Center for a New American Security

This photo shows the solar array at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, one of several energy projects we checked out this week while we're here at work on a few CNAS natural security projects. It's always great to see bases working to ensure their energy security; even better, our guide told us that the array is pumping out even more electricity that its planners had estimated.

This week the Senate’s version of the climate bill (pdf) received a series of hearings in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill (S. 1733, commonly known as the Kerry-Boxer bill) was both praised and criticized by a variety of witnesses and panelists from industry, think tanks, and government agencies and departments.

In an earlier post this week, my colleague Amanda discussed the first day of testimony during which Senator John Kerry testified on the detrimental effects of climate change on U.S. national security. But the most important panel for natural security purposes was the second panel on Wednesday which specifically addressed the national security consequences of continued global climate change. The first to testify was retired Senator John Warner (pdf) who spoke of “the mutually-reinforcing goals of energy security, national security and climate security,” a subject that often seemed lost in the debate between senators and panelists. It is impossible to talk about energy security without talking about climate change because some of the alternatives to imported oil can exacerbate the effects of climate change. Warner’s testimony reinforced the connection between these issues, as did the testimony of witnesses such as Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn (USN, ret) (pdf) and Kathleen Hicks (pdf), the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces.

Yesterday the Woodrow Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program hosted the Army Environmental Policy Institute’s 31st sustainability lecture on the Department of Defense’s (DoD) strategic energy opportunities and challenges. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Tad Davis introduced keynote speaker Dr. Amory Lovins who sits on the Defense Science Board’s Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy and helped advise the 2008 DSB report, More Fight – Less Fuel.

According to Lovins, DoD’s long energy logistics tail is putting the Department’s core mission at risk and it is paying for it in “blood, treasure, and lost combat effectiveness.” Fuel and fuel logistics are what has become largely understood as the “soft underbelly” of the Department of Defense. As Lovins pointed out, 1/2 of DoD personnel and 1/3 of its budget are dedicated to logistics. When the Defense Science Board was conducting its study several years ago it concluded that 1/2 of in-theater causalities were associated with convoys as well (though Lovins noted that this number does not reflect today’s total).  Lovins also pointed out that of the military’s top 10 most fuel-intensive platforms, 8 are noncombat systems. “It’s an odd way to fight a war when the water heater uses more fuel than a helicopter,” Lovins said.

• Businesweek reports on the possibility of riots in the Philippines as food shortages loom following a tough season of typhoons and droughts which destroyed local production of rice and other staples. 
• The Congolese military has retaken control of several key cassiterite mines amidst charges that they’re using the mines for their own profits, the Wall Street Journal reports.
• President Obama spoke in Florida about the importance of upgrading our nation’s energy grid, Green Inc. reports while DoD Energy Blog reports on the GAO’s assessment that the military is too reliant on the energy grid
• Wired reports on the dramatic ecological shift that is happening in the North Sea that could threaten one of the world’s most fertile fishing grounds.
• Time magazine looks at the impact that military training can have on wildlife, especially in environmentally fragile areas like the Kenyan plains.

As we near the December conference in Copenhagen, we are starting to see a flurry of activity around climate change in the United States. Yesterday, the Senate began to debate the Kerry-Boxer bill (officially, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S.1733).

The three days of hearings kicked off on Tuesday (video) with Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) introducing and discussing their bill before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Yesterday’s hearing featured many of the Obama administration’s heavyweights, including: Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The committee also heard from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

• The Obama administration announced yesterday that the federal government would spend $3.4 billion in grants to bolster America’s energy infrastrcuture, providing for “smart” power grids, digital transformers, and other improvements to make transmission lines more efficient, the Washington Post reports.
• The BBC features a story about Kyrgyzstan's melting glaciers, which are causing Central Asian reservoirs to overflow and have “created tension between countries in the region.”
• The BBC also reports that Gaza's only source of fresh water is in serious danger of sewage contamination and overuse, which does not bode well for this impoverished and conflict-ridden area.
• The Washington Post reports on a new study claiming that a warming planet could mean more disease, heat waves, and natural disasters, which could lead to malnutrition and pulmonary disease.
• Alternative Energy reports on the International Air Transport Association's efforts to use biofuels in commercial planes by the end of 2010.

Back in September we highlighted the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) plan to launch a new agency apparatus dedicated to studying the implications of climate change on U.S. national security. According to a September 25, 2009 press release, CIA director Leo Panetta said, “Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security. The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence.” In the same press release the CIA clarified the role of the new Center on Climate Change and National Security, stating that its mandate will not focus on the science of climate change, per se, “but the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources.”

There is an interesting debate happening in Washington on whether or not the CIA or intelligence community writ large should be playing a role at all when it comes to climate change. Critics such as Wyoming Senator John Barrasso question whether or not it is an unnecessary burden on already strained resources. “I don’t believe creating a center on climate change is going to prevent terrorist attacks,” Senator Barrasso said when he offered an amendment to the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act to block funding for the new center. But despite how critics may feel, it is important to point out that the intelligence community has been working on climate change for some time already, helping climate scientists with access to better data to do their research while offering analysis for policy makers to prepare for the implications of climate change.

• The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) has finally been funded and it is now awarding grants for “transformative” ideas in energy security, CNET News and Popular Science report. Wired Science also presents a great visual for how ARPA-E is dividing up its grants.
• The EU Observer and Reuters report on a joint energy council that will be set up at the cabinet or ministerial level between the United States and the European Union in order to share technology and discuss energy security.
• MNF-Iraq reports that a massive water treatment and distribution plant has been completed in Sadr City providing water for almost two million people.
• Japanese-owned Toshiba has made a deal with a uranium mine in Kazakhstan to mine rare earth elements, the Financial Times reports.
• The New York Times Green Inc. blog reports that water use will intensify in the American Southwest as more solar projects come online.

One of my recent posts mildly chastised an author for not strictly defining the difference between “strategic” and “critical” minerals. But as I looked further into language and definitions in minerals reports, I couldn’t really blame anybody for choosing the skirt the issue. There are basically as many definitions of these terms as there are agencies or committees writing about them. As a quick reference to give our readership an advantage, we decided to present the different definitions of critical and strategic minerals.

The Washington Post profiles China's efforts at renewable energy research, including the use of algae fuels and solar panels.

DoD and private corporations are testing the use of nanotechnology to clean up toxic waste disasters, according to The New York Times.

The Wall Street Journal reports on the imminent climate bill action by the Senate's Committee for Environment and Public Works.

The hydropower industry is preparing for short-term opportunities in a "glacier-free future," Reuters reports.

The Boston Herald carried President Obama's remarks to an audience at MIT, during which he noted, “The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat.” The New York Times reported on his remarks, as well.

This is a piece of cassiterite, the most common tin ore in the world today. Though this sample comes from a mine in Alaska, cassiterite is mined all over the world, including conflict-ridden areas such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Tin is used mainly to manufacture containers and for electrical purposes, and the Defense National Stockpile keeps tabs (pdf) on American supply.

Photo: Courtesy of Will Rogers and Sharon Burke.

China has been pursuing a dual policy of energy security and climate change leadership. Several news reports this week chronicle China’s attempts to move forward aggressively on both fronts by working multilaterally. This global engagement on energy and climate change showcases China’s unique position in diplomatic engagements. They broker deals and negotiate with countries others walk away from.

I’ve heard a lot about Iraqi oil and the important role this resource plays in international politics, but I’ve never been clear about exactly what the Iraqi oil laws were. If you also think this seems like a big debacle and want a bit more detail, walk with me through this. The Iraqi government has given cabinet approval to an agreement with two companies after delaying since June auctions in order to agree on current production levels, future outputs, and other details of a final contract. The bid by China’s CNPC and Britain’s BP to develop the southern oilfield in Rumaila is now thought to be three weeks from a signed agreement. This marks the first major oil agreement between the Iraqi government and foreign companies offered in competitive bidding since the fall of Saddam.

Although there have been fits and starts along the way, notably when Saddam briefly signed oil contracts with other countries in 1997 (these contracts were never implemented due to sanctions), the Iraqi government and people have strongly supported the nationalization of the oil industry for nearly 50 years.  The new Iraqi government, however, has supported a policy that is open to foreign investment and relinquishes much of the control and profits of oil wells.

Environmental considerations are undergirding part of the debate over relocating U.S. troops in Japan in this Washington Post report.

Chinese President Hu believes that closer cooperation on climate change will bring China and the United States closer together, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, China and India are also cooperating on climate change to hedge against a failure at Copenhagen, according to Bloomberg.

The Wall Street Journal reports on an oil tanker spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has the Coast Guard working to contain the damage.

Reuters reports on glacial melt and its implications for both hydropower and disastrous flooding.

DoD News announces the Navy's commission of a more energy-efficient amphibious assault ship, which is estimated to save $250 million in fuel costs over its life cycle (compared to similar ships).

Given all our recent work and the recent press on critical minerals (or “strategic” minerals; more on the distinction later), I gave a look back this week to Peter Harben’s 1992 article “Strategic Minerals” from Earth magazine (print only, but those with access to databases like Ebsco should be able to access it).

• The Ghana News Agency reports on their water minister’s concern over sharing the Volta River with Burkina Faso. Meanwhile, an op-ed in The Hindu showcases the worries neighboring countries have over water sharing and how renewable energy sources can have unintended consequences in other areas.
• CNN reports that the Nigerian government’s aggressive pursuit of peace with rebel factions is angled at bringing oil deals with China to their country.
• According to Green Inc., Shell has been granted the rights to drill off of Alaska’s shore.
• Providing water and power to villagers in Iraq has been the focus of multiple military projects in Iraq, OIF reports.
• BBC reports on China’s plan to move 330,000 people to divert water resources.

I sat down last night preparing for 3+ hours of panel and PowerPoint presentations. While this came to fruition, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the diversity of my colleagues at the dinner table. Although I enjoy a good lecture, having it commentated by a nuclear physicist, energy consultant, and Senate staffer added immensely to my experience.

To get right down to the nuts and bolts of it, I attended part of a lecture series called “The Energy Conversation.” This is a great program that aims to “foster and showcase the unprecedented collaboration between government, industry, and non profits” in order to “successfully build a sustainable energy future.”  The specific lecture I attended was even more interesting: “U.S. Military Energy Strategies.” The panel represented some of the finest in our armed forces working on energy issues, including members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Office of the Secretary of Defense.  I highly suggest checking out their biographies and getting acquainted with their programs.

• According Scientific American, the National Research Council is hard at work trying to determine the real costs of energy use, but does not take into account the effects of energy on health, climate change, or national security.
• Oil & Gas Journal features a story on a meeting of the International Energy Agency that focused on natural gas security in Europe, a continent often worried about Russia's hand on the tap.
• The New York Times Green Inc. blog reports that despite national leadership on combating climate change, local leaders are leading the assault on mitigating carbon emissions.
• Chatham House, home of the U.K.'s Royal Institute for International Affairs think tank, is issuing a new report on food prices and security in its upcoming issue of The World Today.
• Wealthy developed countries may give up on insisting that developing countries cut emissions drastically, reports The New York Times. This concession could likely result in a less ambitious but more workable deal coming out of December's Copenhagen summit.

I want to make sure that we are including some homeland natural security issues every now and again here at the Natural Security Blog. I also wanted to read something semi-fictitious other than comic strips this summer. For this I chose The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl by New York Times writer Timothy Egan. As the book described it thusly: “John Steinbeck gave voice to those who fled the Dust Bowl in his masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath. This is the story of those who stayed and survived.” The joke was on me. I was deceived by the comparison to Grapes, but this book is cold, hard nonfiction.

Egan’s account walks the reader through the gray, grisly details of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. In one of the (if not the) worst natural episodes in the country’s history, the author details both the human role in creating the ecological tragedy, and the human reaction to it.

The Dust Bowl was in part severe, extended drought, and in part the results of abuse of the land by Americans expanding into some of the last unsettled regions of the country and attempting a dramatic and poorly planned ramp-up in agricultural production of crops not endemic to the region. The manmade environmental devastation to parts of Oklahoma, Texas, and surrounding states was in response to very attractive prices as well as irresponsible federal homesteading policies and fraudulent marketing on behalf of a few companies. In fact, many of the factors contributing to the human side of the Dust Bowl are ingredients that today we look for in unstable countries abroad as we monitor world economic, political, and natural trends.

While The Worst Hard Time provides details as to the causes of the Dust Bowl, its utility for the work we do here stems more from its detailed excavation of what the physical effects were and how the Americans most affected by the natural tragedy reacted. In looking at issues of land management and climate change, many of our questions to our scientist collaborators always come down to these factors: what do natural effects look like on the ground, and how will people respond?

• Last Friday was World Food Day. Everyone from the Pope to the press spent the day supporting global food security, the Associated Press, BusinessDay and Bloomberg report. Meanwhile the Gates Foundation has announced a shift to combating world hunger, the Financial Times reports.
• The Office of Naval Research and Naval Research Laboratory enjoyed a success when a small UAV broke a record by flying for 23 hours on a new battery-type which beat the previous record by any type of fuel cell, DoD Energy Blog reports.
• The Maldives government held an underwater meeting to draw attention to the dangers of climate change, the New York Times reports.
• British and Chinese companies became the first since June to sign an oil deal with Iraq. According to BBC they have agreed to develop the southern oilfield in Rumaila.
• The U.S. Army has selected ACCIONA to complete its largest renewable energy project ever; they will be expanding Fort Irwin’s solar power, Reuters and Defense Industry Daily report.

An interesting theme emerged in natural security news this week: tradeoffs. As any economist will tell you, you can’t have it all. Tradeoffs are inevitable. Energy is no different, and measures taken to reduce dependency on one energy source may increase dependency on another, or may end up exacerbating the consequences of climate change.

These are a few of my camera phone photos of the Office of Naval Research’s Ion Tiger hydrogen fuel cell UAV, one of many new gadgets on display at the Naval Energy Forum Wednesday and Thursday of this week. While many of the energy technologies being hyped at the forum are just concepts on paper today, it’s always good to get a peek at DOD’s technologies that are further along in development.

Photo: Ion Tiger hydrogen fuel cell UAV. Courtesy of Christine Parthemore and the Center for a New American Security.

Wars over timber, shrinking water supplies, and constant forward deployment of our military to protect oil and natural gas reserves, this was the vision that Michael Klare, the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and a  proponent of ideas like peak oil, espoused in his May 2001 Foreign Affairs article “The New Geography of Conflict” (subscription required).  Klare is a controversial figure due to his unabashed critiques of the Bush administration and his habit of making the Left look Right. However, in this article, he outlines a pre-9/11 worldview that is interesting to examine in light of the last eight years.

Instead of writing a full recap of day one of the Naval Energy Forum, I thought I’d just present the highlights (below) as I Tweeted (Twittered?) them yesterday. You can watch today’s proceedings on the Navy’s website; our own Sharon Burke presents around 10:45 a.m. during a panel discussion on "Greening DON." Many interesting tidbits throughout the day, and noteworthy that they had about 700 attendees and still turned away another 100. These issues are growing concerns for the nation and for the U.S. military, in no small part because of the leadership the Navy has shown. My kudos to all our Navy friends for hosting this forum.

1. RADM Cullom: anticipating lots of littoral growth in Africa + lots of energy trade by sea equals energy is important.
2. RADM Cullom: energy and climate change linked; nod to ADM Titley and task force climate change.
3. RADM Cullom: logistics is an Achilles' heel of ours
4. LtGen W Williams: greatest need in usmc is to change behavior on the battlefield
5. In afghanistan biggest logistical vulnerability is water

The Navy announced plans to launch the “Great Green Fleet” – a carrier strike group with ships and fighter jets fueled by biofuels and nuclear energy – yesterday, DOD Buzz reports.

Meanwhile, Green Inc. a New York Times blog reports that Tanzania has suspended production of all biofuels due to concerns about the country’s food security.

In response to the droughts California has faced, Reuters reports that California’s passage of SB 790 or the “Stormwater Resource Planning Act” will help treat and reuse rainwater rather than dumping it in the Pacific. Greenspace, a blog from the Los Angeles Times, reviews water security initiatives in California.

BBC reports that the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer of 2020.

Douglas W. Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, told a Senate energy panel Wednesday that while their assessment showed that a cap-and-trade system would slow the U.S. economy, it "[did] not include any benefits from averting climate change," The Washington Post reports.