Categories
Blogroll
Archive
- February 2012 (9)
- January 2012 (28)
- December 2011 (23)
- November 2011 (33)
- October 2011 (35)
As any of you who follow me on Twitter likely know by now, I accompanied three esteemed colleagues to President Obama's big energy speech today. We were quite fortunate to be able to attend, and I must say I appreciate the national security backdrop to the location (Andrews Air Force Base), the stage (set in front of Air Force One and a "Green" Hornet) and within the speech itself. We here at the blog surely concur that energy is a security issue, to be sure.
I'll make a few quick notes about the content before I head out the door, but I'd be more interested in the thoughts of anyone who'd like to comment here - especially from our readers outside the Beltway.
What I liked the least: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's comment that "...today in America, families are still filling their cars with fuel from deserts half a world away." This is not really true. Most months, American families fill their cars with oil mostly from Canada, Mexico, and from domestic sources. Nigeria and Saudi Arabia follow after that, but it fluctuates by month. Venezuela, another top-10 supplier, is pretty close by. Not to mention that petroleum is sold on a global market. Don't get me wrong - I think we need to move past petroleum as such a major fuel source, but to be honest I don't find that where we get it from makes a whole lot of difference, at least on the security side.
What I liked the most: President Obama stating that "We need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now." I concur.
There was a lot I liked abo
ut the president's speech and about the energy plan he rolled out - it seemed pragmatic and implementable, two of the characteristics our founders here at CNAS wanted to strive for more in creating security policy. What I do hope is that the level of interagency representation shown at this speech (the audience included everyone from Secretary Chu to Secretary Mabus, and Carol Browner to Admiral Roughead) continues on these issues. DOD has special needs and interests at stake on energy that must be considered in any national strategy. The optics of today's speech should be a strong indication that this is already the case.
Photo Courtesy of Christine Parthemore/CNAS. CNASers John Nagl, Abe Denmark (Put away your iPhone, Abe!!) and Shannon O'Reilly.
Back in February I had posted an article from Foreign Policy in the daily Natural Security News on the destabilization of Dagestan in Russia’s Northern Caucasus territories, a process which appears to be exacerbated by energy and resource issues. “Historically, violence in Dagestan has stemmed from ongoing conflicts between its major ethnic groups -- the Avars, Dargins, Kumyks, Lezgins, and Laks -- over political power, resources, and jobs.”
It appears that those responsible for the simultaneous bombing of two Russian subway terminals at rush hour are members of separatist insurgencies based in Dagestan and the greater Northern Caucasus, home to natural gas resources vital to Russia. After Russia’s campaign in Chechnya, these insurgents “moved over into the neighboring regions of Dagestan and Ingushetia, where terrorism attacks and assassinations continued,” as TIME put it.
Terrorist acts within Dagestan against energy infrastructure could further destabilize the region. Foreign Policy’s article notes that in November of 2009, insurgent gangs were named as the culprits of a bombing along the Mozdok-Gazimagomed natural gas pipeline, severing service to Dagestan’s capital, Makhachkala.
With President Obama’s trip to Indonesia delayed several times, and tensions there already high, I thought it might be interesting to look at the unique and emerging partnership between the United States and Indonesia in this edition of Top 5. It seems as if a strong partnership between these two countries is just beginning, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton noted in her address at the Asia Society, February 13, 2009:
The Indonesian Government has . . . suggested the creation of a deeper partnership with the United States. This idea represents a positive approach to areas of common concern, and we are committed to working with Indonesia to pursue such a partnership with a concrete agenda.
So here we go folks. Time to look at five recent and historic partnerships between the United States and Indonesia on natural security issues. In no particular order:
1) 2009: Debt Forgiveness for Environment and Resource Protection
The U.S. provided Indonesia with $30million in debt forgiveness in exchange for efforts to conserve and preserve its own environment and natural resources. This was accomplished though an Indonesian partnership with the United States under the 1998 Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA).
2) 2008: Pirates in the Strait of Malacca
To some, it may seem that piracy, before its recent spike in Somalia, has been relatively nonexistent on the high seas since the days of The Queen Anne’s Revenge, but for those sailing through the Strait of Malacca, it’s been a modern problem for some time now. As discussed in a previous Top 5 post, the Strait of Malacca is a strategic choke point for many international energy resources. Tackling this security challenge in this region is then in the vested interest of not only countries such as Indonesia, but the United States and the entire globe. In light of this, in 2008 “the U.S. provided the Indonesian police with 15 patrol boats for use in security maintenance operations against maritime crimes,” in addition to technical assistance provided in previous years.
On Saturday night, national, state, and local governments, major cities, businesses, households and international monuments all turned their lights out for Earth Hour (some great before-and-after photos here) in recognition of the challenge of global climate change. The World Wildlife Fund has organized the effort the last several years, with 126 nations participating this year, up from last year’s 88 participating states.
Coincidentally, The New York Times reported on Saturday that the Senate is likely to take up climate change legislation in April. However, that legislation will likely look markedly different from the House version of the bill, skirting any mention of a “cap and trade” provision. In fact, according to The New York Times, “cap and trade” is no longer the energy policy of choice: indeed, the president dropped “cap and trade” from his current budget and Senate proponents have pronounced the measure dead.
Instead, according to The New York Times:
[The Senate] plan, still being written, will include a cap on greenhouse gas emissions only for utilities, at least at first, with other industries phased in perhaps years later. It is also said to include a modest tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel, accompanied by new incentives for oil and gas drilling, nuclear power plant construction, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
Blogger Dan attended a screening of “Climate Refugees” last night at the British Embassy. The film by Michael Nash is portrayed as a documentary about “the human face of climate change.” There has been a lot of buzz about the movie and Dan will post his review of the film early next week. So check back to get his take on it then!
In a previous Natural Security News post, which you read with religious fervor no doubt, we included an article from Bloomberg News which brought to light some serious water issues in Syria. The article cited a recent UN report which details the sweeping effects of drought in the region. Being my curious self, I thought it best to get the info straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak, and after reading the report, I must say you should probably read this now.
The report, entitled Syria: Over a million people affected by drought, hits a field of Natural Security that hasn’t been featured too prominently in the blog as of recent, but has certainly been a concern of ours, that of environmental refugees, in addition to detailing some devastating consequences for Syrian food security.
The UN report immediately scopes the drought, opening with the following, rather sobering, lines:
Drought in eastern and northeastern Syria has driven some 300,000 families to urban settlements such as Aleppo, Damascus and Deir ez Zour in search of work in one of the largest internal displacements in the Middle East in recent years.
The country's agriculture sector, which until recently employed 40 percent of Syria's workforce and accounted for 25 percent of gross domestic product, has been hit badly. . .
Special thanks to our friends (and my former colleagues) across the plaza at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program (ECSP) for writing this excellent recap of Secetary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks at the National Geographic Society's World Water Day event and sharing it on The New Security Beat.
Tapping In: Secretary Clinton on World Water Day
By Julien Katchinoff, ECSP Intern
“It’s not every day you find an issue where effective diplomacy and development will allow you to save millions of lives, feed the hungry, empower women, advance our national security interests, protect the environment, and demonstrate to billions of people that the United States cares. Water is that issue,” declared Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a World Water Day event hosted by the National Geographic Society and Water Advocates.
Alongside speeches by representatives from government and the non-profit sector, Secretary Clinton repeatedly emphasized America’s support for water issues. “As we face this challenge, one thing that will endure is the United States’ commitment to water issues,” she asserted. “We’re in this for the long haul.” Beyond simply highlighting the importance of the issue, Secretary Clinton also affirmed commitment to new programmatic, cross-cutting initiatives that will target water as a keystone for development and peace.
ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko, who attended the event, noted that Secretary Clinton’s speech ran counter to the much publicized notion that water scarcity is an unavoidable catalyst for conflict.She came down squarely on the side of inclusion by identifying water as both a ‘human security’ and ‘national security’ issue. At the same time, she did not fall prey to the common pitfall of arm-waving about water wars. She flagged conflict and stability concerns, but also raised solutions through meeting needs associated with water and development. She went out of her way to emphasize water's potential for peace and confidence-building, reflecting a commitment to capturing opportunities rather than merely identifying threats.Secretary Clinton highlighted five crucial areas that comprise the United States’ whole-of-government approach to water issues:
Yesterday, Vice President for Natural Security Sharon Burke appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to be considered for the first-ever Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programming at the Department of Defense.
If you missed the hearing, then we highly recommend this for your Wednesday viewing pleasure. See you tomorrow folks!
Anyone reading this blog knows the importance of understanding science and technology trends to the nation’s security. Most months, Scientific American has a few articles I’d consider must-reads for you dear readers, but if you still have a chance to pick up the March 2010 issue, almost every article provides great info on natural security issues. If you can’t get this issue and want to check any of them out, note that some of these links go to free content and others require a fee. Highlights include:
It hasn’t hit my mailbox yet, but looks like April’s issue is on “Managing Earth’s Future.” I bet I’ll have more to say on these topics than the simple characterization of what is or isn’t worth your precious reading minutes.
And in the theme of science & technology (for non-scientists) magazines, has anyone been reading SEED lately? I tend to only pick it up at airports, but let me know if you all think it should be on our must-read list.
If you’ll permit me to diverge a tad into a topic that may not seem totally security-related, the big news for me this weekend was the passing away of Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and champion of national parks. I wasn’t alive when he served in government, so my admiration of his work is based on reading his writings from decades past. Researching natural resources issues naturally brought me to many of his articles.
We’ll have a new report out soon which explains a bit more deeply how we see conservation and better ecosystem management as important security tools. In the meantime, Udall’s death reminded me of the hopeful story last year of Band-e Amir becoming Afghanistan’s first national park. Obviously the war there continues regardless of the establishment of this park. But for the longer-term picture in Afghanistan, remember that USAID estimates that roughly 70% of its population relies on agriculture for their livelihoods – and promoting stable livelihoods is obviously important for our long-term goals in that country. Without protecting the ecosystems that support that agriculture, we’re looking at either a pretty dire long-term outlook for Afghanistan, or a dramatic need to ensure that it creates a high-tech or service economy to bring in money.
Esteemed colleague CDR Herb Carmen also Tweeted a good link yesterday to Udall’s 1972 Atlantic article, “The Last Traffic Jam,” on the growing U.S. demand for cars and their use and therefore oil. The article is well worth a read, but my favorite thing about this might be that to the right of the article (at the time I viewed it Sunday) the most prominent ad is for the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle. Nice contrast to Udall’s warning that it was unsound policy for the United States to rely on increasing oil importation and long-term development of new domestic oil resources to fulfill our own growing demand, and “the oil needs of the other industrialized countries [which] are growing faster than ours.”
Dr. Larry Brilliant, a trained epidemiologist, former director of Google’s philanthropic arm, Google.org, and now head of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, published a great article this morning on Fortune Magazine’s Brainstorm Tech blog – “Global threats: 5 challenges for 2010.”
What is fascinating about Brilliant’s analysis is that he moves beyond just describing the threats – threats such as the financial system meltdown, global governance failures, and disruptions of global trade – and explores the challenges undergirding our inability to adequately respond to them – challenges he dubs “common denominators.”
“There are some common denominators these threats share, which are for the most part also common to other grave global problems,” Brilliant writes. These challenges include:
- Communication: “Society in general does a lousy job of communicating that the kinds of global threats I mentioned are true risks that could affect us all, and when we do get that point across, it’s usually too late.”
- Uncertainty: “We talk in terms of probability and inferences that can be drawn from a sample of a certain size. We make projections over time that might be x or 2x. But policy makers — and voters — want exact answers, not estimates.”
- Low Probability: “The low probability of any individual threat happening makes it harder to command the attention of the public or the policy makers, but knowing the aggregate or overall risk makes it imperative to plan sane prevention and mitigation strategies.”
- Leadership: “Solving these risks requires real leadership of two kinds: effective, charismatic individual leaders and trusted institutions. We lack both, sadly. Where are today’s Churchills, Roosevelts, Mandelas, Gandhis? We need leaders who are willing to make the difficult decisions, even if unpopular.”
- Public will and Governance: “I separate governance from leadership because they are different, albeit connected. A leader inspires people to make difficult choices. But getting those choices enacted into legislation, regulation and changes on the ground requires governance. And in a democracy, governance around these kinds of threats is really hard.”
I want to focus more on this challenge of “uncertainty.” While all of these challenges are issues that Dr. Jay Gulledge and I have been studying for our forthcoming Lost in Translation report, the challenge of uncertainty is rather prominent in our findings. In our report, we discuss in particular how uncertainty around projected climate change poses a challenge in bridging the gap between today’s climate scientists and national security professionals who need clearer, more certain scientific projections to effectively plan for climate change impacts.
Issues of Natural Security often seem to liken themselves to the work of Rube Goldberg. The actions of one state can sometimes have devastating knock-on effects down the pipeline, often so far removed that the connections in between can be difficult to identify.
Kanye West’s 2005 song Diamonds from Sierra Leone examines one such chain reaction which begins with jewelry and, after a series of actions usually far more sobering than the traditional Goldberg contraption, ties into the brutal instability of Sierra Leone. The conflict mineral phenomenon is not limited to diamonds. It burrows deep into the tin, tungsten, and tantalum mines of places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Darfur. Access to coveted natural resources offers warlords and others the ability to fuel deadly and destabilizing resource wars, which some describe as “the deadliest conflict globally since World War II.”
Mr. West, Imma let you finish this post:
Good morning, this ain’t Vietnam; still
people lose legs, hands, arms. For real.
Little is known of Sierra Leone
and how it connects to the diamonds we own
Today we’ll round out the Natural Security team’s three part comparison of the recently released 2010 Joint Operating Environment (JOE; PDF) and its predecessor the 2008 JOE (PDF). Be sure to check out Christine’s comparison of the two energy sections and Will’s comparison of the sections on climate change. Today, I’ll be looking into how both JOE reports view the roll of food in the security environment.
While I would have liked to have seen some evidence of new thought on the topic, the 2010 and 2008 JOE are remarkably similar on food (with only slight modifications made to the text, mostly to adjust tense and grammar). Regardless, the 2010 JOE (reiterating the 2008 JOE) does offer some very good Natural Security insights into food and agriculture. First, touching on the role that military forces may have to assume in assisting in food relief operations:
JOE 2010 (p. 30)
How quickly the world reacts to temporary food shortages inflicted by natural disasters will also pose challenges. In such cases, the Joint Force may find itself involved in providing lift, logistics, and occasionally security to those charged with relief operations.
For me, this statement drums up memories of recent news reports on violence and armed personnel surrounding food convoys during Haiti’s earthquake relief operations.
Yesterday, I caught a webcast of the House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight hearing over Rare Earth Minerals and 21st Century Industry. A hearing I might feel more comfortable calling “Surprise! China has all the stuff: a rare earth tale.” Witnesses included: Dr. Stephen Freimann, retired Deputy Director of the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology; Dr. Steven Duclos, Chief Scientist and Manager, Material Sustainability, GE Global Research; Dr. Karl A. Gschneider, Jr., of the Ames Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy; Mark Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Molycorp Minerals, LLC; and Terence Stewart, Managing Partner in the Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart.
Here are some of the important, though largely depressing, highlights:
*Disclaimer: I'm just highlighting what these panelists claimed; I'm not researching them or fact checking for the purpose of this post. We'll debate these perspectives and try to poke holes in the stats later among ourselves, maybe over St. Patrick's Day drinks.
The 2010 Joint Operating Environment (JOE; PDF), recently released by Joint Forces Command, offers a slightly more robust assessment on the implications of climate change for the Joint Force than its 2008 report (PDF). As Christine pointed out yesterday, while the JOE “in no way constitutes U.S. government policy and must necessarily be speculative in nature, it seeks to provide the Joint Force an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concepts to guide our future force development.”
Most of the climate change section reads nearly identical between the two versions, though the 2010 version offers more on the near-term challenges posed by climate change and is telling of what the Joint Force is paying particular attention to when it comes to potential implications for the military.
On Climate Science:
JOE 2008 (p. 22)
The impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent—and controversial—national and international concern. Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer. In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory.
JOE 2010 (p.32)
The impact of climate change, specifically global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels, has become a concern. Scientific conclusions about the potential effects of climate change are contradictory, with some arguing that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters: others, that there will be fewer.
While the 2010 JOE seems to play down the controversial debate undergirding climate science (literally removing the word “controversial” that was present in the 2008 JOE), the notion that there is an ongoing debate about what climate science is telling us about potential impacts of climate change lingers. Perhaps the next assessment could couch this differently by mentioning the need for climate science that offers the level of detail and fidelity that would be useful to the Joint Force to make decisions about the implications of climate change.
In the great tradition of the natural security bloggers comparing important documents to their previous iterations, we’d like to spend the next few days highlighting how the 2010 Joint Operating Environment (JOE; pdf warning) recently released by Joint Forces Command, compares with the previous, 2008 version (also pdf). I’ll walk through energy today; Blogger Dan will do the food section tomorrow and Will will take on climate change for Thursday. For anyone unfamiliar, according to its own words, the JOE “in no way constitutes U.S. government policy and must necessarily be speculative in nature, it seeks to provide the Joint Force an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concepts to guide our future force development.” Noted.
JOE 2008 (p 16):
To meet even the conservative growth rates posited above, global energy production would need to rise by 1.3% per year. By the 2030s, demand would be nearly 50% greater than today. To meet that demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s current energy production every seven years…Fossil fuels will still make up 80% of the energy mix in the 2030s, with oil and gas comprising upwards of 60%. The central problem for the coming decade will not be a lack of petroleum reserves, but rather a shortage of drilling platforms, engineers and refining capacity.
JOE 2010 (p. 24):
To meet even the conservative growth rates posited in the economics section, global energy production would need to rise by 1.3% per year. By the 2030s, demand is estimated to be nearly 50% greater than today. To meet that demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s current energy production every seven years… Fossil fuels will still make up 80% of the energy mix in the 2030s, with oil and gas comprising upwards of 60%. The central problem for the coming decade will not be a lack of petroleum reserves, but rather a shortage of drilling platforms, engineers and refining capacity.