“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.
A recent article in the February 20, 2010 National Journal, “The Bottled-Water Problem,” (subscription required) explores the logistical challenges that the U.S. military and NATO troops are experiencing with water, food and fuel supplies in Afghanistan. In particular, the author, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., focuses on the military’s reliance on importing supplies of bottled-water due, in part, to concerns that contaminated water from indigenous sources is making military personnel sick.
“When we drink local water – just stuff that a normal Iraqi wouldn’t think twice about or an Afghan wouldn’t think twice about drinking, because their [immune] system is used to dealing with all that bacteria and the germs – our systems aren’t used to that,” the author quotes Lt. Gen. Mitchell Stevenson, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, as saying.
Freedberg explores the question of purifying indigenous sources of water and indeed points out that the U.S. military and NATO are working towards buying local water with potential investments in water purification and bottling plants. But purifying water locally might not be the most cost-effective approach to solving the military’s water supply issue in Afghanistan, at least so suggests a Dutch Air Force officer who coordinates logistics for the International Stability Assistance Force.
The “bottled water we import is cheaper than when we get it here,” the Dutch officer told Freedberg. And that might be true if one were calculating the cost of water using the initial purchase value of water by volume compared to what it would cost to get water locally through investments in water purification and bottling plants. But when it comes to military supplies that are shipped to and within a combat theatre, the value of those supplies is much greater than the price the military originally purchases it for.
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.
Yesterday I made the journey over to the Hill to check out an interesting hearing for the House Armed Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee over energy management and initiatives on military installations. The hearing, overseen by Chairman Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), heard the testimony of four Defense Department officials: Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; Mr. L. Jerry Hansen, Army Senior Energy Executive; Mr. Roger M. Natsuhara, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; and Mrs. Debra K. Tune, Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. 
The opening testimonies from the four defense representatives can be accessed here: DOD; Army; Navy and Air Force. The hearing can be viewed here.
Rep. Ortiz started on two colossal renewable energy projects that the military services have undertaken, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada and Fort Irwin, California. Despite his evident pride in renewable projects such as this, the initial concern of the hearing was how these and other energy initiatives have the potential to affect DOD operations and readiness negatively. Specifically, he cited the potential for wind farms and solar arrays to disrupt military training and radar, weakening both in-theater and homeland effectiveness. Each witness named this as a potential concern in their respective testimonies, which prompted Ortiz to inquire as to any established basis of information or study to support these concerns. Dr. Robyn noted that, to her knowledge, no projects have gone forward that have created any such problems. Natsuhara followed later with a reasonable statement what concerns them most is what is not known about the effects of most projects, but none of the panelists were able to offer any data supporting, or disproving, the concern for radar disruption.
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.
Naval Base Ventura County became the first Naval installation to receive the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver certification. Port Hueneme Building 1100, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, was awarded the certification on January 8, 2010.
"We are proud of having the Navy's first sustainable, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified existing building," said Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Commanding Officer, Capt. Paz B. Gomez, in a press release. "By using less water and energy throughout our facility, we will reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and save thousands of dollars annually in energy costs for the fleet and American taxpayers. Moreover, as more military and civilian facilities adopt green building designs, our nation will become more energy independent and less reliant on foreign sources of energy."
Naval Base Ventura County takes its place next to USMC Camp Lejeune, the first Marine Corps base to be awarded Silver certification.
Photo: Port Hueneme Building 1100. Courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
President Obama announced on Tuesday that he is deploying 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, beginning in early 2010. For troops already deployed and in theater, the onset of winter will exacerbate logistical challenges in Afghanistan as many of the main supply routes are narrow, dangerous roads that are easy for insurgents to target, and even more difficult to maneuver during the winter.
Photo: U.S. Marines conduct a convoy patrol on December 31, 2004 along the Khost-Gardez pass in Afghanistan in order to disrupt insurgent activity along the supply route. Courtesy of U.S. Marine Corps Cpl James L. Yarboro and the U.S Department of Defense.
When we travel, we like to compare what we learn about the effects of climate change to a great report on regional effects that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) issued earlier this year. Two weeks ago, Sharon and I traveled to Hawaii to conduct interviews and meet with representatives of PACOM and the military services in support of two of our ongoing projects, so I checked out the projected regional effects for Hawaii in preparation for a blog post on just that.
For the record, the report indicates that the Pacific Islands have already witnessed increases in average temperatures and sea levels for decades, and likely future changes in store for Hawaii include rising ocean surface temperatures, more heavy downpours and alterations in the timing of its rainiest seasons. But I didn’t speak much to people about their thoughts on these or other climate projections; the concerns of many of those I spoke with were a bit different.
Beyond just climate change, many who work on environmental issues or are charged with certain environment-related work for the U.S. military seem far more focused on sustainability broadly – for all natural resources and in the face of a changing world climate. Most individuals I spoke with about energy also spoke of water concerns. Almost everyone we met with knew the story of how Hawaii became highly petroleum dependent (it used to use biofuels for electricity before its sugarcane industry faded) and how that story related to land use and agricultural production. This holistic view stems from Hawaii’s status of being so, well, islanded. Its vulnerabilities run deep and are comprehensive, and this seems to have had the effect of promoting an equally comprehensive view of how susceptible their environment is.
Camp Lejeune recently became the first U.S. Marine Corps base to receive the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver certification with the completion of its Reserve Training Center and Tank Maintenance Facility. The facility supports 56 marines, 9 M1 A1 Abrams tanks, an M-88 Recovery Vehicle, and meets all the requirements to be LEED Silver certified. "We’ve proven it can be done," said Camp Lejeune’s commanding officer, Col. Richard P. Flatau Jr. "Hopefully that raises the bar for our own staff in planning, but also for the contractors that compete for construction jobs here, now they know it’s doable. It really is an honor to be the first base with a LEED Silver facility…once again Camp Lejeune is out in front.”
Photo: Courtesy of Marine Cpl. Jessica L. Martinez and the U.S. Marine Corps.
