Center for a New American Security

Our colleagues in the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently released a comprehensive report, Land Grab? The Race for the World’s Farmlands, that looks at the increasing frequency of food-importing developed nations and private companies investing in huge tracts of arable farmland in less developed countries.

This is an area that, while we haven’t explored deeply, we are beginning to study more and more here in the Natural Security program. We’re particularly interested in the ways that these emerging economic trends are engaging other socioeconomic and political trends in developing countries, which could lead to instability in countries of geostrategic importance to the United States (e.g. Pakistan).

According to the report’s authors:

Large-scale land acquisitions may have a negative effect on the wider sociopolitical and economic context of the host country. There are documented cases, such as the Daewoo Logistics Corporation’s (ultimately unsuccessful) plan to lease 1.3 million hectares of land in Madagascar, where negotiations over deals have contributed to political instability and internal social conflict. These deals touch on the already politically contentious issue of land allocation and land rights, so they carry a possibility of exacerbating existing tensions.
…
Granted, to this point Madagascar is the only case where a land deal has contributed to widespread political instability. However, the factors at play in most host countries—land, food insecurity, and poverty—make up a combustible mix that could easily explode. In countries—such as Pakistan—where violent, extremist anti-government movements have mastered the ability to exploit land- based class divisions, the political risks are particularly high.

The report is intended for a much broader (global) audience and, rightly so, is not explicit about how these trends might engage U.S. national security interests. But for researchers like us who study natural resources and economic trends and analyze their engagement with national security, the report is robust and offers useful case studies in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe that are a great jumping off point for our further research. You should read this now!

Michael McCarthy reports from the New America Foundation event on Minding the Gap: Where Will President Obama's Energy and Climate Policies Take Us in Four to Eight Years?

Yesterday I attended an event at the New America Foundation on Minding the Gap: Where Will President Obama's Energy and Climate Policies Take Us in Four to Eight Years? The format was a series of remarks by energy consultants and Department of Energy representatives, moderated by Lisa Margonelli, director of New America’s Energy Policy Initiative. A keynote speech from Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC) capped the event in which he advocated for his revenue-neutral alternative to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. Here are a few highlights from yesterday’s event:

• New America President Steve Coll introduced the panel by noting that in energy policy, the era of false starts and ad hoc solutions is likely coming to an end. Coll believes the current administration is dedicated to creating a top-down, cohesive energy policy before leaving office.
• One energy firm consultant is happy to see an administration dedicated to doing something about climate change, but worries about the uncertainty over how to price carbon in the next four to eight years.
• Another panel member noted that the test of the American leadership is not only how it reduces its own emissions, but also how it helps developing nations to reduce their emissions, since these countries will be responsible for most of the emissions growth in the future.
• One panelist is helping the Department of Energy to distribute funds from the stimulus bill passed earlier this year. He noted that DOE’s new Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), modeled after the Defense Department’s DARPA, has received 3,700 concept papers from established companies, start-ups and universities. ARPA-E is selecting about one in 100 of these project proposals to fund.
• Congressman Inglis believes in the dangers of climate change, but often sells his skeptical colleagues by reminding them that climate change legislation is good for America’s energy security as well. If U.S. energy interests were less beholden to price and availability fluctuations in volatile regions, he noted, “that’s national security.”

All in all there were some interesting ideas floating through the New America offices yesterday. While only one participant made the argument that climate change legislation is good for U.S. security, he was also the participant with the most direct political influence, and he is clearly concerned about the issue. In recent weeks we’ve seen explicit links between climate change and national security being discussed in the Senate, and it’s encouraging to see that similar ideas may be brewing in the House as well.

Amanda Hahnel reports from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report launch of World Energy Outlook 2009

Yesterday I ventured over to CSIS to attend the launch of the World Energy Outlook 2009 report, an annual report put on by the International Energy Agency.  Dr. Fatih Barol, the chief economist on the project, briefed us on the key takeaways, some of which I’ve captured below:

• Non-OECD countries account for all of the growth in emissions. In a reference scenario where limited action was taken to reduce carbon emissions, China would increase emissions by 6 gigatons of CO₂ by 2030.
• The current energy system is unsustainable, a revolution in how we use and supply fuel must be implemented.
• With current global population, by 2030 we will not be able to afford cheap enough energy to sustain enough economic growth to provide a minimum level of employment in the world.
• New supplies of oil will most likely be concentrated in OPEC countries. Dependence on these countries for oil will continue to challenge our energy security.
• Energy efficiency is the area where everyone has the most to gain.
• India was not listed among the emerging economies due to a lower per capita income. This, according to the report, means that sustaining growth for them is more critical than it is for China.
• The report relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration as well as nuclear energy for sustainable energy alternatives in a new low-carbon world. Paying attention to the breakdowns of this technology in different scenarios is important.

It was a great event that provided some of the best energy data analyses available. As Dr. Barol admitted, a lot of the information is updated from what we already know, but the continuation of information collection and study is important.  If you’re in need of a great collection of energy-related data, check out their report for more in-depth findings.

• PR Newswire cites a poll that indicates that the Chinese people worry more about climate change and food and water security than traditional military threats.
• The United Nations renewed sanctions on the Congo preventing the export of minerals despite misgivings about their effectiveness, the Wall Street Journal reports.
• Uzbekistan withdrew from the Central Asian power grid citing energy security concerns, Xinhua reports.
• The U.S. Air Force has announced that they will abandon their efforts to drive the market of coal-to-liquid technology, according to the Guardian.
• According to The Washington Post, China and the United States are pressuring India to set commitments in advance of Copenhagen.

This Thanksgiving weekend, with newspapers light on news and heavy on ads, the biggest story was clearly the crashing of the White House state dinner for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. While this news was quite important for its revealing of a Secret Service lapse and for its gossip value, more important news regarding India remained somewhat under the radar.

Recently, I had the chance to correspond with Kelly Sims Gallagher, an Associated Professor of Energy and Environment Policy at the Fletcher School, where she covers energy policy both in the United States and China. She is involved with the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (CIERP), and its Energy, Climate, and Innovation (ECI) research program. Recently she directed the Energy Technology Innovation Policy program at Harvard University. Here were my 5 questions to her:

Major news sources are reporting on the importance of energy and climate change during President Obama’s trip to China. Check out Scientific American, The New York Times, or The Washington Post for some good commentary, as well as the Department of Energy’s announcement for a list of projects.

The Financial Times gives a great run down of the problem of food insecurity and cautions against a monolithic solution.

Alternative Energy reports on the role fiber optics could play in photovoltaics.

The BBC reports that following a summit of African leaders minimum demands for compensation for climate change damages have been determined but will be kept secret until Copenhagen.

• The Honolulu Advertiser (making its debut on this blog) reports on the USS Texas, a Navy submarine that recently became the first Virginia-class sub to surface through Arctic ice. Perhaps least important but definitely most amusing: “Three polar bears thought it was quite a sight, and investigated the sub for almost two hours.”
• The United States and China have released a joint statement (hosted at CBS News) as a result of their high level meetings; Section V deals with “climate change, energy, and environment,” with both nations pledging to work together on a number of energy security and climate initiatives.
• There is much ado about nuclear this week: Newsweek reports on serious new attempts to create controlled nuclear fusion at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, while Green, Inc. explores a new nuclear reactor that Idaho National Lab is developing.
• The BBC reports on the UN World Summit on Food Security, during which Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said that there “can be no food security without climate security.”
• Finally, it's worth a glance at Foreign Policy's "Who Killed Copenhagen? An FP Whodunnit."

Last Friday afternoon, Sharon and I were walking back to the CNAS offices after a meeting and chatting about the indicators we see in our natural security research about the ways in which the world is so rapidly changing, and all the unknowns that might – if we could only put our finger on them – give us a clearer idea of what the future world will look like for those charged with securing the nation. Much to my surprise, I awoke Saturday morning (and again Sunday morning), grabbed the newspapers, and found that a handful of reporters were perhaps thinking similar thoughts in formulating stories to shape the narrative around the president’s Asia trip.

One Saturday Washington Post story centered on ginseng farmers in Wisconsin, making the point that China’s import tastes (and what qualities and prices they demand for those imports) are a major force in shaping the global economy. It also provided examples of Chinese investment in U.S. real estate and businesses, and mentions the growing ranks of Chinese students enrolled in U.S. institutions of higher learning. The author indicates that residents of Wisconsin are themselves wrestling with what this trend means for their state, with money coming in seeming to be the deciding factor in that judgment. Even without a thorough read, the headline says it all: “The Chinese are 'changing us': Rising global power is reshaping the way Americans do business and live their lives.”

Climate change diplomacy is in the air. With the Copenhagen climate summit rapidly approaching, the newswires are abuzz with governments and private groups expressing their views on what they hope to accomplish at the conference. Though it is unclear whether the United States will raise security issues at Copenhagen, several groups have started to make diplomatic pushes this week to include climate change as a security issue.

President Barack Obama may have upped the ante on the Copenhagen conference when he announced on Monday that he would be willing to attend in person if he thinks his presence will seal a workable deal. Whether his presence would help is unclear, though, given that Congress may not be able to settle on a climate change bill before the conference (and hence, the Senate may not ratify any international agreement that emerges). Obama is currently in Asia, where he is meeting with officials in Japan, Singapore, China, and Korea discussing, in part, climate change issues. Obama sent the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, to India and China to begin preparing a climate framework, which is a more likely outcome of Copenhagen than a comprehensive new climate treaty. Given that China’s President Hu believes U.S.-China cooperation on climate will strengthen the bilateral relationship, these talks could avert future U.S.-China tension by establishing relations built on trust and respect rather than suspicion.

Today we’re starting a semi-regular series called “Top 5.” You may be asking “Top 5 what?” We will be periodically examining some general background of the larger issues we analyze by looking at major characteristics of the things of which we speak. That might sound vague, but that’s because it is intended to be a flexible device. For example, we may take snapshots of the top 5 oil producers, top 5 reserve holders of certain minerals, top 5 provinces currently negotiating water treaties involving hydroelectric damming of Himalayan water sources, or anything else we think might be helpful to you and for our own research. And we of course welcome suggestions for top 5-style explorations that would provide useful background to any natural security topics.

With all this in mind, today I am examining the top 5 countries that export rare earth elements (REEs) to the United States. These elements—used in products ranging from catalytic converters (pdf) and mp3 players to precision-guided munitions (pdf)—are commonly grouped together because of their chemical similarities, but the name is confusing because they’re not particularly rare. I am choosing to use the term “rare earth elements” instead of “rare earth metals” or “rare earth minerals” because it is the preferred term of the National Academy of Sciences, which issued an excellent report in 2008 entitled Managing Materials for a Twenty-first Century Military. This report notes two different series of elements are often included under the banner of REEs: the lanthanide series (atomic numbers 57 to 71) and the actinide series (atomic numbers 89 to 103), along with individual elements scandium and yttrium. But not all sources (pdf) include the actinide series when talking about REEs. We will keep our focus away from the actinide series for the sake of this post, since the actinides include the radioactive elements, and radioactivity raises special complications.