Center for a New American Security

With the hubbub over Michael Jackson’s funeral, a rather grisly case of grave-robbery, and interest in the beginning of the G8 meeting in L’Aquila, numerous events occurred in Washington this week with relatively little fanfare. However, this past week featured several developments in the legislative and executive branches of the government which have potentially far-reaching natural security implications.

On the Hill, two events in particular stand out. The House this week voted to reauthorize the federal Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), but with a significant alteration from past years.  Since 2003, companies in which a venture capital investor owned a majority stake were not eligible for federal funds; the new reauthorization bill has removed this provision. As Kim Hart explains in the Washington Post, this has caused a significant amount of controversy in the venture capital and start-up worlds, with venture capital firms largely backing the provision, and small businesses weary of it. One might ask, where does this fit into natural security? Quite simply, a number of firms working on developing alternative energy sources, as well as a number of venture capital groups backing them, stand to be affected by this change. For years, one of the major sticking points in funding the development of new energy technologies has been the transition from the innovation phase to the commercialization of a technology – the so-called Valley of Death. At CNAS’ April 29 conference, members of the venture capital community indicated that a reform of SBIR regulations could be one way of finding the funding necessary to commercialize new energy technologies. Whether or not this alteration in the funding guidelines will prove to be the necessary change has yet to be seen, but it’s something worth keeping an eye on.

I launched into Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World by author/reporter/editor Tom Zoellner in my hometown of Sandusky, Ohio, appropriately in view of the 889 megawatt Davis-Besse nuclear plant on the shores of beautiful Lake Erie. The perfect spot to begin contemplating Zoellner’s tome.

“When it comes to the stability of one of the world's most volatile regions, it's the fate of the Himalayan glaciers that should be keeping us awake at night,” warns Stephan Faris in Foreign Policy, on the specter of Pakistan unraveling as natural resource consumption and climate change take their toll on this withering nuclear club member.
 
The Himalayan glaciers are the primary source of the Indus River and its six tributaries that flow through Kashmir to form freshwater supplies for millions of Indians and Pakistanis. To date, Pakistan and India have amicably governed the shared Indus waters under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, which established a governing body – the Permanent Indus Basin Commission – to adjudicate grievances associated with water management between the two rival states. For many, governing the Indus waters has been a hallmark example of how resource issues can act as an opportunity for peace and engagement rather than as the basis for conflict. But, as Faris writes, “the treaty's success depends on the maintenance of a status quo that will be disrupted as the world warms.”

In the wake of recent volatility in the commodities market, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is considering significant reforms to reduce harmful speculation. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu are heading to China next week to work towards increasing U.S. exports of clean energy technology. In other China-related news, CNN profiles an alternative energy project underway in Yunnan province, and Xinhua reports that China will start building the first 10 million-kw-level wind power station later this month – a project dubbed the “Three Gorges on Land.” An emerging El Nino weather pattern is threatening to pose a variety of challenges, including triggering forest fires that will cause a spike in greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, Turkey has lost financing from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland for the Ilisu hydroelectric dam due to concerns over the project’s environmental ramifications.

This week’s installment of “Reading Old Magazines” takes us to January 1978, with a Foreign Affairs piece called “Scarcity and Strategy” by Geoffrey Kemp.

First, imagine a time when the Middle East was not of great strategic importance to the United States. From the author’s 1978 vantage point, it was easy to remember a time when the nation had not yet experienced oil crises.

But from 1978, it was also easy for the author to see that more countries following the development path of the United States meant increasing competition for the same oil supplies. At that time, the author notes, U.S. strategists were highly concerned that the Soviet Union would become “embroiled in a conflict whereby it gained control over or destroyed the Saudi Arabian oil fields.” The real wisdom in this article, however, is not whether he correctly identified threats on the horizon – as his example shows, some threats manifest and others don’t – but rather that he understood the true nature of security concerns regarding scarcity. As Kemp wrote, “What matters is a particular nation’s sense of scarcity,” not just scarcity in an absolute sense. His evidence that energy reserve estimates are but one piece of the puzzle serves as a good reminder that we are looking at a broad and complicated picture in working on natural security issues.

The Natural Security bloggers thank all those who have served and are serving our nation this Independence Day. We wish everyone a safe and happy 4th of July, and we’ll return with more Natural Security news and commentary next week. Here’s to you, America!

Photo: U.S. Navy Master-at-Arms 1st Class Alex Roelofs raises the American flag to half mast in recognition of Memorial Day in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Courtesy of MC2 Patrick W. Mullen III and the U.S. Department of Defense.

In a preview of some of the issues likely to arise at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December, India has warned that it will not agree to targeted decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. Another potential sticking point appears to be U.S. leadership, as both Europe and China have been underwhelmed by the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. In climate science news, a new study shows that Arctic permafrost contains twice as much carbon as previously thought, reports Bloomberg News.

In energy news, The Guardian reports on a scathing report recently released by Amnesty International on the activities of oil companies in the Niger Delta, arguing that much of the violence in the region is fueled by the conditions created by the oil industry. After securing one contract, bidding in Iraq for development rights to six of the country’s oil fields has fizzled out. Finally, BBC News profiles Mexico’s struggle to balance developing biofuels while avoiding food crises.

Whether it’s the next generation of the PackBot, MedBot or Predator drone, there is little doubt that military robotics will grow exponentially over the next several decades as DOD shapes a new era of modern warfare, as Peter Singer writes in Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. And if the systems deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are any indicator, Singer’s science fiction battlefield is fast becoming a battlefield reality.

But with the rapid development of artificial intelligence-based military systems (not to mention new investments in clean energy technology and a more sophisticated telecommunications infrastructure), the United States is increasing its dependence on globally scarce minerals. And though supply shocks, shortage trends, and the complete unavailability of strategic minerals are concerns, the greater worry should be that when it comes to our reliance on critical and strategic minerals to meet our current and future needs, we don’t quite know what we’ll need, when we’ll need it, or if we’ll have it.

On Friday, the House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), but not without considerable effort. Though debates about F-22s and the economic merits of a cap-and-trade system will continue as both bills head to the Senate, it’s worth a moment to take a look at what the legislation could do to improve the natural security of the United States.

Provisions in the House version of the NDAA tackle the problem of greenhouse gas emissions head on. For starters, it authorizes the creation of a Director of Operational Energy, who would report directly to the Secretary of Defense and would review how the Department of Defense might better incorporate carbon-free, renewable fuels into its daily operations and broader strategic posture. The recommendations from the Director of Operational Energy, due no later than February 1, 2010, would address how combatant commanders, the heads of military branches, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could use algae- and other biomass-based fuels for aviation, maritime, and ground transportation and to more widely power forward operating bases.

This week, Afghan and U.S. officials co-hosted the grand opening of Band-e-Amir, Afghanistan’s first national park.  The Afghan government’s efforts were funded by both USAID and the Wildlife Conservation Society and open the door for other conservation efforts around the nation.  Much of the native flora and fauna in the region are already gone, but steps like these help secure the country’s natural environment – and preserve the biodiversity necessary for agriculture and other livelihoods – as development efforts continue.

Photo: One of the six cascading lakes in Band-e-Amir, Afghanistan.  Courtesy of flickr user Carl Montgomery.

In Tuesday’s edition of The Independent, Patrick Cockburn shares his observations on the outlook for Iraq in the coming year, taking a rather dismal view of the country’s future.  Of particular interest is his reporting that Iraq, which at one point was forecast to be something of a breadbasket in the region, “has become one of the world’s largest food importers.”

The reason for this: a lack of water. 

At our annual conference on June 11, Dr. Peter Gleick, from the Pacific Institute, provided historical examples of instances where water has been tied to or created conflicts, and discussed its potential for doing so in the future.  While America’s involvement in Iraq and the current level of conflict there obviously are not due to concerns over water, managing the drought will be an important aspect of any population-centric strategy employed by U.S. forces – even a year ago the Army was speaking of the need to engage with the State Department and USAID to provide more efficient agricultural technologies to the Iraqi people.