Center for a New American Security

Big news! DOD announced its greenhouse gas reduction targets (for non-combat activities, of course) today. This is great news. My follow on questions are how the responsibility for implementation will break down, and how they'll be measuring the reductions. Not impossible questions, but I think important ones. For example, will all installations have to meet a certain percentage reduction, or can facilities easily able to dramatically cut emissions compensate for those where it's more difficult because of the unique activities and personnel levels there? Will the services have different targets? I'm sure officials far more knowledgeable than I have long since thought these questions through. Can't wait to learn more details. (H/t to Tom Ricks for pinging this to us. On a Friday afternoon we were starting to slow down a bit.)

From the DOD press release:

The Department of Defense (DoD) announced today that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from non-combat activities 34 percent by 2020.  The department set the target in keeping with a recent executive order signed by President Obama that seeks to have the federal government lead the country by example through improved energy and environmental performance.
 
Today’s announcement is part of a broader effort by DoD to improve its energy security. The target for DoD includes the department’s more than 300,000 buildings and 160,000 fleet vehicles. Buildings and fleet vehicles account for about one quarter of DoD’s energy consumption but nearly 40 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions. 
 
In addition to reducing the demand for energy at its facilities, the department is shifting to more reliance on renewable energy sources. Many installations are already well underway with energy-saving improvements.

 

According to The Los Angeles Times, the Air Force Real Property Agency has agreed to lease 3,288 acres of land at Edwards Air Force Base to Fotowatio Renewable Ventures to stand up a massive solar array project that is estimated to have a production capacity of up to 500 megawatts. The project would be the largest energy Enhanced Use Lease for the Department of Defense, and the largest solar project in the United States. Construction is slated to begin in 2013. 

Photo: Edwards Air Force Base. Courtesy of the U.S. Air Force.

• Militant groups recruit among Pakistani farmers concerned with water shortages, according to The National.
• Tensions rise in Zimbabwe over land rights that give access to agriculture and mineral resources, according to The Guardian.
• Business Daily reports that Kenya is battling its crippling energy sector with new wind power initiatives.
• Egypt's agriculture and economy are hit hard by the impact that climate change is having on its once fertile Nile Delta, reports AFP.
• The New York Times details how UN peacekeepers move to stem illegal mineral trade which fuels conflicts.

Last night President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress. (A full transcript and video of the speech are available, courtesy of the White House.) While watching last night, I was curious how the president would mention energy and climate change, given that the major theme of last night’s speech, as one would suspect, was the economy.  

It was interesting, though not at all unexpected, that the president discussed energy and climate change in the context of creating new jobs and building a clean energy economy. With jobs to top the president’s agenda in 2010, he emphasized that “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.”

“We need to encourage American innovation,” the president said, “And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy.” President Obama even made the case by highlighting last year’s investments in clean energy: “the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.”  Additional investments to help shore up our independence from foreign oil included “opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development…continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.” President Obama even declared that building a clean energy economy meant “passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” This kind of federal investment in energy innovation is important to increasing energy security to be sure, but implementation is going to be key here (see our 2009 workshop report on just that). And much of that implementation will be up to market conditions and individuals that may not be acting in concert with the president’s bold plans.

• China sets up an energy agency to ensure future energy security, according to The Washington Post.
• The National reports that Gulf states can stabilize Iran with economic interdependence projects on water, gas and petrochemicals.
• Pakistani stability is undercut by an agricultural sector facing drought due to actions by the state's previous leadership, reports The Nation.
• According to CNS News, President Obama has been urged to set up a commission to study the link between climate change and national security.
• The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review appears to take climate change and natural resources into consideration as conflict accelerants, according to Danger Room.

The full CNAS team attended our awesome colleague Abe Denmark’s event yesterday at the Newseum that focused on his just-released edited volume, Contested Commons. The event featured Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, USN; Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S.

• Financial Times reports on the effects of climate change and nations hoarding food on national security issues.
• Lockheed Martin launches software to optimize energy usage and assure grid access during natural (or unnatural) disasters, according to Areospace & Defense News.
• According to CNET, as General Motors looks to build electric cars, it may consider alternatives to rare earths given price and supply concerns.
• A fertilizer ban in Afghanistan, used to thwart Taliban bomb making, may be hurting farmers, the economy and food security, reports The Globe and Mail.
• The Arab Council for Water convenes today in Cairo, according to the Nam News Network.

The tragedy of human suffering in the wake of the recent earthquake in Haiti generated an outpouring of public and private support (PDF). In short order the movement to the ports and airfields of Haiti began, as relief workers and multinational troops surged the western front of the Island of Hispaniola with aid.  What soon became apparent was that Haiti, already plagued by poor infrastructure, had become a logistical nightmare: Even with the influx of aid, hospitals vital to the relief effort(including those left standing and those erected in the field) have been virtually paralyzed due to an electrical grid that is in some places only temporarily functional, and in other places non-existent.

Securing adequate energy has been paramount for workers responding in Haiti, a priority driven home by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she declared in Port-au-Prince on January 16 that she and Haitian leaders “discussed the priorities of restoring communications, electricity and transportation.”  Without reliable access to electricity, the effectiveness of additional aid for medical treatment and recovery operations can suffer. So I decided to scan the news for indications of how energy is being provided.
Efforts to restore electricity in Haiti have been largely executed through an influx of gas-powered generators.  Engineers have already attempted to triage energy distribution, providing what they could for the most pressing needs.  In an effort to provide the fuel necessary to keep the generators running, the UN World Food Programme has shifted focus from foodstuffs to securing “an estimated 10,000 gallons, or nearly 38,000 liters, of fuel per day,” according to a recent U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) report (PDF). However, according to that document, USAID workers soon found that the fuel feeding the generators can raise other concerns:

as additional gasoline becomes available, roads have become more congested, hampering delivery of relief items. In addition to resulting in delays, the USAID/DART notes that traffic congestion increases security concerns, necessitating trucks to increase speeds and ensure that contents are not visible.

The relief effort’s current appetite for fuel has been somewhat staved off as solar panels and other self-sustaining sources of energy find their ways onto Haitian soil amongst the mountains of food and medical supplies.

• The United States and United Kingdom find common security concerns in climate change and access to resources, according to American Forces Press Service.
• The United States looks to explore oil deposits in the Atlantic ocean in an attempt to improve American energy security, Busisness Week reports.
• The Daily Times reports that Yemen's lack of access to water may hinder attempts to drive out al Qaeda.
• China offers troubled states, like Somalia, support and stability in exchange  for access to natural resources, Reuters reports.
• Our Future Planet discusses the past, present and future of conflicts over natural resources.

Christine Parthemore and Will Rogers released their working paper, Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the Quadrennial Defense Review, this morning. The working paper provides observations on how the Department of Defense incorporated climate change into the 2010 QDR and some possible outcomes of that process. "When the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is sent to Congress on February 1st, it will offer an unusual opportunity to shift how the national security community views climate change," write Parthemore and Rogers.

To learn more about the "Promoting the Dialogue" project, click here.

We often hear the argument that energy and climate policy should focus on efficiency in the near term, leaving switching to more sustainable energy sources to the future. Yesterday, a New York Times article on Idaho showed the benefits of doing just that: the utility has been paying citizens to cut their energy use, and this has until recently obviated the need to build new power plants.

Bill Gates has apparently heard a lot of that policy prescription as well, and last week he blogged this response (cross-posted to Huffington Post):

Should society spend a lot of time trying to insulate houses and telling people to turn off lights or should it spend time on accelerating innovation? If addressing climate change only requires us to get to the 2025 [emissions] goal, then efficiency would be the key thing. But you can never insulate your way to anything close to zero [emissions] no matter what advocates of resource efficiency say. You can never reduce consumerism to anything close to zero.

Gates declares that we need both, but emphasizes that there’s not enough emphasis on energy innovation. I’ve got to agree with him on this one, in part because of the U.S. experience after the 1970s oil crises. You can now find dozens of books from the late 70s and early 80s proposing energy innovation that never quite came to fruition. Energy prices dropped, incentives shifted, Reagan took Carter’s solar panels off of the White House. There was a great focus on efficiency and conservation back then as well. We set and later raised fuel economy standards, and as vehicles became more energy efficient we began driving more and more SUVs. Without significant focus on innovation now, I fear that when another energy crisis hits in 20 or 30 years, scholars will again look back at all the books from the 2000s on cleaner energy futures that never came to be and scratch their heads at how little change had occurred.

Yesterday, CNASer Commander Herb Carmen and I were lucky to witness Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack singing a memorandum of understanding on biofuels and renewable energy. Citing national security, economic and environmental rationales for increasing domestic energy production and innovation, the two departments agreed to cooperate to advance the president's energy and climate agenda. Loved the symbolism. Loved the explicit linking of security, environment and economy.  Loved the corncob pen from Iowa that Sec. Vilsack gifted to Sec. Mabus. We'll be watching for news of how this partnership is working in practice. Have a great weekend everyone!

• According to Reuters, the Quadrennial Defense Review, due out to Congress on February 1st, will sharpen the Pentagon's focus on the role that climate change will have in the future security environment.
• Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell points to climate change as one of the most important transnational security issues in a briefing before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
• Foreign Policy maps out the future of American energy security amidst the challenges of climate change and government "green" initiatives.
• China looks to secure oil reserves in Iraq through the development of Rumaila, according to Business Week.
• Stars and Stripes reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tracks weather in anticipation of disasters on American soil.

Peter Gleick and associates at the Pacific Institute released a report last week, Understanding and Reducing the Risks of Climate Change for Transboundary Waters, that explores how climate change could impact shared water resources and what the implications could mean for governance structures – principally existing peace agreements over shared water resources. (Peter Gleick is one of the foremost experts on conflicts over water resources, and, in fact, spoke on the Natural Security panel last June at our annual conference.)

According to the report:

A growing number of disputes over allocations of water across local borders, ethnic boundaries, or between economic groups have also led to conflict. The good news is that water disputes are generally resolved diplomatically, and shared water resources are often a source of cooperation and negotiation. An estimated 300 agreements have been developed between riparian States – those States that border a shared river. But the long history of violence associated with transboundary water resources highlights the challenges associated with managing shared water resources. 

As the authors note, future trends – ranging from population growth to economic growth to climate change – could place significant strain on these water resources and the existing institutional bodies and shared agreements that govern them. Understanding these potential risks, the authors ask a very important question: "To what degree can existing transboundary agreements or international principles for sharing water handle the strain of future pressures, particularly climate change?" (emphasis mine)

• The New York Times reports that the United States plans to have a continued civilian presence in Afghanistan well after troops leave in order to continue agricultural support.
• According to China Daily, China's energy security future comes into question as it begins to import more than half of the oil it consumes.
• Secretary Gates defines Indian and Pakistani interests tied intrinsically with Afghanistan's success, encouraging Indian support of Afghan agriculture and energy, according to the American Forces Press Service.
• According to The National, food security and climate change pose serious security threats for the United Arab Emirates and region.
• IPS News reports that small island nations are increasingly worried about severe sea-level rise that could trigger mass migration.

Last month marked the 65^th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge’s beginning. This battle proved to be a defining event of the western front of World War II, and about 19,000 U.S. soldiers were killed in action (the British lost about 1,400 and the Germans had about 100,000 killed, wounded, or missing). Since much of the battle focused on threats to Allied supply lines, including operational fuel, I decided to commemorate the battle by reviewing an old article about the key Allied position in the Belgian town of Bastogne.

Collie Small wrote “Bastogne: American Epic” in the February 17, 1945 edition of the Saturday Evening Post, when memories of the battle were still achingly fresh. The battle took place in the Ardennes forest of Belgium, where Germany launched its final major offensive against the Allied front. German armor pressed hard against the thinly-held Allied line in Belgium, creating a bulge in the line that gave the battle its name. Eventually the Allies recovered their ground, but at the beginning the outcome was far from assured. Some of the fiercest fighting took place in and around Bastogne, where the 10th Armored Division and the 101st Airborne engaged with German armor divisions. (The actions of one 101st company are detailed in Band of Brothers; for a visceral experience, be sure to rent the miniseries on DVD).

• U.S. military officials discuss the growing threat of global warming at American meteorological society annual meeting in Georgia, reports the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
• Biofuels Digest details DARPA-sponsored studies of algae fuel technology.
• USAID agricultural workers find stability efforts in Afghanistan difficult, according to The Washington Post.
• Secretary Gates commits more naval vessels to Haiti as an earthquake registering 6.1 rocks Haiti and relief efforts early this morning, Bloomberg reports.
• United Press International, Inc. notes that Iran struggles to export its fuel reserves, some of the largest reserves in the world, due to economic and political sanctions.

CSIS Senior Fellow and energy über-analyst Sarah Ladislaw released a short policy paper last week, “A Post-Copenhagen Pathway.”  (Our colleague Dan covered CSIS’s related event, “Post Copenhagen Outlook” with Jonathan Pershing, for the blog last week.)

She breaks down the basics of the Copenhagen agreement’s agreed-to measures into about three pages. Next she explores the institutional barriers to a global agreement through the UN, including this morsel:

…the inclusive role of the UN process, which is excellent for giving a voice to all sorts of causes and considerations that deserve recognition and global attention, only serve to exacerbate the differences between developed and developing countries and raise expectations for an agreement to such a large extent that the perfect really becomes the enemy of the good. The management of the UN process has to be responsive to all of these outside concerns and promote transparency and fairness in the process, which makes leading effective negotiations nearly impossible. All of these challenges would be surmountable if it was clear that the vast majority of countries were really willing to compromise and move forward. The Copenhagen meeting, however, indicates that this is not necessarily the case.

Later, she outlines three possible futures for the process set out for this cycle of climate change negotiations: “Brazil, India, China and South Africa… decide to hold-fast with the developing country block in the UN and insist negotiations continue to take place under the UN process as planned”; “Support for the UN process wanes and major emitters choose another venue for working together”; or “Fragmented multilateralism prevails.”

Ladislaw emphasizes that the United States is not about to completely give up on climate negotiations through the UN, but does a great job of explaining the utility of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) and G20 for the purposes of emissions reductions negotiations.  One of the best parts of this paper is a great table on page 7 that charts G20 members, which are MEF members, and each country’s contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions, which gives you a clear picture of what possibilities might lie in those arenas.

The author also poses just the right question, and I’d dare to say just the right answer: “So which alternative forum is the right one? The most obvious answer is: the one in which the most major players are willing to negotiate” (italics mine). A toast to this pragmatic approach. I’m not an adherent to any single international relations approach, especially for confronting mega-challenges such as climate change. Results matter most. Ladislaw did the heavy lifting for us all on breaking down post-Copenhagen results and issues into 10 pages. Give it a read – you’ll be glad you did.

• India finds disputes with Pakistan and China to be exacerbated as tensions over water access run high, reports the Asia Sentinel.
• A Huffington Post report details how the United States is looking at climate change as a factor in national security. 
• The Global Post explores the links between coltan mining and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
• According to Al Jazeera Somali pirates released an oil tanker after receiving up to $7million in ransom, while the United States and international forces continue working to protect shipping vessels in the Gulf of Aden.
• This one is more natural than security, but it's really cool: Wired features satellite photos of the cryosphere.

We're taking the day off the blog to observe the holiday. Thank you, Dr. King.

Photo of Martin Luther King, Jr. courtesy of the National Park Service.

Naval Base Ventura County became the first Naval installation to receive the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver certification. Port Hueneme Building 1100, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, was awarded the certification on January 8, 2010.

"We are proud of having the Navy's first sustainable, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified existing building," said Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Commanding Officer, Capt. Paz B. Gomez, in a press release. "By using less water and energy throughout our facility, we will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and save thousands of dollars annually in energy costs for the fleet and American taxpayers. Moreover, as more military and civilian facilities adopt green building designs, our nation will become more energy independent and less reliant on foreign sources of energy."

Naval Base Ventura County takes its place next to USMC Camp Lejeune, the first Marine Corps base to be awarded Silver certification.

Photo: Port Hueneme Building 1100. Courtesy of the U.S. Navy.

• The Navy Times reports that the U.S. Navy plans to sign a deal with the Department of Agriculture to develop biofuels.
• The New York Times Dot Earth blog details how the Department of Defense is increasingly responding to natural disasters as part of its national security efforts.
• Climate change is exacerbating conditions in volatile states such as Yemen, states that could be a breeding ground for terrorism, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
• The United States threatens to drop energy assistance to Pakistan if it does not abandon plans for an Iranian pipeline, The Nation reports.
• Fuel shortages hinder U.S. military operations in Haiti, accoring to Stars and Stripes.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last month received more anticipation and optimism than New Coke, and much like the long forgotten beverage, once it was finally here, disappointment ensued.  To assess the Copenhagen aftermath, yesterday the Center for Strategic and International Studies held the first of what they announced would be a series of such events, titled Post Copenhagen Outlook.  I attended the event in hopes of learning just what happened, and the implications it has for our country and its foreign relations.

The featured speaker for the event was the State Department’s Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing.  Pershing wasted no time in making known his three key points:

1. Climate change is happening.
2. The science shows that people aren’t helping the situation.
3. This is really important.

Pershing described the past and future role that climate change-focused international agreements (like what many had hoped that Copenhagen would generate) have had on diplomacy and development. He compared the refusal by the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the same stance of San Marino (a landlocked country found entirely within the borders of Italy, approximately one-third the size of Washington, DC) as a poor decision which has had real ramifications for U.S. support abroad.  As an example, he explained how American green energy scientists find themselves basically blacklisted by some Kyoto signatories.  He also highlighted the fact that the states that are currently most susceptible to conflict are often the most exposed to environmental issues such as drought and rising sea levels.  Some of the issues which already stoke the flames of conflict and instability may be further exacerbated by climate change.

• The U.S. Navy receives its first award for energy efficiency and "green" construction, reports the Ventura County Star.
• Bill Clinton names agriculture and clean energy as priorities in rebuilding the Haitian state in an article in The Washington Post.
• The United States pushes Pakistan to allow India access to Afghan agricultural goods, according to RTT News.
• The New York Times reports on private contracts to repair the Iraqi oil industry and state.
• A recent study shows China's oil imports to be alarming to the state's energy security, China Daily News says.

Yesterday I took a virtual trip to check out the U.S. Institute of Peace event, Natural Resources: Plunder or Peace, via live webcast. The event featured Paul Collier, director of the Centre of African Economies at Oxford University, and Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, and focused primarily on natural resources beneath the ground (or subsoil assets, as they were commonly referred to during the event).
 
Paul Collier began his discussion with fun question to the audience. According to Collier, an average square kilometer of land in the richest countries in the world was valued to have $120,000 worth of subsoil assets. The statistics game started when he asked the audience whether they thought that the value of subsoil assets beneath an average square kilometer of African land would be more than that average. By a show of hands (save my own, as webcasts are only projected one-way), it seemed most everyone indicated a vote of “yes.” But according to Collier, everyone was wrong; the average in Africa amounts to roughly $23,000. By his assessment, this pointed to one obvious conclusion: we simply haven’t discovered the other assets to make up for the nearly $100,000 disparity. I temporarily accepted this fact and listened on.