Center for a New American Security

• The Telegraph features an article on threats made by a Pakistani terrorist organization against India over water rights.
• The European Union looks to pressure Africa and China over access to rare earth minerals, reports Earth Times.
• Cape Cod gets the go ahead for 130 offshore wind turbines, the first project of its kind in America, according to The Guardian.
• A recent article from IRIN reports that Iraq may need to import up to 80% of its wheat in 2010 due to low water levels in Mesopotamia.
• The European Union may secure a new natural gas source, as Turkey and Azerbaijan reach an agreement over an Azeri pipeline through Turkey to Europe, according to UPI.

Hey all. Not too much of a blog today, as we're a little preoccupied setting up for just about the most epic event to hit D.C. since Lady Gaga was last here in September.

The Willard's sure to be packed with the 450+ who have already confirmed their attendance for the event, hope you're one of them. You're not? We can make an exception for our blog reader faithfuls. Just RSVP here and we'll make sure you get a chance to check out the event that's been a topic of discussion all around town.

Taking part in the dialogue over issues of natural security (as featured in one of our latest publications, Broadening Horizons) will be the likes of Rear Admiral Philip H. Cullom, Director of Fleet Readiness Division on the Navy Staff, David Kilcullen, President and CEO of Caerus, and CNAS' own Bob Kaplan and Christine Parthemore.

Want to know the big news? The event is going to feature a keynote address from the Honorable Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

Check out some live tweeting action on the CNAS twitter page. Hope to see you there!

Yesterday, Dr. Jay Gulledge and I released our near year-long study on the gap between climate science and national security: Lost in Translation: Closing the Gap Between Climate Science and National Security Policy (PDF).

Many national security policymakers recognize – or are beginning to recognize – that climate change is a key trend that will shape the global security environment, which could have implications for U.S. national security. However, national security policymakers do not necessarily have the scientific information they need to make the best, well-informed decisions to respond to the potential affects of climate change.

As we identify in the report, the problem is that there is a gap between the climate science and national security policy communities. The demand for scientific information that can forecast the national security implications of climate change is relatively new. Unfortunately, that means the information scientists are producing is not necessarily the right information decision makers need to plan for and adapt to climate change – or it may be the right information, but just not in a form that policy makers can take and say, “Okay it’s clear what we need to do.”

In this report, Jay and I identify and explore what we believe are the key barriers that impeded the two communities from fostering better communication between each other. We recognize the relatively new and unclear demand for the type of scientific information national security policymakers need to make decisions to prepare for climate change as a key barrier between these communities. But in our near year-long study, with endless conversations with professionals in both the scientific and policy communities, we identify some interesting organizational impediments that illustrate how the two communities are fundamentally and culturally distinct. Simply put, the two communities do not necessarily speak the same cultural, institutional and professional language.

While there are individuals from both communities that are able to and do communicate and cooperate across this gap, we offer recommendations that we hope will help change institutional incentive structures and cultural and professional barriers so that two communities can work together across this gap and ensure that the United States can effectively plan for and adapt to the national security implications of climate change.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the report.

The report will be formally launched at our big event on Wednesday from 3:00-5:30 p.m., on the national security implications of climate change, energy, and other natural resources challenges, featuring a keynote address by the Honorable Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Christine Parthemore – our very own Natural Security blogger – will also be speaking at the event on a panel with David Kilcullen, President and CEO of Caerus and renowned irregular warfare expert; Rear Admiral Philip Hart Cullom, USN, lead of the Navy’s Task Force Energy and Director of the Fleet Readiness Division on the Navy Staff; and Robert Kaplan, CNAS Senior Fellow and correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly. We hope you’ll be able to make it. In fact, you can RSVP right here.

What do these countries have in common? For the purposes of this blog post, they were all featured in important natural security news over the weekend.

Let’s start with Friday: in The Washington Post Rajiv Chandrasekaran highlighted a rift between the civilian and military leadership on how to increase electricity in Kandahar as part of the hearts and minds campaign there. On one side are advocates for a major purchase of diesel generators and requisite fuel; on the other, a harder look at improving the city’s electrical systems and reducing inefficiencies (both human and electric) to increase energy supplies. He writes:

Military and civilian officials also remain divided over whether increasing electricity in Kandahar will have a substantial effect on the security situation there. Military officers in southern Afghanistan maintain that if residents' power supply increases, they will have a better opinion of their government and employment will increase, which will help to marginalize the Taliban…But embassy and USAID officials contend that Kandahar residents are more concerned about the lack of a credible justice system and the dearth of employment. Civilian officials say small generators could be used to reopen factories and run cold-storage facilities, but they worry that increasing electricity across the board will lead more people to buy air conditioners and refrigerators, resulting in a continued shortage.

Instead of buying fuel, Eikenberry and other embassy personnel want the electric utility in Kandahar to do a better job of collecting fees and to use the money to buy fuel for the generators it already has, which would increase supply but not eliminate the shortage. USAID is offering help through its Afghanistan Clean Energy Program, a $100 million effort to promote "green" power in the war zone. The agency plans to install solar-powered streetlights in the city this year. It is also paying for repairs to some of the existing generators, but it will not buy diesel for them.

Earth Day is today. Sting and The Roots are gearing up for their Sunday jamfest on the National Mall with Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the spirit of energy innovation is in the air…literally. Today, one of the Navy’s “Green Hornets,” which gained national attention after serving as President Obama‘s backdrop during his speech on American energy security earlier this month, will attempt to break records and ear drums as the jet is fueled with a 50/50 blend of biofuel to power it into supersonic speeds across the Chesapeake Bay. Should the F/A-18 Super Hornet succeed in breaking the sound barrier, Secretary Maybus will be one step closer to achieving the Navy’s goal of a “Great Green Fleet;” the next generation of naval energy innovation. Meanwhile, the Air Force released a video yesterday featuring Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics Terry Yonkers on the Air Force’s efforts around natural resource and energy conservation. 

On Earth Day, it is certainly promising to watch as both America’s Navy and Air Force take to the sky, operating as “green power partner[s]” in defense.

We sent our new report off to the printer at OOB yesterday (well, our fearless designer/producer, the intrepid Liz Fontaine did), so I’ve been trying to catch up on my massive reading backlog. Which reminded me of the good old PBS show in this title. Which begs an important question: does anyone else remember Run-DMC on Reading Rainbow?

When I got the new Foreign Affairs in the mail Monday night, it immediately found a spot at the top of my list for CNAS colleague Bob Kaplan’s new article, “China’s Grand Map.” Kaplan produced natural security analysis at its finest here. No, I’m not just saying that because he’s our colleague (and anyone who’s hung around here will know that normally ensures a higher level of viciousness). He’s woven resources issues into a discussion of China’s political geography and security issues masterfully. Here’s a tidbit:

China’s actions abroad are propelled by its need to secure energy, metals, and strategic minerals in order to support the rising living standards of its immense population…It seeks to developed a sturdy presence throughout the parts of Africa that are well endowed with oil and minerals and wants to secure port access throughout the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, which connect the hydrocarbon-rich Arab-Persian world with the Chinese seaboard. Having no choice in this matter, Beijing cares little about the type of regime with which it is engaged.”

This is well known, but the art is that this is the scene-setter, not a footnote or buried text.

Of the geeky interests I pass the time with, perhaps none are as odd as my interests in reading old technical documents and outdated architecture. You can imagine the nerd-tastic joy I experienced when I discovered I could combine both those interests with my work with the natural security team, not only in the blog post to follow, but also featured in one of our upcoming reports.

While reading through the National Defense Authorization Act from this and previous years, I found that the last two have included similar requirements to examine siting nuclear reactors on military bases:

FY2010

The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study to assess the feasibility of developing nuclear power plants on military installations. . . consider the potential energy security advantages of generating electricity on military installations through the use of nuclear power plants.

FY2009

The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report evaluating the feasibility of using military installations selected for closure under the base closure and realignment process as locations for the construction of petroleum or natural gas refineries or nuclear power plants.

Looking back into our fragmented memory hard drives, we all seemed to remember there having been a time when the DOD had dabbled in nuclear power at its facilities. With the standards for research support being set slightly higher than simply taking our word for it, I checked back to see what all was out there.

As it turns out, not only did the Department toy with the idea of nuclear power, it had an entire Army program giving it a go -- the Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP).

We have been pumping hard on some writing deadlines last week and through the weekend, so this is going to be short and sweet. After laboring to wrap up our series on how climate change will affect the different services and combatant commands, it turned out The Onion beat us to the story anyway. Drat.

So just an FYI for your Monday morning: it appears that China has pledged another $20 billion to Hugo Chavez for infrastructure and other items that ensure that Venezuela’s oil keeps flowing. For reference, we know Venezuela has a ton of oil, but I looked to their R/P ratio (pdf) and BP clocks it at more than 100 years. The United States, for comparison, currently stands at 12.4.

More Venezuelan oil likely just means we’ll all have more stable oil prices, and Venezuela may get a little more cash. And we love more oil, right? And more cash for Chavez? I can promise you this: the next time someone tries to tell me that resources do not guide foreign policy, I am going to slam them with this gem.

With our lack of attention to the news this weekend, feel free to send us any good ones to share with the group. Luckily, there are a lot of events this week for you all, below. See you all tomorrow!

The Week Ahead

On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources will receive testimony over carbon capture and sequestration legislation, starting at 10:00 AM.

Early Wednesday evening, beginning at 4:00 PM, check out the World Resources Institute for an opportunity to hear from the Chief of Energy Branch in UNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Mark Radka, at Finance for Climate Change: 2010 Opportunities in Developing Countries.

Thursday begins with a hearing at the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard over The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification, beginning at 10:00 AM. At the same time, the House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight will discuss the Causes and Consequences of the Helium-3 Supply Crisis, over in Rayburn building. At 2:00 PM the Institute for Policy Studies is holding a panel discussion over the World Bank, Climate Change and Climate Finance. That evening, check out Climate Change and Competitiveness, featuring the Secretary-General Angel Gurría of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, hosted by SAIS, beginning at 5:00 PM.

Friday morning at 7:30 AM, the Elliot School over at George Washington University will be holding an event on Policy Comparisons and Business Perspectives: The Coal and Solar Sectors in China, U.S.A. and Germany. At noon, swing by the Center for National Policy for a discussion with FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate on Disasters and Resilience. SAIS will feature Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, at Food Security at the Tipping Point, beginning at 12:30 PM. Closing out the week, the World Resource Institute will hold an event to discuss The World Bank’s New Energy Strategy: Perspectives from Various Stakeholders.

• According to Defense News, the Government Accountability Office issued a report which suggests that reviving the U.S. rare earth market could take 15 years.
• Hear what Secretary Clinton said yesterday at the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, and see what new initiatives that came out of it in a report from theState Department.
• UPI reports that while companies from other countries drop oil ties to Iran, Chinese energy companies have began arranging Iranian oil deals.
• USAID administrator Rajiv Shah outlines food, water, energy and agricultural projects for Pakistan, according to in an Associated Press article.
• European Dialogue discusses the role of energy security in military operations.

• The State Department offers a transcript of Secretary Clinton's remarks at the signing of a memorandum of understanding with South Africa, which includescooperation on nuclear energy research.
• Potential vulnerabilities in the rare earth market have prompted the House Armed Services Committee to consider a hearing to discuss the issue, reports Business Week.
• President Obama's Earth Day message focuses on localized energy efficiency, as seen in a Huffington Post article.
• Check out what was said at the State Department about the Energy and Climate Ministerial of the Americas two day conference beginning today.
• According to UPI, China strikes a $4.65billion deal on oil sands project in Alberta, Canada.