“Water is a huge problem, as you all know, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Tajikistan has one of the greatest water potentials in the world. . . we have got a water resources task force now set up in the Department to examine how we can additionally help the countries of the area, and particularly Pakistan with the water issue.”
Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Briefing on his Recent Trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Georgia and Germany, March 2, 2010.
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.
“With more than 140 years of service in the Arctic and 11 statutory responsibilities there, the U.S. Coast Guard is at the center of efforts to adapt to [climate] change in the Arctic,” writes Christine Parthemore in her working paper, Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the Maritime Services. “Its missions in the Arctic include protecting indigenous populations and marine life as well as law enforcement and interdiction. These missions give the Coast Guard unique responsibilities for managing the effects of environmental change on human populations in the Arctic.”
In Promoting the Dialogue, Parthemore explores the impact of climate change on the maritime services (specifically the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard) and synthesizes how these services are integrating climate change into their strategic and operational planning. “With access to the global commons and stability abroad potentially at stake, analyzing and addressing the effects of climate change will remain important to the ability of the Navy and the Coast Guard to successfully fulfill their missions,” Parthemore writes.
Photo: A U.S. Coast Guard cutter prepares to transport a science team to a remote ice floe to analyze Arctic sea ice. Courtesy of Aerographer’s Mate 1st Class Gene Swope and the U.S. Coast Guard.
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 --
Christine Parthemore and Will Rogers released their working paper, Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the Quadrennial Defense Review, this morning. The working paper provides observations on how the Department of Defense incorporated climate change into the 2010 QDR and some possible outcomes of that process. "When the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is sent to Congress on February 1st, it will offer an unusual opportunity to shift how the national security community views climate change," write Parthemore and Rogers.
To learn more about the "Promoting the Dialogue" project, click here.
If you put your ear up to the Oval Office and listen very carefully, you can hear the gentle sound of ocean waves lapping. That’s because the presidentially-mandated Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (hereafter “the task force”) has just released its full report to supplement the interim report (pdf) already released in September. We have covered issues relating to the task force periodically on this blog, but I wanted to create a one-stop reference on the task force for you, dear readers.
President Obama authorized the task force on June 12 (pdf). It is an interagency effort, guided by the Council on Environmental Quality and consisting of representatives from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, and other agencies. The task force was charged with “developing a recommendation for a national policy that ensures protection, maintenance, and restoration of oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for improved stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning.” (Note: though I hail from the greatest city in the country, I’m not going to focus on the Great Lakes here). To this end, task force members traveled the country and held a series of public meetings (pdf all) to gather information on ocean issues. These matters may appear to be solely the purview of environmental policy makers, but the world’s oceans raise major security issues for U.S. national security policy makers as well.
Yesterday the Woodrow Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program hosted the Army Environmental Policy Institute’s 31st sustainability lecture on the Department of Defense’s (DoD) strategic energy opportunities and challenges. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Tad Davis introduced keynote speaker Dr. Amory Lovins who sits on the Defense Science Board’s Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy and helped advise the 2008 DSB report, More Fight – Less Fuel.
According to Lovins, DoD’s long energy logistics tail is putting the Department’s core mission at risk and it is paying for it in “blood, treasure, and lost combat effectiveness.” Fuel and fuel logistics are what has become largely understood as the “soft underbelly” of the Department of Defense. As Lovins pointed out, 1/2 of DoD personnel and 1/3 of its budget are dedicated to logistics. When the Defense Science Board was conducting its study several years ago it concluded that 1/2 of in-theater causalities were associated with convoys as well (though Lovins noted that this number does not reflect today’s total). Lovins also pointed out that of the military’s top 10 most fuel-intensive platforms, 8 are noncombat systems. “It’s an odd way to fight a war when the water heater uses more fuel than a helicopter,” Lovins said.
Environmental considerations are undergirding part of the debate over relocating U.S. troops in Japan in this Washington Post report.
Chinese President Hu believes that closer cooperation on climate change will bring China and the United States closer together, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, China and India are also cooperating on climate change to hedge against a failure at Copenhagen, according to Bloomberg.
The Wall Street Journal reports on an oil tanker spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has the Coast Guard working to contain the damage.
Reuters reports on glacial melt and its implications for both hydropower and disastrous flooding.
DoD News announces the Navy's commission of a more energy-efficient amphibious assault ship, which is estimated to save $250 million in fuel costs over its life cycle (compared to similar ships).
I sat down last night preparing for 3+ hours of panel and PowerPoint presentations. While this came to fruition, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the diversity of my colleagues at the dinner table. Although I enjoy a good lecture, having it commentated by a nuclear physicist, energy consultant, and Senate staffer added immensely to my experience.
To get right down to the nuts and bolts of it, I attended part of a lecture series called “The Energy Conversation.” This is a great program that aims to “foster and showcase the unprecedented collaboration between government, industry, and non profits” in order to “successfully build a sustainable energy future.” The specific lecture I attended was even more interesting: “U.S. Military Energy Strategies.” The panel represented some of the finest in our armed forces working on energy issues, including members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Office of the Secretary of Defense. I highly suggest checking out their biographies and getting acquainted with their programs.
One disaster after another seems to be hitting the Pacific Ocean area. We’ve been following emergency relief efforts as the military tries to aid those hit by Typhoons Parma and Melor, Tropical Storm Ketsana, as well as the earthquake in Indonesia and the tsunami it spawned that hit American Samoa. With so many relief operations occurring simultaneously, it is important to know how we’re using our forces and what resources have been most valuable.
