Center for a New American Security

In a post-Snowpocalyptic world, climate change scientists have found themselves defending their work against climate change skeptics who are using the historic winter weather that left much of the East Coast blanketed with record-breaking snow fall to denounce the evidence that supports climate change (most notably, a warming planet). Some have wondered how climate change experts can explain how a world experiencing climate change – more often using the inaccurate term “global warming” – could also be experiencing a historic winter snow fall, such as Washington’s Snowtorious B.I.G. But while the debates unfolded, I used the nearly week long closing of the federal government, several feet of snow and the tree that barricaded me and my four roommates in our small basement apartment as an opportunity to read a book I had been given shortly after arriving in Washington, DC in early January; the cleverly titled Global Warring by Cleo Paskal. 

Over the last several months, Dr. Jay Gulledge and I have been exploring the gap between climate science and security policy through our Lost in Translation project. The central tenet of our project and forthcoming report is that there are fundamental ways in which the climate science and policy communities operate that make it very difficult to get the right information they need from each other in order for the two communities to work together in a mutually supportive effort. And though the scope of our project focuses more narrowly on climate scientists and the decision makers who are increasingly using climate science to guide policy decisions, what we have come to notice through our exploration of the relationship between science and policy writ large is that, generally speaking, the foundation of our argument rings true for the broader science and policy communities. Indeed, there are specific aspects of climate science that make it unique compared to the broader gap between science and policy, but that scientists and policy makers tend to have difficulty working together is not an unfamiliar claim.

With that said, over the last several weeks we have met with folks who actually confound this paradigm and facilitate collaboration between the two communities. I wrote last week on the blog that we were on travel in Colorado where we visited with officials at U.S. Northern Command and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. During our visit we met with folks who have demonstrated that there are indeed strong relationships between scientists and decision makers at these places, relationships that cross this gap between the science and policy communities, in support of addressing serious national security challenges. 

Last week, the U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu undertook what I would characterize as an energy diplomacy tour of the Middle East, spending the first two days of his four day trip in Saudi Arabia, followed by a visit to Abu Dhabi in the UAE, and finally Qatar. While it was certainly exciting to me the trip as a whole didn't get too much coverage, so to save you the hassle of rifling through the annals of Google, I've provided you with a short recap of each day.  

Day One (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia):

Secretary Chu kept a tight schedule, meeting with multiple officials. The day began with a discussion with King Abdullah and Saudi Petroleum and Resource Minister Ali Al Naimi. Topics of their talk included climate change, energy security, and the future role of alternative resources.  Chu brought these topics together for the public during a speech at the International Energy Forum Secretariat, which hit on some solid natural security points. Chu also outlined the added stress that climate change could add to the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, by increasing levels of water scarcity – a problem already endemic in areas such as Yemen, whose instability has already been a thorn in the Kingdom's side. 

The Department of Homeland Security released its inaugural Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) last week. According to the report, the QHSR will "Describe more comprehensively the Nation’s homeland security interests, identify more clearly the critical homeland security missions, and define more completely a strategic approach to those missions by laying out the principal goals, essential objectives, and key strategic outcomes necessary for that strategic approach to succeed."

I thought it might be useful to pullout a few of the natural security-related statements from the review. Perhaps most importantly, the QHSR describes today’s security environment and includes long-term trends linked to energy security and climate change that could threaten American interests:

Dependence on fossil fuels and the threat of global climate change that can open the United States to disruptions and manipulations in energy supplies and to changes in our natural environment on an unprecedented scale. Climate change is expected to increase the severity and frequency of weather-related hazards, which could, in turn, result in social and political destabilization, international conflict, or mass migrations. (p. 7)

Indeed, recognizing that climate change is a long-term trend that could threaten American interests should be kept in mind when reading Mission 5: Ensuring resilience to disasters:

The strategic aims and objectives for ensuring resilience to disasters are grounded in the four traditional elements of emergency management:  hazard mitigation, enhanced preparedness, effective emergency response, and rapid recovery. Together, these elements will help create a Nation that understands the hazards and risks we face, is prepared for disasters, and can withstand and rapidly and effectively recover from the disruptions they cause. (p. 59)

While the Department will likely need to consider climate change along all elements of the emergency management spectrum, integrating climate change into its hazard mitigation and enhanced preparedness elements could prove to be the most beneficial. Indeed, as the Department strengthens its efforts to build local, state and federal capacity to respond to disasters and to mitigate disasters that could threaten communities, integrating how climate change will affect individual communities could help bolster that resilience and to help mitigate future risks.

With the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review both describing current and future security environments that could be shaped by long-term trends associated with climate change, it will be interesting to see how the forthcoming National Security Strategy will integrate climate change into its assessment. As Christine Parthemore and I write in our working paper, “It is very likely that President Obama’s National Security Strategy will describe a more complicated national security environment, characterized by non-traditional threats and responses, with climate change explicitly identified in that context.”  Indeed, the QDR and QHSR may just preview the National Security Strategy. We’ll see.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced yesterday that it would reorganize its climate services so it can provide Americans with more information on how climate change could affect trends such as drought and sea level rise. As part of the reorganization, NOAA announced a new climate services website, http://www.climate.gov:

With the rapid rise in the development of Web technologies and climate services across NOAA, there has been an increasing need for greater collaboration regarding NOAA's online climate services. The drivers include the need to enhance NOAA's Web presence in response to customer requirements, emerging needs for improved decision-making capabilities across all sectors of society facing impacts from climate variability and change, and the importance of leveraging climate data and services to support research and public education. To address these needs, NOAA embarked upon an ambitious program to develop a NOAA Climate Services Portal (NCS Portal). Our goal is for the Portal to become the "go-to" website for NOAA's climate data, products, and services for all users.

I want to focus particularly on NOAA’s response to the “emerging needs for improved decision-making capabilities across all sectors of society facing impacts from climate variability and change.” Dr. Jay Gulledge and I have been exploring these emerging needs in our forthcoming Lost in Translation report. What is clear is that there is not a lack of data, but simply a lack of data that is useful to stakeholders who need the information presented in a form that can help them make decisions as they relate to the impacts of climate change.

I thought it would be super fun to spend a Wednesday night comparing the intelligence community’s threat assessment language on climate change from last year and this year (pdf links, both). It turned out to be more useful than I’d guessed it would be.

First, categorization. The 2009 assessment places energy and climate change under the umbrella topic of “Environmental Security,” along with global health and demographic changes. “Regional Impacts of Climate Change” is its very own section this year. (Energy is considered in the regional/country-specific sections, and is a sub-section under “The Changing Threat to the Global Economy.”) This likely just reflects the National Intelligence Council’s work in the past year to analyze specific regions with greater fidelity.

Next, placement. In 2009, the Environmental Security section was the last topic before the conclusion. In this year’s assessment, it is fourth-to-last. Take that, health challenges, state and non-state intelligence threats, and international organized crime!

On leadership: the 2009 assessment specifically discusses a U.S. leadership role in international climate diplomacy:

Multilateral policymaking on climate change is likely to be highly visible and a growing priority among traditional security affairs in the coming decades. We observe the United States is seen by the world as occupying a potentially pivotal leadership role between Europe, which is committed to long-term and dramatic reduction in carbon emissions, and a heterogeneous group of developing states wary of committing to greenhouse gas emissions reductions, which they believe would slow their economic growth. As effects of climate change begin to mount, the United States will come under increasing pressure to join the international community in setting meaningful long-term goals for emissions reductions, to reduce its own emissions, and to help others mitigate and adapt to climate change through technological progress and financial assistance.

The 2010 assessment points only to the climate-related leadership of India:

Yesterday was full of fun with the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY2011 budget. Here are the natural security-related exchanges from the transcript, beginning with Secretary Gates confirming that DOD is indeed working on alternative energy:

Senator Begich (D-Alaska): I'm trying to rapid-fire these, knowing my time is limited. Do you still -- in your DOD presentation of the budget, do you still have a very robust -- another issue separate -- alternative renewable energy program?  I know that's been a big plus, to be very frank with you, with the military. You have been leaders in this area.  Are you still fairly in your mind aggressive in this arena?  

Sec. Gates:  Yes.  

*            *            *
In this line of inquiry, Senator Jeff Sessions seems quite concerned with fuel costs. Rather than drilling Admiral Mullen on this point, he could refer to page 87 of the QDR, which states that “DoD must integrate geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and axquisition processes. To address these challenges, DoD will fully implement the statutory requirement for the energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter and fully burdened cost of fuel…”

Senator Sessions (R-Alabama):  With regard to our procurement of major weapons systems, I know that the Department of Defense, Admiral Mullen, has focused on life- cycle cost. And I guess you would agree that things such as fuel and maintenance are important factors to evaluate if you're going to evaluate the cost of a weapons systems over a period of years.

Adm. Mullen:  Yes, sir.  

Senator Sessions:  I know we did that on the tanker aircraft, and in fact, fuel and that sort of things are counted as evaluating that aircraft. Are you -- should that be applied to a procurement program like the Littoral Combat Ship, that the cost of fuel over its lifespan, should that be accounted for?

Adm. Mullen:  I've long been concerned about lifecycle costs; I think, Senator Sessions, you know that, long before now.  And the secretary pointed out, and I think very importantly, in his opening statement, that the programs that he cut last year actually had some lifecycle value, focused on about $330 billion.  As far as what's in an RFP and what it's going to be focused on, that's something that I really can't comment on if that RFP is --

Senator Sessions:  Well, I don't know, we've got our RFP in the Littoral Combat Ship that I'm told does not have factor for fuel costs.

Adm. Mullen:  But you know more about it than I do.  I haven't seen it.

Senator Sessions:  Well, if that's so, would you be willing to look at it and ask questions, if that's a wise decision?

Adm. Mullen:  Again, I've -- as I've said, I've been -- long time I've been concerned about lifecycle costs.  Actually, one of the, I think, weaknesses of the acquisitions system is typically the line is not involved in it.  The uniform side is not involved in it.  So I'm not involved from that -- from that point of view --

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.

 

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.

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.