You are here: Home / Archives for climate change

Building Electric Grid Resilience: Smaller Electric Grids Safer, More Reliable

September 6, 2011 By Leave a Comment

This op-ed piece originally appeared in the Hartford Courant on September 4, 2011

Hurricane Irene, the first major storm to really hit Connecticut in 26 years, was an eye opener for many who have not had experience with events such as the 1938 hurricane, ‘55 flood or ‘73 ice storm. Perhaps the most significant figure is the peak number of in-state electrical outages that, at 830,130, is an all-time record in spite of our paying the highest rates in the nation and having spent billions on new infrastructure in recent years.

Is there a better way? I think so.

Edison’s first electric plant might today be called “distributed generation”, meaning it was small in scale and close to where the energy was used. Distributed generation did not need the large transmission lines we have today and could well be the best method to provide electricity in a reliable and secure way.in the future.

Meanwhile, however, in order to expand their market and take advantage of economies of scale, which increase efficiency and lower costs, utilities have built fewer but larger and more remote plants to serve more customers. This gave us centralized power production where large generators are knit together via transmission lines in a tightly synchronized system.

Technology advanced and, in 1998, deregulation legislation prohibited utilities, such as Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating, from owning electric generation plants, which are now owned by private companies. This leaves distribution (small lines) and increasingly transmission (large lines) as the primary means by which utilities can boost profits.

The dark side of this is it perpetuates a heavily centralized grid, making the system less resilient. It can still be compromised by natural disasters, terrorism and cyberattacks such as the Stuxnet worm that incapacitated Iran’s nuclear program. Similar cyberthreats can infiltrate and damage generators and other grid components. This means that extreme caution must be taken before fully deploying new Smart Grid technology, which could open innumerable electric systems to cyberpenetration.

Any holes in grid security have the capacity to make life not only uncomfortable or life-threatening, but to negatively impact the economic output of states. Those that are less-prepared are unattractive to businesses that require high degrees of reliability in an increasingly digital economy.

Critics of decentralization, with its many smaller, redundant, dispersed and diverse sources of power, maintain that the current system performs quite well, noting that some distributed technologies, particularly solar and wind, are expensive and intermittent at best.

They conveniently ignore that some distributed generation is not only becoming more efficient and cost-effective but decentralization can result in reduced line losses, lower greenhouse-gas emissions, create employment, reduce insurance losses and enhance public safety. Besides, not all distributed generation is renewable. Distributed generation includes smaller, conventional power plants such as small combined-cycle gas turbines, microturbines and fuel cells that can all use natural gas and enjoy “economies of scope” through mass production in factories to reduce costs.

Will this transition take place over night? Not likely, as we have invested billions in the current infrastructure that needs to be repaid.

First, we may want to take humble steps to equip high-value/mission-critical applications such as cellphone towers, first responder facilities, gas stations, sewage treatment plants and drug stores with distributed generation. Then we might consider an initiative similar to one in Denmark, which after 35 years realizes 55 percent of its electric generation from combined heat and power, a form of distributed generation. This makes use of two-thirds of energy that normally goes up the stack as waste heat, but with combined heat and power reaches as high as 85 percent efficiency. The Danes have even used power plants, such as one in Kalundborg, as centers of economic development in ecological industrial parks where large portions of the waste heat are used in manufacturing operations ­ or even to grow hothouse produce.

With proper planning Connecticut could even make use of many native energy products but the key to successful implementation will be to compensate utilities with equal or better rates of return so they cooperate in installation of these systems. We have taken similar steps for their involvement in energy efficiency programs since 1988. Only by making the utilities monetarily whole can a secure, reliable distributed generation plan become a reality.

Joel N. Gordes, a West Hartford based consultant, is president of Environmental Energy Solutions and writes about energy and environmental security issues.

Filed Under: energy policy, Industry, Renewable Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Videos on Sensible Climate and Energy Policy

April 25, 2010 By 1 Comment

The media page for the Price Carbon Campaign has several great videos available that explain from a wide variety of perspectives why a simple clear revenue neutral carbon tax is the best solution to climate, economic, environmental, employment and national security challenges that are all interrelated. Another important video is  “The Huge Mistake” by attorneys Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel which explains clearly why the solutions generally favored in Washington really are a huge mistake. Then there is this good summary of the issues from a forum sponsored by The Carbon Tax Center, Climate Crisis Coalition, Citizens Climate Lobby, Friends Committee on National legislation, Friends of the Earth, Progressive Democrats of America, The Clean Coalition, We Act for Environmental Justice and the Price Carbon Campaign.

For those who care seriously about these issues and do not want to see wasteful and ineffective solutions substituted for clear simple and real solutions, spending an hour or so watching these videos could be a great investment of your time. It would also be great for every member of the senate to watch them all prior to taking a position on legislation.

These videos provide compelling video regarding the fundamental problems of the  convoluted corporate welfare schemes like the Kerry Graham Lieberman bill now making its way to the senate. With clearly far better bipartisan bills already drafted, like the Cantwell Collins “Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act” and the Inglis Flake Lipinski  “Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act”, we can only hope that these clear messages of common sense have more impact than all the special interest lobbyists that generally drive policy in Washington.

Filed Under: US Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,

Climate Politics

March 26, 2010 By 5 Comments

To assure sustainable prosperity, we need the market place to account fairly for the long legacy of subsidy and economic externalities that distort energy markets in favor of incumbent polluting industries. We need to establish public policies that enable such accounting in a direct, transparent and dependable manner.

I have long been an advocate of a tax on incumbent energy resources. There are compelling national security, economic and environmental reasons for a revenue neutral tax that shifts taxation away from productive activities like creating jobs, and instead taxes polluting, non-renewable energy resources. Such a strategy could win broad based support across the political spectrum.

But I believe the focus on climate change, favored by many in the environmental movement, is a significant liability in the political effort to create sensible energy policy. Recently, my apprehensions regarding such focus have been proven well founded.

When it comes to addressing climate issues through public policy, there are a wide spectrum of views which, while not supporting the recent policy orthodoxy of climate politics, are not based on denial of the issue or its potential ramifications. Many people recognize that current politically favored solutions to climate change would not only be ineffective, but could potentially create worse problems then those they are intended to address.

Those advocating for complex convoluted public policy responses to the threats of climate change have seen serious setbacks over the last few months, not the least of which was the failure of the Copenhagen conference to achieve any meaningful results.

It is also becoming more clear recently that the science of climate change is being heavily influenced by political agendas. But contrary to the concerns of many in the environmental movement that it is “right wing” interests which are corrupting the science, it appears that it is largely those pushing an agenda of climate change alarmism who have had the most significant influence on the scientific reporting.  Crony capitalists have been more than willing to go along as the politics of climate have been co-opted by Wall Street interests and others who stand to benefit immensely from the convoluted economic distortions embedded in solutions to climate change now favored by many politicians.

Especially since the release of e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in November, the press and public have become more skeptical on the issue and there have been increasing numbers of questions raised regarding the quality of the UN sponsored 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change.

Respected conventional news outlets of all political persuasions, many of which have in the past been supportive of an aggressive climate policy agenda, have been publishing articles and editorials with titles like: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation ,  ClimateGate: Was Data Faked? , How Climate-Change Fanatics Corrupted Science , The Death of Global Warming , UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters , Conning the climate: Inside the carbon-trading shell game , Alarmists’ credibility melting , How Wrong Is The IPCC? and What happened to global warming?

Though here in the US the traditional press has been less prone to cover the story than in Britain, Australia, India and elsewhere, there is increasing controversy regarding many of the findings in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which won its authors the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore. Of most concern in the report are elements of the Summary for Policy Makers.

It has been reported than when asked in advance of publication to review the draft of the summary for Chapter 9  which attributes global warming to man made causes, Dr. Andrew A. Lacis, a climate researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies had this to say:

“There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.”

Dr. Lacis suggestion was unfortunately rejected. It is now coming out that significant portions of the IPCC report were not based on peer reviewed science at all and several findings of the report have been confirmed to be erroneous.

Public support for action on climate change is waning.  A study from Yale University offers an interesting analysis of attitudes on the subject. The Pew Research Center shows climate change being a very low public priority.

A good friend of mine and passionate advocate for climate change policy action suggested that:

“The surveys and editorials are interesting reflections of public opinion, but they don’t undermine the science.  Don’t forget that a little over half of Americans don’t believe in evolution either.”

But contrary to Al Gore’s proclamations and the views of many people I respect, the science is not settled. Some evidence of that is the Petition Project, which claims the signatures of 31,486 American scientists who have all endorsed a petition that states:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Dr. Judith Curry, the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently wrote:

“No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”

Personally I feel absolutely certain that humans must be having some influence on climate, just based on the scale of influence that 6.8 billion people have on everything on the planet. Very few people would disagree with that premise. But clarifying how the many human and natural factors impacting climate will interact, how those factors will manifest themselves in complex climate systems, how significant our human influence will be and whether changes will have positive or negative impacts on agriculture and other critical aspects of human society, are all determinations that unfortunately are outside any clear understanding or real consensus in the scientific community at this time.

Perhaps most significant of the recent clarifications regarding the science of climate change has been the BBC interview with Phil Jones, who was the director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

When asked: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming: Dr. Jones answered a qualified “yes”.  In details supporting his answers, he showed that the warming trend from 1995 to 2009 of 0.12 degrees centigrade per decade is matched by the cooling trend of 2002 through 2009 of -0.12 degrees centigrade per decade.

In discussing the warming periods:1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 and 1975-2009 Dr Jones states clearly that:

“the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

When asked : when scientists say the debate on climate change is over, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean? Dr. Jones answered:

“It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.”

His answer on the so called Medieval Warming Period from 800–1300 AD makes clear that current levels of scientific understanding of historic climate data can’t determine conclusively if warming trends since the industrial revolution are unique or unusual.

Recently, Tom Ward, the publisher of the Valley Breeze, a local newspaper here in Rhode Island, published an editorial entitled Inconvenient truth. In it, he suggested that:

“Climate change, formerly known as ‘global warming,’ is a fraud. The science is junk.”

One member of an environmental organization I am involved with issued a call to respond suggesting:

“Some might say its hopeless to answer such extreme positions, but the far right-wing repeats similar stuff every day on cable, talk radio and the like.”

I pointed out to the group that while his rhetoric is harsh, the important conclusion of his editorial is something we can all largely support when Mr. Ward suggests:

“As Americans, we must embrace energy conservation in the short term, and generate more home-grown nuclear, natural gas and wind power in the longer term, to keep our money here and create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs. With those goals achieved, we can power our cars and trucks with U.S.-made electricity and natural gas, and stop sending $800 billion a year overseas, money that funds our enemies.”

While I strongly disagree with Mr. Ward regarding nuclear power (a subject for another posting), I fully agree with him on conservation, wind energy and on using natural gas as the critical transition fuel on our way to a clean energy future.

If the environmental community embraced the energy independence, national security, economic development, employment and balance of trade arguments that Mr. Ward champions, we could be much further along in addressing the challenges of climate change than we are today.  Instead of condemning them, we should be reaching out to potential strong policy allies like Mr. Ward who, like most Americans, would favor rational energy policy.

As I have suggested here before, everything that Mr. Ward argues for could be achieved through a Pigouvian tax on non-renewable energy resources.  That solution would actually be effective in directly and immediately curbing carbon dioxide emissions, unlike the leading solutions being pushed in Congress. If we all embraced the idea that such tax should be 100% revenue neutral, offsetting payroll taxes and income taxes that discourage job creation and working,  Americans of all political persuasions would support such solutions as prudent economic, jobs  and tax policy.

It is not smart politics to be looking for enemies among our potential friends. Rather than blaming the “right wing” or “a well-funded disinformation machine” for the lack of progress, we should take responsibility for the narrow partisan political strategy of the environmental community on these issues.

If the climate change rhetoric from the environmental community were less extreme, it wouldn’t provide such tempting targets for ridicule and harsh criticism and we wouldn’t see the backlash we have. We don’t need to blow the scariest possible outcomes for climate change out of proportion in order to gain broad based political support for effective measures to curb carbon emissions. In fact, overblown climate rhetoric from the environmental community has significantly set back political prospects for sensible energy and climate policy.

The IPCC  has done significant disservice to those concerned with climate change by becoming an imprudent advocate rather than the professional scientific organization that it was chartered to be.

Environmental scientist, James Lovelock is the author of the original “Gaia Hypothesis”, the theory of how the earth’s interrelated feedback mechanisms act as an integrated single organism. He has been described as “The Prophet of Climate Change” . He offers some important perspective:

“I think you have to accept that the skeptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway. They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for skeptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.”

Phil Jones, Andrew Lacis, Judith Curry, James Lovelock and other reputable climate scientists have come to realize that it is best to clearly and honestly present known facts along with the uncertainties surrounding this very complex science. Its about time the rest the environmental community does too.  We should accept  the political reality that with current levels of actual scientific understanding and consensus, most rational people would be reluctant to totally transform the world economy or create the worlds largest derivatives game for Wall Street in convoluted schemes like Cap, Trade and Offset.

I expect that acknowledging the scientific uncertainties regarding the long held beliefs of many of my friends in the environmental movement may result in some calling my integrity and intentions into question. The best answer I can offer them is that unlike those supporting ineffective convoluted answers currently favored in Washington, I am serious enough in my concern on these issues to advocate for policy solutions like H.R. 2380, The Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act that puts an immediate, real and dependable price on carbon emissions. That bipartisan legislation would also address our economic and unemployment problems as well as our energy and environmental concerns and it wouldn’t add a penny to our monstrous federal debt. That’s the kind of solution the vast majority of Americans would support and that credible politicians should also support if they are really more serious about solving problems than they are about handing out pork to their special interest benefactors.

All the reasons Tom Ward cites in encouraging our nation to move to a clean energy economy have been more than adequate inspiration to spend my career doing green building and renewable energy work for the last three decades. Terrorism funded by our exported petro-dollars, pollution, the economic mess our oil dependency has helped cause, the war in Iraq and our other military adventures to secure oil supplies,  and all the other symptoms of our fossil fuel dependency are plenty of inspiration for good policy.

Effective public policy response to climate change and all those other challenges would be clear, simple and easily understandable by everyone so that everyone participating in the economy can anticipate impacts and respond in rational ways.  All these inter-related issues are too important for the typical corrupt political horse trading between politicians and lobbyists we have come to expect from Washington. We need real leadership at the grass roots level advocating for sensible policy.

Rational climate policy wouldn’t be based on adding vast new convoluted complexities to the economy that are easily vulnerable to the distortions of Wall Street’s financial engineering manipulations. Nor would they be based on legislators and bureaucrats anointing winners and losers in the economy. Instead we need the kind of policy that directly puts a real and dependable price on the “economic externalities” that are currently hidden subsidies for incumbent energy industries – a revenue neutral carbon tax.

Its far past time for everyone concerned with climate change to seek out alliances around sensible energy policy by focusing on the issues that all Americans can readily agree on.  We should align our political agenda with those who are more concerned with other issues like the economy, jobs, trade deficits, national security, terrorism and our government’s unsustainable ballooning levels of debt and unfunded liabilities. Effective solutions to climate concerns can also address all those issues and should be politically framed to do so in a manner that appeals across traditional political boundaries. This shouldn’t be a partisan or politically divisive issue. We need a broad political coalition which will only be achieved by being far less dogmatic about our politics.

The most prudent and sensible advice I have seen regarding the politics of climate policy is from Mother Jones magazine, which quotes a perhaps unexpected ally, Republican pollster Frank Luntz:

“It doesn’t matter whether you call it climate change or global warming,” he said. “The public believes it’s happening, and they believe that humans are playing a part in it.” In fact, Luntz warned that if Republicans continue to dispute climate science it could hurt them politically. Instead, he said, the GOP should be engaging in the debate over how to solve America’s energy problems……….

Luntz suggests less talk of dying polar bears and more emphasis on how legislation will create jobs, make the planet healthier and decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Advocates should emphasize words like “cleaner,” “healthier,” and “safer”;  scrap “green jobs” in favor of “American jobs,” and ditch terms like “sustainability” and “carbon neutral” altogether. “It doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t climate change,” he said. “It’s still in America’s best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe.”

Luntz’s polling suggests  The First Rule of Fighting Climate Change: Don’t Talk About Climate Change.

Filed Under: Renewable Energy, US Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Environmental Security Part V: Climate of Conflict 1

March 20, 2010 By Leave a Comment

In this blog installment and the next one we will examine more closely how environmental factors, including climate, can provide drivers that have the potential to become “the last straw” on top of others factors that may lead to conflict. In worst cases, environmental stresses may turn out to be an even  more instrumental factor in conflict. The  illustration above depicts some of the potential effects of climate change and how they directly or indirectly might  produce some of those stresses on societies.

We have already mentioned one example from antiquity where those in an isolated community so devastated their environment that it led to the demise of their society. This was the mystery of Easter Island and what may have happened there to its early inhabitants have been summarized as:

“…without trees, and so without canoes, the Islanders were trapped in their remote home, unable to escape the consequences of their self inflicted, environmental collapse… there were increasing conflicts over diminishing resources resulting in a state of almost permanent warfare.”[1]

While some might argue that this was a self-imposed environmental disaster, there have been natural changes in the environment that may provide lessons for future anthropomorphic climate-induced changes. For instance Dr. Michael Wysession, Professor of Geophysics at Washington University recounts how aerosols ejected into the atmosphere by volcanoes can lead to severe temperature decreases…and conflict. He notes:

…[volcanic eruptions]  can and have been the most catastrophic of these climate changes  that can significantly alter the course of human history instantaneously….For instance, why did the French Revolution occur in 1789? If you’ve taken courses in modern European History you probably have a whole bunch of reasons having to do with a variety of socio-economic problems developing in Europe. Well, it’s much simpler than that, it’s volcanoes. In 1783 Hekla Volcano in Iceland and Asama Volcano in Japan erupted violently. These spewed out a tremendous amount of ash and aerosols that decreased the temperatures all across the globe. In fact, the year before the Storming of the Bastille was the coldest winter of the century. Crops failed everywhere; massive starvation occurred … It was only one of about a dozen governments that collapsed… [2]

Professor Wysession also goes on to make the point that even the Western Expansion in the US was, at one period, largely due to the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815.  A year later they experienced the  “Year Without a Summer”  which also brought with it a lack of food and ensuing  starvation. This presents one example of how climate change can quickly spur massive migrations which, under some circumstances, can destabilize governments.

Fast forward 190 years later to 2006 when UN General Secretary Kofi Annan said:

Climate change has profound implications for virtually all aspects of human well-being, from jobs and health to food security and peace within and among nations…until we acknowledge the all encompassing nature of the threat, our response will fall short. [3]

In that short statement he identified at least two drivers, health and food, related to climate change that could imperil national and global stability. Many may not immediately recognize “health” as a climate-driven issue but a number of studies have been performed by Dr. Paul Epstein of Harvard and others on how transition to a warmer and wetter world could lead to increased vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. In many still developing-countries any increase in levels of disease could add yet another burden leading to destabilization even to the point of some nations becoming what are termed “failed states.” Looking at the 2009 Failed States Index [4], deterioration of public services (such as health) is one indicator that could lead to a higher ranking for potential failure and possibly aggravate yet another factor– delegitimization of the state. Such states as Somalia, that in the past have become failed states, offer fertile ground for extremists groups fomenting conflict.

While agricultural crops might be enhanced via longer growing seasons from global warming, for the most part food security may be compromised in a number of ways by climate change and usually in those countries that can least afford it.  These include:

Lack of water (or too much at the wrong time)
Increased heat leading to the inability of some crops to germinate
Migration of some crops northward
Increase in pests
Degradation of agricultural land

Ironically, one unintended consequence of climate change mitigation has also included the cutting of natural forests and conversion of crop lands to produce biofuels to replace fossil fuels driving climate change. This often causes more harm than good particularly if the fuels also require heavy fossil fuel inputs for their production.

More on how climate change can drive conflict next time in Climate of Conflict 2

Environmental Security Part I:  The Basics

Environmental Security Part II: Enter the Pentagon

Environmental Security Part III: Old Soldier Never Die, But They Can Change

Environmental Security Part IV: The Pentagon is My Friend?

[1] Ponting, Clive. The Lessons of Easter Island Also see: Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

[2] How the Earth Works. Wysession, Michael E., Professor of Geophysics. Washington University. The Teaching Company. Lesson 40.

[3]  speech of November 8, 2006.

[4] Draper, Robert. Why Things Fall Apart. National Geographic. September 2009.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Environmental Security Part IV: The Pentagon Is My Friend

March 1, 2010 By Leave a Comment

In the previous post we have looked at the increased interest in the relationship of climate change to conflict by several recently formed groups that have involved mostly retired senior military officers as well as some high-visibility former and current politicians. At least one of these latter has been known as a climate change skeptic, who now supports at least investigating the possibility of climate change driving conflict although the depth of his support is still questionable.

The final document up for discussion is the Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) . This is one of their most important strategic documents which can set not only basic doctrine but also force structure, threat identification and procurement for years to come. It has, for the first time, identified climate change as a major concern. It states:

Climate change and energy will play significant roles in the future security environment. The Department is developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions, and facilities. The Department already performs environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations throughout the United States, working to meet resource efficiency and sustainability goals. We must continue incorporating geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes. [1]

While steeped in military jargon, the actual meaning of the QDR is still plain enough for the average person to comprehend and that climate change is beginning to take on a new importance as a strategic driver of events and not “merely” as an environmental issue, which it has been marginalized as in the past. This document puts it is well beyond that when characterized as a potential trigger point for international instability. Climate change’s  inclusion in this particular document raises not only its visibility but its importance to the one area that has consistently rated high in every public opinion poll taken, namely national security. While in the past climate change as a reason for war might have been ignored, the language in the report provides enough clarity to possibly convince some who have been skeptics that this is a potential threat which must be further investigated and addressed if action is warranted.  A sample of some language from the QDR states:

Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment.

Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked.

The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters.

Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.

Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.

Abroad, the Department will increase its investment in the Defense Environmental International Cooperation Program… and will also speed innovative energy and conservation technologies from laboratories to military end users.

Finally, the Department is improving small-scale energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at military installations through our Energy Conservation Investment Program.[2]

Yes, this is our Pentagon speaking and while it may appear to be a bastion of what passes for conservatism, it is in a business that cannot afford to miss seeing what may conceivably could be one of the more dangerous emerging threats.  To ignore it and then have the nation suffer due to negligence is a gamble they cannot afford.  It is all about credibility and the caution of some inside the establishment that still remind each other that they always prepare for the last war. A truism that has in the past cost both blood and treasure.

In our next exciting episode (and I do sort of mean that) we will explore in more detail how climate change can contribute to causing instability within or between nations at the least and how, combined with other factors may result in outright conflict.  In some cases it may even play not just a pivotal role but become a primary driver. The ways in which it achieves this are widely varied but may work alone or in combination to spark or perpetuate conflicts.

Environmental Security Part I:  The Basics

Environmental Security Part II: Enter the Pentagon

Environmental Security Part III: Old Soldier Never Die, But They Can Change

Environmental Security Part V: Climate of Conflict 1

[1] Quadrennial Defense Review 2010. p.xv

[2] Op. Cit.  pp. 84-87

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Environmental Security: Part III Old Soldiers Never Die…BUT They Can Change

February 27, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The last time we looked at a landmark 2003 paper on the potential effects of abrupt climate change that was commissioned by none other than the Pentagon.  Since that Schwartz and Randall paper, two additional studies of particular note have been published as well as the emergence of yet another group involved in this environmental security arena.

The first, completed in 2007, is titled National Security and the Threat of Climate Change and was done  under the auspices of the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation.  It brought together 11 retired admirals and generals with scientists comprised of both advocates and skeptics of anthropological  climate change to develop recommendations related to security implications. The overall consensus positions were:

Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risk from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.

The following recommendations were made: [1]

1. The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.

2. The US should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption the global security and stability.

3. The US should commit to global partnerships that helped less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.

4. The department of defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved US combat power through energy efficiency.

5. DOD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.

(Since that time, the group has reconvened on an issue in a separate document, Powering America’s Defense, relating to many aspects of energy security, which while closely allied to climate change, is a separate document and will not be detailed herein.)

In mid-July of 2009 former Sen. John Warner (R-VA) joined with the Pew Environment Group that the launched a project to inform the public and of critical links between national security, energy and global warming. [2] Reports from the press release notes that the mission will be “dedicated to advancing solutions to combat the threat of global warming, protect our national security, increase our energy independence, and preserve our natural resources.” one interesting note is that Sen. Warner, who spent 30 years in the U.S. Senate as a Republican, has a reputation as being conservative issues pertaining to national security. This may have been an excellent selection as a front person for not only the organization but for the greater realization of the close ties between climate change and energy security. With over 30 years in the U.S. Senate as a member of the GOP, Warner may be able to play an important bridging role to reconcile what has formally been an almost irreconcilable issue for many conservative Republicans.

A more recent document to make an appearance is the Climate Security Index compiled by the Climate Security Initiative of the American Security Project  In this document under the auspices of a politically diverse group, the organization states “the consequences of changes in the Earth’s climate is not simply about saving Polar Bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers, as important as those are. Climate change is a threat to our national security.” They go on to say: [3]

There is no doubt that this increased level of carbon dioxide emissions is responsible for the dramatic increase in atmospheric carbon above levels recorded over the past million years.

Noting that the climate has changed in the past is not a source of comfort, but rather a warning about the fragility of our reliance on the inter-connected web climate constrained habitats.

The document then goes on to provide a number of nicely illustrated indices including greenhouse gas emissions, indicators of climate change, security impacts of climate change, energy security, geographic choke points and policy considerations including alternative energy sources and government capability and responses. The directors of this truly appear to be highly diverse in both political disposition and experience and include such well-known people as former Sen. Gary Hart, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Chuck Hagel, national security expert Richard Armitage and several retired generals.

Next time we’ll have a look at the Pentagon’s new (about one  month old) Quadrennial Defense Review that has some rather amazing statements  considering the source.  While many skeptics disavow many of the climate scientists, it will be interesting to see their reactions to this document–almost as interesting to see how environmentalists may or may not accept help from this most seemingly unconventional partner.

Environmental Security Part I:  The Basics

Environmental Security Part II: Enter the Pentagon

Environmental Security Part IV: The Pentagon is My Friend?

Environmental Security Part V: Climate of Conflict 1

[1] National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. The CNA Corporation. 2007.

[2] News release, the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate. July 14, 2009.

[3] Finel, Bernard I and Bartolf, Christine. Climate Security Index. Climate Security Initiative of the American Security Project. January 2010.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Environmental Security: Part II Enter the Pentagon

February 22, 2010 By Leave a Comment

In Part I of this series we explored the concept of environmental security in terms of its meaning,  history and the implications for the environment and for national and global security. We learned that it was not a particularly new concept but could be traced back as early as the 1960′s and, indeed, was the focus of increasing discussion in the 70′s.

Oddly enough, in that era, it was some who we would  label as conservatives who were among the first to realize and appreciate the relationship. Notable among them was the previously-mentioned Sir Crispin Tickell who was Science Adviser to both Margaret Thatcher and John Major and who, unlike their conservative counterparts in the United States,  saw the need to address climate change as a serious issue. It would likely be appropriate to credit Sir Crispin with being largely responsible for their take on the topic.

One particular area which he brought  to attention in his book was the stress on societies that could be attributed to mass migrations of those who might become environmental refugees due to changing climate. This has since been revisited numerous times in a variety of studies.

One such study was written for the Pentagon and later released to appear in Fortune magazine. [2] The project was undertaken at the direction of Andrew Marshall,  long known for thinking outside the box,  so this topic was not an outlier from that perspective.  Its concentration on abrupt climate change, however, provided what might be considered an extreme view or worst case scenario that included the potential to disrupt the North Atlantic thermohaline  circulation of currents that keep much of Europe more temperate than locations at that same latitude. In other words, any interruption of that circulation might carry the effect of literally freezing out our allies. One discussion of that paper said:

“… widespread accelerations of the catastrophic effects already associated with”‘ normal’ climate change… could lead to military confrontations between states over access to scarce food, water and energy supplies, or what the authors describe as a ‘world of warring states period’” [2]

The authors specifically made this suggestion that “because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small,  should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern.” After laying out scientific evidence and providing potential regional implications they further detailed what they saw as security implications  and made recommendations that included:

1) Improve predictive climate models

2) Assemble predictive models of climate change impacts

3) Create vulnerability metric for vulnerable nations

4) Identify no-regrets strategies

5) Rehearse adaptive responses to massive migration, diseases/epidemics, food/water shortages

6) Explore local implications of agriculturally-related problems.

7) Explore more radical geo-engineering options to mitigate climate change.

Author and National Defense University Professor Gregory  Foster,  a West Point graduate,  said

“The importance of this episode, as well its is relevance for the future, lies in both the message and the method of the Schwartz-Randall report itself. The implicit message is that even worse than climate change is the not unrealistic possibility of abrupt climate change. For those who had not heard of it, the article made clear that abrupt climate change is not just global warming speeded up, but a wholly different kind of event triggered by the baseline climate change we already know.” [3]

In the next installment we will look at additional,  more recent documents directly related to climate change and national security with input from both retired and active duty high-ranking members of the armed forces.

Environmental Security Part I:  The Basics

Environmental Security Part III: Old Soldier Never Die, But They Can Change

Environmental Security Part IV: The Pentagon is My Friend?

Environmental Security Part V: Climate of Conflict 1

[1] Schwartz, Peter and Randall, Doug. An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. October 2003.

[2] Foster, Gregory. National Defense University. A New Security Paradigm. Worldwatch. January/February 2005.

[3] Op cit Foster.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Environmental Security Part I: The Basics

February 10, 2010 By 4 Comments

The preamble to the Constitution of the United States instructs Americans, among other things, to “insure domestic tranquility” and to “provide for the common defense.” In this first of the  series I would like to lay out the case that can be made for the necessity of implementing what is termed “environmental security” to meet those responsibilities. In a more focused context this means that security and climate change are connected and are of constitutional significance.  Consider that currently:

  • Climate change is the preeminent environmental challenge
  • For that reason it is largely the environmental community that is concerned
  • To reach an agreement and take action on stabilization/decreases of climate change emissions, it will take more than just the environmental community
  • Climate change presents certain potential dangers to national and global security
  • More people are concerned about national security than climate change which is presented almost purely in environmental terms
  • Thus far there has been limited progress in setting and meeting carbon reduction goals and this will not happen without enlisting others who may not share those environmental goals but who  may accept certain arguments based upon security concerns.
  • Both energy efficiency and renewable energy are common solutions to both climate change and many security issues.

In some ways it is safe to say that climate change suffers from what might be called the “Adlai Stevenson” syndrome. In 1952 when Stevenson was a presidential candidate, he was on the campaign trail when a woman approached him and said “Mr. Stevenson, every intelligent American will vote for you.” He is purported to have replied “we’ll need a lot more than that to win.” Likewise with climate change,  we will need a lot more than the existing “true believers” to convince our elected officials to set targets and timetables to meet the long-term goals. Indeed, in just about every survey and poll that is conducted by professionals in an unbiased manner, the climate change/global warming issue has not ranked particularly highly in importance compared to issues such as the economy and the many forms of security (national, employment, economic… See the recent Pew Research Center for People and the Press). In many ways anything attached to environmental issues is looked upon as being mostly discretionary and something that we can only afford to do when we have a strong economy. Missing is the concept that to truly have a strong economy and, hence, a strong defense, you must have a strong environment as a cornerstone. The environmental security connection was particularly well-expressed even before it had a name by Dr. Albert E. Burke, former Director of Graduate Studies in Conservation at Yale in the 1950s:

“It is a problem of education, education to inform Americans about the close tie that exists between a wide margin of resources and freedom. Reduce the margin of resources, reduce the quality of resources, and you reduce what Americans have always meant by the word ‘freedom’.” [1]

There is also the formidable problem of how to maintain societal attention on the climate change issue which requires a tight focus over at least the 50 years needed to merely stabilize greenhouse gas reductions in some plans. Some have said that even that is a modest goal and we will need to go well beyond.

In most cases, we are still moving backwards and producing more greenhouse gases, not less. Lofty marketing-oriented sound-bite goals of “20% by 2020″ mean less than something like “1 lousy percent by 2012″ that at least go in the right direction in the terms of office of currently sitting public officials. The inability of getting any real traction is particularly true in the transportation sector but also in electricity production and in buildings as well when the economy is “normal.” The only “progress” has been in the last two years where there has been some reductions but mostly attributed to reduced economic output due to the recession.

In this approach that relates climate change to national and global security we need to begin by setting a basic definition. One such definition states: “… the intellectual, operational, and policy space where environmental considerations and security concerns converge.” [2]

More definitively it might be said it possesses the following attributes:

  • It is the relationship of environmental factors to national security.
  • It recognizes the degradation of ecosystems, stress human health, culture and resource requirements.
  • That these additional stresses can result in competition for food, energy, water and other resources (some of which will be examined in Case Study #2 to come in a separate post.)
  • It can lead to conflicts that might not have otherwise arisen and could be seen as a threat multiplier.

One interesting case study from antiquity revolves around the mystery of Easter Island and what may have happened there to its early inhabitants. When early explorers arrived, they found giant stone monuments but none of what must have once been a flourishing civilization. After much research and discussion it has been assumed that they had degraded their environmental assets to the point of making themselves largely unsustainable. One summary notes:

“…without trees, and so without canoes, the Islanders were trapped in their remote home, unable to escape the consequences of their self inflicted, environmental collapse… there were increasing conflicts over diminishing resources resulting in a state of almost permanent warfare.” [3]

Another early practitioner of environmental security going back as far back as the mid-1970s is Dr. Norman Myers, who had reported on a war between Ethiopia and Somalia that had been caused to a large extent by a combination of deforestation, soil erosion, population growth and poverty. This led to famine and mass migration which Somalia viewed as a “prelude to an invasion.” [4]

It was also recognized by Sir Crispin Tickell in his 1977 book Climate Change in World Affairs where he stated “there is an increasing risk of social disruption within regions, countries and communities over such age-old issues as fertile land and water supplies,… and, perhaps worse for our species… fouling the future for the sake of the present.”

Some years later Paul Nitze, former nuclear and arms negotiator who had taken a hard line with the Soviets throughout his career, wrote that climate change:

“..requires changes… are of  such scope and magnitude that courageous multilateral steps, beyond what has been accomplished even in our landmark arms control agreements, are necessary. Such bold steps also are essential if we are to address the looming threat to geopolitical stability posed by climate change.” [5]

In closing Part I of this series it may be important to heed the words of James Hansen, the well-known scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA who in July of 2006 warned of the time limitations we have to undertake action:

“… we have at most 10 years — – not 10 years to decide upon action, but 10 years to alter fundamentally trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.” [6]

In the next part we will examine some emerging trends from, among other places, the Pentagon that is responsible for our defense policy policy, planning and implementation. We  will also investigate certain “fingerprints” indicating that climate change may have already been at work as a contributing factor in conflicts around the globe and if not adequately addressed may have even more serious repercussions for our security in its many forms.

Environmental Security Part II: Enter the Pentagon

Environmental Security Part III: Old Soldier Never Die, But They Can Change

Environmental Security Part IV: The Pentagon is My Friend?

Environmental Security Part V: Climate of Conflict 1

[1] Burke, Albert E. Enough Good Men. 1962. p. 202.

[2] Foster, Gregory. National Defense University. A New Security Paradigm. Worldwatch. January/February 2005 p. 40)

[3] Ponting, Clive. The Lessons of Easter Island Also see: Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

[4]Myers, Norman Dr. Environmental Security: What’s New and Different. 2004.

[5] Nitze, Paul. Editorial in Washington Post. July 2, 1997.

[6] Dr. James Hansen quoted in The New York Review of Books Volume 53, Number 12, July 13, 2006,

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

James Hanson On Copenhagen

November 27, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Newsweek is out with a good interview of world famous NASA Climate Scientist James Hanson regarding Copenhagen and the recent release of controversial e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Hanson brushes off the significance of the dust-up over the e-mail release:

Do the e-mails indicate any unethical efforts to hide data that do not support the idea of anthropogenic global warming or to keep contrary ideas out of the scientific literature and IPCC reports?

They indicate poor judgment in specific cases. First, the data behind any analysis should be made publicly available.  Second, rather than trying so hard to prohibit publication of shoddy science, which is impossible, it is better that reviews, such as by IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, summarize the full range of opinions and explain clearly the basis of the scientific assessment.

On the question of Copenhagen and current US policy , Hanson is even more clear:

How serious a setback would it be if no agreement on a climate treaty is reached in Copenhagen, where 192 countries are meeting starting Dec. 7?

It’s not a setback at all if it allows a careful reassessment of what is needed. The cap-and-trade scheme [that the Copenhagen negotiations were working toward] is just not going to be effective at controlling greenhouse emissions. Political leaders have to realize that the fundamental problem is that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy, so they will continue to be burned unless we put a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions [through a carbon tax]. That’s a much better approach than national goals for emissions reductions, which will probably not be met.

What do you think of the climate bills now before Congress?

They’re disasters. We can’t allow the polluters to write the bill, but that’s what happened. What’s needed is putting a price on carbon, not cap-and-trade.

Hanson is even more clear in his editorial about Copenhagen in The Guardian “Is There Any Real Chance of Averting A Climate Crisis?” in which he suggests:

Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed.

I can’t agree with Hanson when he calls for increased use of nuclear energy, for all the reasons cited here.

But in general, Hanson has it exactly right on how to address climate and energy issues through public policy – put a real price on fossil fuels through the tax system and offset that tax with reductions in regressive taxes like the payroll tax which stifle our economy and discourage jobs creation.

Hanson is absolutely right in his assessment of  on our current policy efforts in Congress and on his hopes for Copenhagen.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , ,

ASES Releases Report on Climate Change and Jobs

November 11, 2009 By 1 Comment

american-solar-energy-society1The American Solar Energy Society released a report earlier this week that you may find interesting. It shows that tackling climate change can be a major net job creator for the U.S. economy.

According to the report, aggressive deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency can net up to 4.5 million new U.S. jobs by 2030 and provide the greenhouse gas emission reductions necessary to tackle climate change.

With Congress debating energy policy in Washington D.C., this is the type of information that can really make a difference.

Renewable energy and energy efficient technologies could displace approximately 1.2 billion tons of carbon emissions annually by 2030 – the amount scientists believe is necessary to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change.

The report is called, Estimating the Jobs Impact of Tackling Climate Change, and was produced by ASES and top economists at Management Information Services, Inc. based in Washington, D.C.

You can find the report at: www.ases.org/climatejobs

Here’s one of the best parts. According to the analysis, renewable energy and energy efficiency deployment costs would be revenue neutral or better!

That’s because the costs to implement the technologies are offset by savings from lower energy bills, making total net costs near zero.

As Brad Collins, ASES’ Executive Director described it, “The twin challenges of climate change and economic stagnation can be solved by the same action-broad, aggressive, sustained deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The solution for one is the solution for the other.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,
« Older Posts