twice; “rare earths” appears once; “biodiversity” appears once; and “water” appears 18 times.

Photo: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared at a town hall meeting at the State Department on Wednesday to discuss the release of the first QDDR. Courtesy of the U.S. Department of State.  

This week, the CNAS Asia-Pacific Security team is in South Korea where we co-hosted a conference with the Seoul-based East Asia Institute, The ROK-US Alliance: Planning for the Future, and launched a new CNAS report – which you should definitely checkout when it becomes available tomorrow – Securing South Korea: A Strategic Alliance for the 21^st Century.

Concerning natural security, I wanted to highlight two points from the conference that were particularly memorable.

First, according to a few panelists, more attention should be paid to the desperate state of human security in North Korea as a component contributing to potential instability. Indeed, two aspects of human security in North Korea deserve examination: the lack of food and environmental security. For years, North Koreans have suffered from food shortages, exacerbated by both perennial drought and flooding. Further, environmental issues such as soil degradation and deforestation plague rural areas of North Korea, hindering effective farming practices and intensifying food shortages. While the international community remains focused on North Korea’s aggressive provocations and recent nuclear revelations, food shortages, widespread starvation and environmental woes persist. In short, the North Korean people quietly suffer as their regime loudly provokes the international community, devoting resources to enhance military capabilities rather than the delivery of desperately needed public goods and services.

• China and India, who have been competing for resources and global markets, appeal for deeper ties, reports The Washington Post. 
• From the Associated Press, U.S. crude oil inventories had their largest drop last week since 2002. 
• The Herald Online reports that Poland is seeking nuclear power for energy security. 
• Indian farmers change crops as climate grows drier, from The New York Times.
• The Times also takes a look at China's wind turbine industry and the way China is playing the technology development game. 

• More than 2,500 homes washed away by rains in Panama, reports The Washington Post. 
• Also from the Post, the Afghan government awards a crude oil contract in the first phase of its revenue-generation plan.
• The New York Times' Green blog discusses a region of Sweden that has moved its entire economy off of oil. 
• The Associated Press reports that a Japanese tanker was attacked off the coast of Somalia. 
• The American Southwest could be the first U.S. victim of climate change, reports ClimateWire. 

My biggest worry for Cancun concerned an emerging narrative that fully international negotiations on climate change are no longer worth it. I've heard more and more frequently from U.S. and European climate change analysts that a post-Kyoto treaty is hopeless, that so many countries can't possibly agree on how to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Best then that we don't even try.

Last night, The New York Times released an online feature tied to its Sunday Week in Review full-page spread on "A Need for 'Natural Security.'"

• Smaller-scale actions have been spurred by lack of consensus in Cancun, according to The Washington Post.
• The Associated Press reports that negotiators in Cancun see progress.
• Mt. Everest is showing signs of pollution by Asian industry, according to Reuters.
• BBC reports on a new strategy to secure food supplies in a changing climate.
• The World Bank ties agricultural investments to hedging against climate change, UPI reports.