Center for a New American Security

U.S. policymakers and military officials are giving the Arctic some more attention.

On Saturday, The Navy Times reported on the Coast Guard’s request to Congress to purchase a new heavy-icebreaker to bolster the U.S. presence in the Arctic. “Rising global temperatures and melting sea ice are opening the Arctic as a new frontier for research, travel and oil drilling — and creating more area for the Coast Guard to patrol,” the report said. “To keep up, the Coast Guard is asking for $8 million in the fiscal 2013 budget to begin procurement of a new large icebreaker.” The total cost of the icebreaker is projected around $860 million. The initial $8 million is to, as the report notes, get the procurement process started.

The U.S. Coast Guard currently lacks the icebreaking capability it needs to secure U.S. interests in the Arctic. “Neither of the U.S.’s two heavy-duty Polar-class icebreakers is in service. The Polar Star is awaiting a $57 million upgrade set to be finished in December. Its sister ship, Polar Sea, has been docked in Seattle since 2010 with engine issues,” The Navy Times said. “The medium-duty polar icebreaker Healy is designed for research and cannot cut through the thickest ice.”

Today is World Water Day, a day to promote awareness of the acute water and food shortages plaguing the estimated 1 out of 8 persons that lack reliable access to clean drinking water. 

This morning at 10:30 AM, tune into the State Department's website where you can watch Secretary of State Clinton deliver her remarks on World Water Day. According to a State Department release, Secretary Clinton will also launch the new U.S. Water Partnership (USWP) today. The statement says that “The USWP is a public-private partnership formed to share U.S. knowledge, leverage and mobilize resources, and facilitate cross-sector partnerships to find solutions to global water accessibility challenges, especially in the developing world.”

The Director of National Intelligence will also release the Global Water Security Intelligence Community Assessment, a long-awaited report from the intelligence community that describes the security challenges associated with increased water scarcity.

Hopefully the rollout of the IC report timed with a major speech by Secretary Clinton will generate some greater awareness within the security community about the importance of water security to U.S. national security and foreign policy. As Secretary Clinton said in a speech in 2010, “water represents one of the great diplomatic and development opportunities of our time.” As the United States rebalances in the Asia Pacific, perhaps water can serve as a touchstone for building strategic partnerships with countries already beset by water insecurity, a challenge likely to be exacerbated in the future. It is something that security practitioners should consider. 

Last Tuesday, President Obama announced that the United States, the European Union and Japan filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization against China for its export restrictions on rare earth metals – materials used in a wide range of high-end technologies, including smart phones, clean energy technologies and even some weapons systems.

On Friday, President Obama followed up the announcement with an Executive Order (EO) on National Defense Resources Preparedness with the broad purpose of identifying the resources and services critical to U.S. national security. Production of non-Chinese rare earth metals is expected to increase over the next several years as mines in Australia, the United States, Malaysia and elsewhere come online. However, one of the greatest hurdles for U.S. defense planners and others in the U.S. government trying to address resource-related challenges is a lack of fidelity in the supply chains for defense systems, energy technologies and other products that undergird the national defense and economy.

President Obama’s EO is a first step in helping provide better clarity into supply chain issues. Specifically, the EO states that:

Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a)  identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b)  assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

The rise in gasoline prices topped the headlines this weekend. The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that gas prices rose an average of 6 percent in February and are expected to climb higher as refineries in the U.S. Northeast go idle or offline due to rising global oil prices that are making it too expensive for refiners to produce gasoline. “Gasoline production in the Northeast is expected to decline to 350,000 barrels a day in 2013, from 580,000 barrels a day in 2011, according to government estimates,” according to The Wall Street Journal. “By 2013, the government estimates, motorists in the Northeast will be using 240,000 barrels more each day than refineries and imports are providing right now.” What is more, the rise in global oil prices is having a ripple effect on other consumer goods, with overall consumer prices rising 0.4 percent in February.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported that gasoline prices have come front and center in presidential politics ahead of the Illinois primary on Tuesday. However, according to The New York Times, gasoline prices may not significantly influence the election in November.

Regardless of the influence on presidential politics, the rise in gasoline prices seems to have renewed the domestic debate of how the U.S. government can help manage consumer pain at the pump, including through the sale of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. The Obama administration ratcheted down expectations last week that the United States will release oil from the strategic petroleum reserves in order to mitigate supply and demand issues. The White House announcement came after false reports that the United States and Great Britain would coordinate a sale of their respective strategic reserves. (To have the most strategic effect, the United States would need to coordinate the sale of strategic petroleum reserves with other members of the International Energy Agency, adding a large volume of supply to the global oil market that can quench global demand and effectively manage the global price of oil.)

Global climate change has doubled the risk of coastal flooding for many American communities. “Global warming has raised sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating,” a new report from Climate Central found. “Scientists expect 20 to 80 more inches this century, a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky.”  While the projected range of sea level rise may leave a lot to be desired with respect to certainty, the implications of even the low- to medium-range projections (between 36-48 inches) over the next century could have dramatic consequences for the estimated 5 million Americans living at less than 4 feet above high tide, and more so for the 3.7 million living at less than 3 feet above the tide.

U.S. military planners and others in the national security community should pay attention to the study’s mid-range projections. Depending on the location, mid-range projections are estimated at 1-8 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 4-19 inches by 2050, with some projections much higher in areas currently home to U.S. military installations. The study’s authors give projected ranges and best estimate predictions. For example, in Virginia, Sewells Point – Hampton Roads (home to Norfolk Naval Base) is projected to experience between 3-10 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 7-24 inches by 2050, with best estimates projected at 6 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 14 inches by 2050. In La Jolla, California (the greater San Diego region, home to Camp Pendleton to the north near Oceanside and Coronado to the south), the study projects 2-9 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 4-22 inches rise by 2050, with best estimates projected at 5 inches by 2030 and 11 inches by 2050. The study provides a list of other communities and the projected sea level rise with 90 percent confidence intervals that are worth reviewing at length.

Although the ranges for projected sea level rise (given in inches, not feet) may seem insignificant, the risks and concerns are quite legitimate. Communities like Hampton Roads are already plagued by sea level rise and have given serious attention to adapting to the increased risk. One concern for these coastal installations is the increased risk of storm surge and the subsequent damage. Indeed, even modest sea level rise measured in single inches portends serious risks with respect to flooding. “Cities such as Norfolk have already experienced the effects of sea-level rise as powerful storms pushed water inland, leading to flooding in places where it once was rare,” The Washington Post reported last year. What is more, climate scientists project an increase in the severity and frequency of storms which may exacerbate the effects of sea level rise and the damages incurred for coastal communities, including U.S. Naval installations. The implications for military readiness cannot be overstated, and military planners need to adapt to these changes, or be prepared to reconstitute their capabilities and facilities in the wake of these events.  

As the United States rebalances in the Asia Pacific, cooperation around climate adaptation could be a tremendous opportunity to strengthen our relationships with existing and emerging partners in the region. In a post last week I noted a thoughtful piece by Francisco Femia and Caitlin Werrell of The Center for Climate and Security that fleshes out how U.S. policymakers should think about integrating climate change into a strategy for the Asia-Pacific region, including developing a “Climate Investment Plan” that would encourage the United States to make good on its commitment to help raise climate finance funds that would assist developing countries in adapting to the effects of climate change.

The Climate Investment Plan that Femia and Werrell describe would be an important element of a strategy for the Asia Pacific. But beyond helping raise the funds for these countries to pay for climate adaptation projects, what other opportunities should the United States consider as avenues for cooperation?

One area ripe for cooperation are more science and technology agreements that share lessons learned from U.S. projects that would help our partners navigate engineering challenges or other roadblocks to successfully implementing climate adaptation projects. One project that comes to mind is the New Orleans Storm Surge Barrier. The Science Channel has a great program called “Build it Bigger” that highlighted this project in a recent episode. The idea behind the storm surge wall is to protect the city of New Orleans from another Katrina-size hurricane that could potentially inundate the city again.

On Wednesday, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus testified before the Senate Appropriations Sub-committee for Defense about the Navy’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. Discussing the Navy’s energy program, Secretary Mabus emphasized that “we'll maintain our efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use energy more efficiently. These efforts have already made us better war fighters.” Secretary Mabus added that:

By deploying to Afghanistan with solar blankets to charge radios and other electrical items a Marine patrol dropped 700 pounds in batteries from their packs and decreased the need for risky resupply missions. Using less fuel in theaters can mean fewer fuel convoys which will save lives. For every 50 convoys we bring in, a Marine is killed or wounded. That is too high a price to pay. We already know the reality of a volatile global oil market. Every time the cost of barrel of oil goes up a dollar, it costs the Department of the Navy an additional $31 million in fuel cost. These price spikes have to be paid for out of our operational funds. That means that we sail less, we fly less, we train less. For these reasons, we have to be relentless in our pursuit of energy goals that will continue to make us a more effective fighting force in our military and our nation for energy independence. 

Photo: On March 7, 2012, Secretary Mabus testified before the Senate Appropriations Sub-Committee for Defense. Courtesy of Chief Mass Communication Specialist Sam Shavers and the U.S. Navy. 

While on a visit last week to the University of Louisville in Kentucky, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was asked by a reporter about his thoughts on the national security implications of climate change. Several themes came up, including the need for the intelligence community to track climate trends so that the national security community can understand the consequences of environmental and climate change. What is more, Secretary Panetta pointed specifically to emerging challenges in the Arctic, such as increased activity by countries seeking access to natural resources. Here is an excerpt from the transcript that is worth sharing in full:

Q: Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you all for speaking to me. A 2008 Department of Defense report noted how climate change will impact current and future U.S. national security. The Department of Defense has been progressive in transitioning bases around the world -- solar panels, et cetera -- but the noted climate patterns in Somalia have led to some difficulties with Al Shabaab there. And so first, I was wondering if you could comment kind of on the unusual topic of climate change with regard to the future of the Department of Defense.

 

And then second, if you could help Senator Mitch McConnell accept that science and stop blocking that legislation. Thank you. (Applause.)

 

SEC. PANETTA: You know, I learned a long time ago, don’t mess around with people -- (laughs) -- you know, state what you think is right and hope that others will follow and be able to incorporate those thoughts in whatever they do. And I have tremendous respect for Mitch McConnell and I think that -- I’ve always enjoyed the opportunity to discuss with him, not only this issue, but other issues as well.

On February 20, 2012, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa signed the U.S.-Mexico Agreement Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. As I noted in a post last week, it will be interesting to see how much production Mexico is able to safely develop now, and what effects this could have across the rest of Mexico, considering that oil revenues account for roughly 40 percent of the government’s budget.

Moreover, one wonders if there are any lessons that can be gleaned from this agreement with respect to Cuban offshore oil drilling, considering that today there is very little the United States can do to support Cuba in the event of an offshore oil accident akin to Deepwater Horizon. As The Washington Post reported yesterday, “Drawing up contingency plans to confront a possible spill is much more difficult because of the economic embargo against Cuba. U.S. law bars most American companies — including oil services and spill containment contractors — from conducting business with the communist island.” This may end up being a case of comparing apples to oranges given the fundamental differences in our relationship with each country, but we should consider the lessons learned from the experience of stewarding through the U.S.-Mexico agreement and whether those lessons could generate some avenue for a U.S. response to a Cuban oil spill, especially considering that the U.S. coastline is extremely vulnerable to such an event.

Photo: Courtesy of the U.S. State Department.