Center for a New American Security

Two articles this weekend especially caught my attention.  The first, an article in The New York Times, starts to draw the climate connections between the extreme weather events that have been happening all over the world throughout the summer with frightening intensity and regularity.  The article asks the question that many have probably been asking themselves: are these bizarre events mere coincidence or related to a broader pattern of global change?  According to the Times: "the collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably."  Extreme high temperatures are particularly indicative of a changing climate, when taken as part of a larger pattern.  Climate change models predict that warming will result in an overall pattern of more record high temperatures and fewer record lows, which is apparently exactly what is playing out.  Even higher amounts of snowfall fit into the predicted patterns (a fact that certain DC residents might be surprised to hear).

I know you've probably heard enough from me on climate change, but hear me out on this one.  Last week, I wrote that sometimes the best way to sway a climate skeptic is to let them see tangible changes from warming, like a melting Arctic, with their own eyes.  A friend who kindly reads my blog posts asked me whether that matters for most people in the world, saying "we can't very well ship everyone up to the Arctic." Fair point, but maybe we don't need to.  A quote from the article explains the general global patterns that we can expect to emerge from climate change: "theory suggests that a world warming up because of those gases will feature heavier rainstorms in summer, bigger snowstorms in winter, more intense droughts in at least some places and more record-breaking heat waves."  Sound familiar?  Yes, it's pretty frightening that we may be seeing the tangible impacts of climate change sooner than expected, and in our own backyard too.  But ever the optimist, this also offers me a little bit of hope for those pessimists and deniers out there, because the sooner that more people reach a consensus that climate change is real, immediate and will change our world for the worst, the sooner we'll be able to take concrete steps to potentially avert this crisis.

This is shaping up to be a summer marked by its extensive natural disasters around the world. In addition to the heat waves, projections hinting at a bad hurricane season in this hemisphere, Russia’s massive wildfires, and floods hitting Central Europe, Pakistan’s already-terrible flooding is expected to grow worse. First, according to The New York Times, the Russian wildfires have “forced the military to transfer rockets away from a garrison near the capital” after “they burned through forests toward a nuclear missile warning center outside Moscow.”

Second and even more concerning in its scale, yesterday The Washington Post highlighted concerns of Pakistani officials that the extensive damage from flooding, which has killed about 1,600 to date, could set back gains against insurgents:

Over the past year, Pakistan's army has succeeded in driving Taliban fighters out of key sanctuaries in South Waziristan and the Swat Valley. But the damage from the floods could jeopardize those gains, officials acknowledge, unless infrastructure is quickly rebuilt -- an undertaking that will cost billions of dollars and will likely take years.

In domestic news of bad (but likely politically necessary) investments, the Department of Energy announced last week that we’re putting another billion dollars into a reconfigured plan for the FutureGen project, which has proven about as successful as the attempts to keep Lindsey Lohan out of jail.  Several articles covering this move by DOE pointed out that a simpler option (that’s technically feasible today) could be to use natural gas for power generation rather than continuing reliance on coal, as several other countries are already beginning to do. But they reveal that part of that decision is coming back to price: if you ignore price supports and externalities that we don’t price at all, coal is cheaper than natural gas. And as we’ve seen lately, policies to price in externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions are unfortunately beyond the political will of Congress at the moment. (On that note, The Washington Post’s “On Leadership” section yesterday included commentary on why the country can’t muster the leadership needed to act on climate change.)

While the historical record shows that no states have ever fought a war over transboundary water resources, such resources have long served as focal points for potential conflict. But despite growing water scarcity in regions of the world – due in part to global population growth and increased drought in those regions – there are still great efforts among states to negotiate and even cooperate over many contentious and increasingly constrained water resources. 

Two examples strike me as being particularly relevant to U.S. national security: the Nile Basin Initiative and the Mekong River Commission.  The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is a partnership of all 10 Nile Basin riparians to develop the river in a cooperative manner, share the socio-economic benefits, such as hydropower, that the river provides and “promote regional peace and security.”  Similarly the Mekong River Commission, an agreement between Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam and with China and Burma as “dialogue partners” but not full participants, is meant to help regional riparians to manage the Mekong River’s shared water resources and develop the economic potential of the river.  

Both organizations are good examples of integrated water resource management, a process to manage a river or body of water as a whole to maximize the development potential of an entire river.  Yet both organizations are still missing a crucial piece: that is, the cooperation of the most powerful state in the river basin and the state that has historically been able to control the river’s water resources. 

This post, written by CNAS colleague Matt Acocella, was originally posted on Tom Ricks's The Best Defense blog. Thanks Matt!

The International Energy Agency announced last week that China had overtaken the U.S. as the world's largest consumer of energy, citing data showing that "China consumed the equivalent of 2.25 billion tons of oil last year, slightly above U.S. consumption of 2.17 billion tons. The measure includes all types of energy: oil, nuclear energy, coal, natural gas and renewable energy sources." Chinese officials moved quickly to dispute this assertion and questioned the IEA's calculations.

 

This pushback is predictable, according to Fereidun Fesharaki, Senior Fellow at the East-West Center and Senior Associate at CSIS. At a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last week on "China and India's Energy Policy Directions," Ferashaki explained that China is loathe to take on the title of World's #1 energy user because it prefers the U.S. to be in the global hot seat.  One fact particularly struck me: according to Dr. Fesharaki, China purposely waits until a lull occurs in the price of oil before it buys up large amounts for its strategic petroleum reserves, in order to avoid being accused of spiking the price of crude.

 

Following up on a story we highlighted here on the blog last Friday, China has issued a stern warning to the United States not to meddle in a longstanding dispute between China and its South China Sea neighbors over territorial claims to a string of strategic islands with deposits of oil and natural gas. The more assertive warning came several days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the United States had a “national interest” in freedom of navigation and open access of the maritime commons in the South China Sea.

On Friday, China “put American officials on notice that it will not brook foreign interference in the waters off its southeastern coast, which it views as a ‘core interest’ of sovereignty.” But yesterday, The New York Times reported a more direct warning from Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi that U.S. interference “would increase regional tensions.”

In an excerpt from the Times report published this morning, reaction to Secretary Clinton’s remark seemed to vacillate from diplomatic to less than so: “‘What will be the consequences if this issue is turned into an international or multilateral one?’” the Times quoted Foreign Minister Yang as published on the Foreign Ministry’s website. “It will only make matters worse and the resolution more difficult,” the web posting stated. Meanwhile, The New York Times reported China’s state-run media as labeling Secretary Clinton’s remarks as “an attack,” with an editorial appearing in People’s Daily that cited her remarks as American aspirations to “contain a China with growing military capabilities.”

The New York Times reported this morning that the United States is willing to wade into a dispute over “a string of strategically sensitive islands in the South China Sea.” The above photo is an aerial image of one of the small islands in the Spratly island cluster. The Spratly and Paracel islands in the South China Sea have long been a source of tension and even deadly dispute between Vietnam and China; they skirmished over them in 1988: dozens of Vietnamese sailors were killed, and several Vietnamese ships sunk.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, addressing a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), said, “The United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea,” the Times reported. The Times acknowledged that China “has long laid claim to islands in the South China Sea because they are rich in oil and natural gas deposits,” adding that Beijing  “has put American officials on notice that it will not brook foreign interference in the waters off its southeastern coast, which it views as a ‘core interest’ of sovereignty.”

Photo: Courtesy of flickr user Storm_Crypt.

• The U.S. Army awards $3.5million in contracts for energy security initiatives on installations, reports UPI.
• Check out this interesting project idea on utilizing solar energy for U.S. Coast Guard vessels on Tech Brief's design contest.
• President Obama looks to build ties with Azerbaijan, declaring "Azerbaijan's leadership in the development for a Southern Corridor for energy has also increased regional prosperity and enhanced global energy security," according to Reuters. 
• The Business Standard discusses water issues between India and Pakistan amidst the failure of last week's water dialogue between both nations.
• China has overtaken the United States in new energy investments, reports Investor's Business Daily.

• According to Business Week, Turkmenistan will begin production of a $2billion gas pipeline to the West to provide an alternative to Russian energy.
• Pakistan and India are looking to establish a deal over two large hydroelectric plants in Kashmir, according to the Daily Times.
• Though the reference may be a bit outdated, San Fransisco's Bay News uses Avatar to frame conflict minerals in the Congo.
• China has announced even tighter controls on their strategic rare earth resources, reports China's own People's Daily.
• Reuters reports that Iran may have plans to cut national subsidies on electricity, water and food to Afghan refugees who have moved into Iran. 

• According to the Associated Press, China and Brazil may establish a bond over Chinese assistance exploiting Brazilian Coltan mines.
• USAID's Famine Early Warning System Network released its 2010 April through September outlook for food security in Somalia.
• Check out BBC's audio track discussing the role rare earth metals play in the economy, the environment and technology.
• The New York Times' Green blog discusses the release of the United Nations's Biodiversity Outlook 3, which shows declines across the board.
• The nine Nile states of Africa are likely to come to an agreement over water usage, reports The National.