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.

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

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.

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.

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,