Peter H. Gleick
In March 2019, the Trump Administration announced they were considering creating an ad hoc White House panel to dispute a long-series of national assessments of the science of climate change, including the threat climate change poses to national and international security. Such a panel would impose a political sheen on independent and intensively reviewed scientific and intelligence community analyses.
In this context, it is vital to understand the history of U.S. intelligence and military assessments of the security implications of climate change. These assessments go back nearly four decades to the 1980s and since that time, hundreds of assessments of climate change, a massively growing body of literature on the impacts of human-caused climate change, and analyses from every U.S. defense, intelligence, and security agency have acknowledged the links between climate and security.
In the mid-1980s, the scientific and academic communities began to produce the first looks at the growing risks of climate change for international security. These assessments included the risks of extreme weather events, impacts on food production and the availability of water resources, rising sea level, and dramatic changes in the Arctic, including access to northern energy resources (see, for example Gleick, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1989a; Myers, 1986; Ullman, 1983; Westing, 1986).
“While we remain properly concerned with the Soviet threat, we must not neglect other destabilizing international threats and problems which can seriously damage U.S. interests if not properly addressed. These include non-communist nations with oppressive governments and ideologies opposed to ours; international economic concerns of massive world debt, trade imbalances, and shifts in comparative advantage in our interdependent global economic system; the global population explosion and related food, water, and poverty problems; the proliferation of nuclear weapons; drug trafficking; and human rights violations, to name only a few.”
“Naval operations in the coming half century may be drastically affected by the impact of global climate change. For the Navy to be fully prepared for operations in this future climate environment, resources of both mind and money must be committed to the problem.”
At least 13 White House National Security Strategy documents going back to 1991 mention climate as a threat to U.S. security. In August 1991, climate change was officially acknowledged as a security issue in President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Strategy:
“Global environmental concerns include such diverse but interrelated issues as stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, food security, water supply, deforestation, biodiversity and treatment of wastes. A common ingredient in each is that they respect no international boundaries. The stress from these environmental challenges is already contributing to political conflict.”
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), mandated by law, sets the long-term strategies and priorities for the Department of Defense by assessing security threats and challenges that the nation faces. In the 2010 QDR, we see an acknowledgement of climate change as a new and growing risk.
“Other powerful trends are likely to add complexity to the security environment. Rising demand for resources, rapid urbanization of littoral regions, the effects of climate change, the emergence of new strains of disease, and profound cultural and demographic tensions in several regions are just some of the trends whose complex interplay may spark or exacerbate future conflicts.”
Every “Worldwide Threat Assessment” report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency since 2013 has addressed climate threats. Dozens of reports have been issued by the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard addressing both the vulnerability of military assets and bases to climate change and the regional climate challenges the U.S. military may face in the Middle East, Africa, the Arctic, the Pacific, and elsewhere.
These assessments go up through June 2019, updated from January 2019, when the most recent National Intelligence Strategy of the United States, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was released, stating:
“Increasing migration and urbanization of populations are also further straining the capacities of governments around the world and are likely to result in further fracturing of societies, potentially creating breeding grounds for radicalization. Pressure points include growing influxes of migrants, refugees, and internally displaced persons fleeing conflict zones; areas of intense economic or other resource scarcity; and areas threatened by climate changes, infectious disease outbreaks, or transnational criminal organizations.”
The long acceptance of the science of climate change and the faithful efforts to address it by military, intelligence, and defense analysts reflects a simple reality: their job is to anticipate, understand, evaluate, and address threats to national security independent of political winds and biases. Political efforts today to impose ideology on these independent defense and intelligence assessments would represent a dereliction in the sworn constitutional duty to prepare to defend the nation.
Below is a long, annotated list of major assessments by national defense, security, and intelligence agencies to address the risks to U.S. national and international security of climate change. These documents and statements reflect only materials available in the unclassified literature. Additions to this list will be made as new information becomes available.
============================================================================================
An Annotated History of U.S. Defense, Intelligence, and Security Assessments of Climate Change
Version: March 5, 2019 (to be updated periodically with additions and corrections)
Please send suggestions to: pgleick@gmail.com
January 1987. The National Security Strategy of the United States. The White House, Washington, D.C.
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1987.pdf
“While we remain properly concerned with the Soviet threat, we must not neglect other destabilizing international threats and problems which can seriously damage U.S. interests if not properly addressed. These include non-communist nations with oppressive governments and ideologies opposed to ours; international economic concerns of massive world debt, trade imbalances, and shifts in comparative advantage in our interdependent global economic system; the global population explosion and related food, water, and poverty problems; the proliferation of nuclear weapons; drug trafficking; and human rights violations, to name only a few.”
January 1988. The National Security Strategy of the United States. The White House, Washington, D.C.
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1988.pdf
“Finally, the prospects for world peace and prosperity - and thus for U.S. interest in a just and progressive international order- will be influenced by other problems in certain parts of the world. Critical shortages of food, a lack of health services, and inabilities to meet other basic needs will keep millions of people, particularly in Africa, in peril. The dangerous depletion or contamination of the natural endowments of some nations-soil, forests, water, air - will add to their environmental and health problems, and increasingly to those of the global community. These problems cannot be resolved simply through outside assistance, for many of them will require policy changes and leadership by governments and elites in the countries themselves. But all create potential threats to the peace and prosperity that are in our national interest, as well as the interests of the affected nations.”
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1990.pdf
“In the coming decade, we will have to project American values and protect American interests on issues of growing global importance, such as the battle against narcotics trafficking and the search for solutions to international environmental problems. We must intensify efforts to promote alternative sources of energy (nuclear, natural gas, coal, and renewables), and devote greater attention to reducing fossil fuel emissions in light of growing environmental concerns.”
1990: Select Senate Committee on Intelligence Review requested of Global Climate Change.
https://www.nopp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/85.pdf
SSCI requests review of IC systems to support Global Climate Change assessments (MEDEA?); CIA & NRO provide Senator Gore potential use of IC systems for Global Climate Change assessments.
May 1990: Global Climate Change: Implications for the United States: U.S. Navy War College, Newport, RI (T.P. Kelley).
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/globalclimatechange-navy.pdf
“Naval operations in the coming half century may be drastically affected by the impact of global climate change. For the Navy to be fully prepared for operations in this future climate environment, resources of both mind and money must be committed to the problem. The Navy’s research and analysis efforts are required to support the sound planning evolution necessary to insure the Navy’s capabilities in this future climate environment.”
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/102117.pdf
To the extent that we need to reduce resources devoted to the Soviet target, we must focus more of our intelligence capabilities and resources on other security threats such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug smuggling, terrorism, environmental change, low-intensity conflict in the Third World, and the illicit export of high-technology items.
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1991.pdf
“The environmental depredations of Saddam Hussein have underscored that protecting the global ecology is a top priority on the agenda of international cooperation — from extinguishing oil fires in Kuwait to preserving the rain forests to solving water disputes to assessing climate change. The upheavals of this era are also giving rise to human migrations on an unprecedented scale, raising a host of social, economic, political and moral challenges to the world's nations.
Global environmental concerns include such diverse but interrelated issues as stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, food security, water supply, deforestation, biodiversity and treatment of wastes. A common ingredient in each is that they respect no international boundaries. The stress from these environmental challenges is already contributing to political conflict. Recognizing a shared responsibility for global stewardship is a necessary step for global progress. Our partners will find the United States a ready and active participant in this effort.”
1992-2001 MEDEA Program Established (Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis). Central Intelligence Agency. Virginia.
http://www.nopp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/85.pdf
Environmental Task Force (ETF) – circa 1992 – 1993. Reviewed classified Intelligence and DoD systems, data, and archives for global climate change and other key environmental issues.
January 1993. The National Security Strategy of the United States. The White House, Washington, D.C.
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1993.pdf
“Environmental degradation is one of the most pressing global problems. Deforestation, climate change, air and water pollution, and depletion of water supplies have far reaching effects on the capacity of countries to sustain economic growth and ensure a healthy environment for their citizens. Environmental problems transcend national boundaries. Air and water pollution in one country can affect far distant countries as well as those nearby. Some problems, such as ozone depletion and climate change, can have a global impact. In many developing countries, environmental degradation is already causing serious health problems and limiting economic development. “
July 1994. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. The White House. Washington, D.C.
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1994.pdf
“We have committed the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and we have developed a National Climate Plan to achieve that goal. The more clearly we understand the complex interrelationships between the different parts of our world's environment, the better we can understand the regional and even global effects of local changes to the environment. Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered "free" goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of environmental risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to largescale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, and ultimately climate change. Strategies dealing with environmental issues of this magnitude will require partnerships between governments and nongovernmental organizations, cooperation between nations and regions, and a commitment to a strategically focused, long-term policy for emerging environmental risks.”
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1995.pdf
“We have committed the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and we have developed a National Climate Plan to achieve that goal. The more clearly we understand the complex interrelationships between the different parts of our world's environment, the better we can understand the regional and even global effects of local changes to the environment. Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered "free" goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of environmental risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to largescale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, and ultimately climate change. Strategies dealing with environmental issues of this magnitude will require partnerships between governments and nongovernmental organizations, cooperation between nations and regions, and a commitment to a strategically focused, long-term policy for emerging environmental risks.”
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1996.pdf
“The President developed a Climate Change Action Plan to help reduce greenhouse emissions at home and launched the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation to help reduce emissions abroad…
The more clearly we understand the complex interrelationships between the different parts of our world's environment, the better we can understand the regional and even global effects of local changes to the environment. Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered "free" goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of environmental risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to largescale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, and ultimately climate change. Strategies dealing with environmental issues of this magnitude will require partnerships between governments and nongovernmental organizations, cooperation between nations and regions, and a commitment to a strategically focused, long-term policy for emerging environmental risks.”
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1997.pdf
“Environmental threats do not heed national borders and can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-being. Natural resource scarcities often trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as climate change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of dangerous chemicals directly threaten the health of U.S. citizens. We must work closely with other countries to respond aggressively to these and other environmental threats.
Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations; consequently, our national security planning is incorporating environmental analyses as never before. In addition, we have a full diplomatic agenda, working unilaterally, regionally and multilaterally to forge agreements to protect the global environment.”
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/current-and-projected-national-security-threats-united-states-january-28-1998#
A key goal of US foreign policy is to protect the United States and its citizens from environmental degradation. Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, developed countries committed themselves to legally binding action to lower the threat of global warming through proposed cuts in greenhouse gases, as measured against 1990 levels. In contrast, most developing countries did not commit to any targets. There is broad scientific agreement that, left unchecked, global warming over the next century would have such adverse impacts on the United States as coastal flooding from sea level rise, volatile weather fluctuations with both costly droughts and flash floods, and loss of sensitive habitats, particularly the Everglades.
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/1998.pdf
“Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations. Environmental threats do not heed national borders and can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-being. Natural resource scarcities can trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as climate change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of hazardous chemicals and waste directly threaten the health of U.S. citizens.”
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/2000.pdf
“Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations. Environmental threats do not heed national borders and can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-being. Natural resource scarcities can trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as climate change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of hazardous chemicals and waste directly threaten the health of U.S. citizens.”
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/2001.pdf
“The President has said, "Our natural security must be seen as part of our national security." Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations. Environmental threats do not heed national borders; environmental perils overseas and environmental crime pose long-term dangers to U.S. security and well being. Natural resource scarcities can trigger and exacerbate conflict, and phenomena such as climate change, toxic pollution, ocean dumping, and ozone depletion directly threaten the health and well-being of Americans and all other individuals on Earth.”
http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/2002.pdf
“Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to:
• remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international cooperation…
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/maxwell/mp29.pdf
“the term strategic weather is defined as the significant influence of weather and/or climate on a nation’s (or coalition’s) ability to attain its objectives while employing its military and other instruments of national power.
It is important to describe not only weather and climate conditions accurately in the theater but also to understand potential impacts on friendly and enemy systems, people, tactics, operations, and doctrine. Ultimately, we want to be able to predict the effects of the weather and climate just as accurately as the weather itself or, as a minimum, give decision makers some “robust scenarios” to consider.”
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469325.pdf
“The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:
1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts
3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess.”
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA422382.pdf
“Recent evidence suggests that the oceans already may be experiencing large-scale changes that could affect Earth’s climate. Military planners should begin to consider potential abrupt climate change scenarios and their impacts on national defense.”
http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gleick_testimony_congress_5-16-06.pdf
“Over the last few decades, there has been growing concern over the international security implications of large-scale environmental problems, including those associated with the production and use of energy resources. Recently, this attention has focused on the possibility of major climatic changes caused by growing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other trace gases that result, primarily from our combustion of fossil fuels.
Given the extent and severity of the likely climatic changes, it is increasingly urgent that we begin to ask how climate changes will affect international relationships, economics, access to resources, and national security. It is widely acknowledged that the dependence of the U.S. on imported energy resources can lead to economic pressures and tensions or as triggers to conflict when other pressures and tensions exist between nations. Less appreciated is the extent to which the environmental impacts of energy use can lead to international security threats, especially when those impacts are as severe and wide-ranging as climate change.
My testimony today discusses the most likely paths for such effects and what responses might be appropriate to minimize the adverse consequences for international stability and tensions. Global climate change is a real and serious problem. Impacts are already evident and are worsening rapidly in many parts of the world and the United States. It is vital to identify our greatest vulnerabilities to climatic stresses and the areas where those stresses will most affect national and international security, behavior, and policy.
Five critical areas stand out as important examples of national vulnerabilities with security implications: agricultural productivity, the availability and quality of freshwater resources, access to strategic minerals, rising sea level, and the deterioration of political relationships with other countries that result from disagreements about international climate policy.”
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA463334
“The NMS predicts a future security setting with battle spaces far different than any in which U.S. armed forces currently train. The Arctic region, once viewed for its Cold War strategic significance, fits this NMS description and is reemerging as a potential future theater of operations as a result of global warming. According to scientists, the Arctic’s icepack will continue to melt during the twenty-first century. They agree that increased consumption of oil and carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere will accelerate the effects and magnitude of global warming on the environment. A “low probability, high impact” occurrence of abrupt climate change is not beyond the realm of possibility. The Arctic’s physically changing environment is just one of its many unique characteristics. In addition to the physical challenges and opportunities it presents are the numerous implications associated with its retreating ice coverage. GCCs will undoubtedly be affected by or involved with the theater-strategic implications of increased access, contentious territorial disputes, and expansive oil and natural gas exploration. “
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/apr/security_climate.pdf
- “Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security.
- Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile
- regions of the world.
- Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
- Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global
- challenges.”
https://www.aepi.army.mil/publications/foresight/docs/jul07-ccas.pdf
“Climate change is widely accepted by the world’s scientific community. Numerous aspects of climate change remain under debate, but the basic premise—that the planet is warming due to increases in greenhouse gases in the planet’s atmosphere—is widely supported. A panel of retired General Officers reports that:
“Carbon dioxide [CO2] levels in the atmosphere are greater now than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and average global temperature has continued a steady rise. This rise presents the prospect of significant climate change, and while uncertainty exists and debate continues regarding the science and future extent of projected climate changes, the trends are clear.”
The effects of climate change will present international, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental challenges, many of which are likely to affect the Army, due to its worldwide distribution and the wide-reaching activities of our soldiers. Army strategic planning takes into account most foreseeable events. Strategic planners should also consider the potential impacts of global climate change. As the Army Strategy for the Environment notes, our ability to secure the future depends on environmental stewardship to protect the precious resources needed to train for and carry out our mission.”
“The Army is likely to encounter a strategic paradigm shift as environmental factors become critical. Historically, these factors were considered in isolation, addressed and managed independently. With increased understanding of climate change, individuals and institutions are beginning to grapple with the interconnectedness of the environment and human life. This shift in understanding our role as part of the earth’s system may lead to strategic changes with regard to environmental issues.”
October 2007: A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power: Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. https://www.revolvy.com/topic/A%20Cooperative%20Strategy%20for%2021st%20Century%20Seapower
“Climate change is gradually opening up the waters of the Arctic, not only to new resource development, but also to new shipping routes that may reshape the global transport system. While these developments offer opportunities for growth, they are potential sources of competition and conflict for access and natural resources.
The effects of climate change may also amplify human suffering through catastrophic storms, loss of arable lands, and coastal flooding, could lead to loss of life, involuntary migration, social instability, and regional crises.”
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=27823
[Major climate sections]
“…Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. Unlike most conventional security threats characterized by the activities of single entities acting in specific ways, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies.
The U.S. may be drawn more frequently into these situations, either alone or with allies, to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. The U.S. may also be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun, to avert further disaster and reconstitute a stable environment. Effects may spread to the U.S. Homeland in the form of refugee flows, internal weather-related disasters, energy crises, and associated terrorist activities. Potential strategic implications may include the potential opening of new sea lanes and access to new resources as a result of the melting Arctic ice cap and tensions regarding availability or reallocation of energy resources. Climate change may also have impacts on areas of military capability ranging from trafficability, to potential inundation of military ports and other bases to sensor performance…
The effects of climate change, including droughts, floods and, potentially, rising sea levels could also contribute to increased migration. Large scale migration will be one of the major security issues related to climate change, primarily due to changes in food and water availability or proximate physical changes to their former locale, such as sea-level rise, desertification and fires, or forced relocation by security forces. Climate change may force migrations of workers due to economic conditions, and the movement of asylum seekers and refugees. Migrations in themselves do not necessarily have negative effects, although taken in the context of global climate change a net benefit is highly unlikely. Migration patterns may occur within countries, across borders, and across entire regions, and each type of migration brings different stresses relating to additional competition for diminishing available resources, increased demands on systems, infrastructure, racial and religious tensions and increased cultural, political and economic stress...”
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf
“Climate change, as a security problem, needs to be addressed at multiple levels. First, there is the root problem—the changing climate. Second, there is the human misery it will engender—we are talking of such things as poverty, disease, displacement, and social inequality. Third, there is the instability and/or changing strategic picture that will spring from all of the above. Simply put, our response needs to encompass at least three things: slowing down the rate of climate change and preparing to adapt to changes that cannot be avoided; taking steps to alleviate social distress; and preparing to cope with potential conflicts.”
https://fas.org/irp/congress/2008_hr/062508fingar.pdf
“We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years. Although the United States will be less affected and is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change, and may even see a benefit owing to increases in agriculture productivity, infrastructure repair and replacement will be costly. We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests…”
…Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. We judge that economic migrants will perceive additional reasons to migrate because of harsh climates, both within nations and from disadvantaged to richer countries.”
http://nssarchive.us/national-defense-strategy-2008/
“Over the next twenty years physical pressures – population, resource, energy, climatic and environmental – could combine with rapid social, cultural, technological and geopolitical change to create greater uncertainty. This uncertainty is exacerbated by both the unprecedented speed and scale of change, as well as by the unpredictable and complex interaction among the trends themselves. Globalization and growing economic interdependence, while creating new levels of wealth and opportunity, also create a web of interrelated vulnerabilities and spread risks even further, increasing sensitivity to crises and shocks around the globe and generating more uncertainty regarding their speed and effect.
Current defense policy must account for these areas of uncertainty. As we plan, we must take account of the implications of demographic trends, particularly population growth in much of the developing world and the population deficit in much of the developed world. The interaction of these changes with existing and future resource, environmental, and climate pressures may generate new security challenges…
These risks will require managing the divergent needs of massively increasing energy demand to maintain economic development and the need to tackle climate change.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/deadlineusa/2008/nov/18/obama-white-house
“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.”
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
Climate change is likely to exacerbate resource scarcities, particularly water scarcities. Although the impact of climate change will vary by region, a number of regions will begin to suffer harmful effects, particularly water scarcity and loss of agricultural production. Regional differences in agricultural production are likely to become more pronounced over time with declines disproportionately concentrated in developing countries, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural losses are expected to mount with substantial impacts forecast by most economists by late this century. For many developing countries, decreased agricultural output will be devastating because agriculture accounts for a large share of their economies and many of their citizens live close to subsistence levels.
On newer security issues like climate change, US leadership will be widely perceived as critical to leveraging competing and divisive views to find solutions. At the same time, the multiplicity of influential actors and distrust of vast power means less room for the US to call the shots without the support of strong partnerships. Developments in the rest of the world, including internal developments in a number of key states—particularly China and Russia—are also likely to be crucial determinants of US policy.
The breadth of transnational issues requiring attention also is increasing to include issues connected with resource constraints in energy, food, and water; and worries about climate change. Global institutions that could help the world deal with these transnational issues and, more generally, mitigate the risks of rapid change currently appear incapable of rising to the challenges without concerted efforts by their leaders.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a508287.pdf
Climate change, in which man-made global warming is a major factor, will likely have dramatic and long lasting consequences with profound security implications, making it a challenge the United States must urgently take up. The security implications will be most pronounced in places where the effects of climate change are greatest, particularly affecting weak states already especially vulnerable to environmental destabilization.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/20090212_testimony.pdf
“The Intelligence Community recently completed a National Intelligence Assessment on the national security impacts of global climate change to 2030. The IC judges global climate change will have important and extensive implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years. Although the United States itself could be less affected and is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change and may even see a benefit in the near term owing to increases in agriculture productivity, infrastructure repair and replacement will be costly. We judge the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests. We assess climate change alone is unlikely to trigger state failure in any state out to 2030, but the impacts will worsen existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. We judge economic migrants will perceive additional reasons to migrate because of harsh climates, both within nations and from disadvantaged to richer countries.”
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/national-intelligence-strategy-2009.pdf
Climate change and energy competition may produce second-order effects for national security as states anticipate the effects of global warming (e.g., by contesting water resources in regions with limited potable sources) and seek to secure new energy sources, transport routes, and territorial claims.
The issues and trends that will shape the future security environment—economic instability, state failure, the ebb and flow of democratization, emergence of regional powers, changing demographics and social forces, climate change, access to space, pandemic disease, and the spread of disruptive technologies, to name just a few—will test the Intelligence Community’s ability to provide strategic warning and avoid surprise. Most of the IC’s analytic cadre focus on assessing ongoing and near-term events of significance. The IC must improve its ability to anticipate and identify emerging challenges and opportunities.
https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-museum/experience-the-collection/text-version/timeline.html
The CIA Center serves as a primary producer of finished intelligence on the national security implications of climate change, including its impact on the political, economic, and social stability of foreign nations. The Center brings together specialists from the DI and the DS&T, enabling greater collaboration on this important national security issue.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527880.pdf
“Prior to 2006, the security implications of climate change effects received only occasional attention. The level of interest rose exponentially over the following eighteen months. Now climate change is widely recognized as a threat that is tightly interconnected with other 21st century challenges such as energy security, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and organized crime. This paper provides an overview of current views on how the consequences of warming temperatures, rising sea levels, disturbances in precipitation patterns, and increases in extreme weather events might impact global stability. The purpose is to raise awareness of the full scope of climate-related security concerns. It also identifies opportunities to strengthen the U.S. in preparing to respond to the changes in security tensions that could accompany climate impacts.”
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA538902.pdf
The regional and global security implications of the environmental effects caused by global warming are grave. Inaccessibility to critical natural resources has the potential to create and fuel existing regional instability and also weaken failing and developing states. The potential impacts of global warming span the social, economic, and political spectrums within the international arena. Due to the myriad of concerns which arise, the US should assess the impacts of abrupt climate change and take action to protect vital regional and global humanitarian, sustainable development and security interests.
http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo7867
From transmittal memo, Vice Chief of Naval Operations. “Scientific evidence indicates that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the most rapid changes are occurring in the Arctic. Because the Arctic is primarily a maritime environment, the Navy must consider the changing Arctic in developing future policy, strategy, force structure, and investment.”
December 2009: Installation Energy Management: Department of Defense, DoDI 417011, Incorporating Change 2, August 31, 2018.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/417011p.pdf
“The Department of Defense shall strive to modernize infrastructure, increase utility and energy conservation, enhance demand reduction, and improve energy resilience, thereby saving taxpayer dollars and reducing emissions that contribute to air pollution and global climate change.”
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/defenseReviews/QDR/QDR_as_of_29JAN10_1600.pdf
“Other powerful trends are likely to add complexity to the security environment. Rising demand for resources, rapid urbanization of littoral regions, the effects of climate change, the emergence of new strains of disease, and profound cultural and demographic tensions in several regions are just some of the trends whose complex interplay may spark or exacerbate future conflicts.
Crafting a strategic approach to climate and energy: 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.”
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/20100202_testimony.pdf
We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability. (In my classified statement, I discuss the recent UN-sponsored climate change conference in Copenhagen.) Climate change alone is highly unlikely to trigger failure in any state out to 2030, but it will potentially contribute to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict. Water issues, which have existed before the recent changes in the climate, will continue to be major concern. As climate changes spur more humanitarian emergencies, the demand may significantly tax US military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations. Some recent climate science would indicate that the effects of climate change are accelerating, particularly in the Arctic region and on mountain glaciers that impact critical watersheds.
https://fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
Climate change is included here as one of the ten trends most likely to impact the Joint Force.
May 2010. National Security Strategy. The White House, Washington, D.C.
http://nssarchive.us/national-security-strategy-2010/
Dozens of climate references, including:
“Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict, and pandemic disease...
A global effort to combat climate change must draw upon national actions to reduce emissions and a commitment to mitigate their impact. Efforts to prevent conflicts and keep the peace in their aftermath can stop insecurity from spreading…
Dependence upon fossil fuels constrains our options and pollutes our environment. Climate change and pandemic disease threaten the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people…
The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe. The United States will therefore confront climate change based upon clear guidance from the science, and in cooperation with all nations—for there is no effective solution to climate change that does not depend upon all nations taking responsibility for their own actions and for the planet we will leave behind.”
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf
“Climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy. Climate change will lead to increased tensions in nations with weak economies and political institutions. While climate change alone is not likely to lead to future conflict, it may be a contributing factor. Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations and access to natural resources worldwide. It will affect the type, scope, and location of future Navy missions. The Navy Climate Change Roadmap outlines the Navy’s approach to observing, predicting, and adapting to climate change.
A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing. While there has been criticism on the details of the methods and results found in reports published by the IPCC and other entities, the Navy acknowledges that climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy. Climate change may influence the type, scope, and location of future Navy missions through its effects on the distribution and availability of natural resources (e.g., water, agriculture, fisheries, coastal areas, etc.). Economically unstable regions will be more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and climate change will be one of several factors that may increase instability. Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations worldwide. Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and may limit the availability of overseas bases.”
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/download.cfm?q=999
A key issue on the strategic issues list is to “Assess potential impact of global climate change on U.S. national security.”
https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/IE/DoD%20SSPP-PUBLIC-26Aug10.pdf
“The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review recognizes that a strategic approach to climate change and energy is a high priority for the Department. Our military’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels creates significant risks and costs at a tactical as well as a strategic level. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) specifically recognizes that DoD must address climate change and energy because of their significance to national security and mission readiness.
Climate change is predicted to impact the Department in myriad ways, not only through direct effects on installations, but also by potentially increasing demands on our men and women in uniform. The impacts of climate change may potentially destabilize regions already prone to conflict and increase the need for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.”
https://fas.org/irp/congress/2011_hr/031011clapper.pdf
More than 260 river basins are shared by two or more countries. The growing pressure generated by growing populations, urbanization, economic development, and climate change on shared water resources may increase competition and exacerbate existing tensions over these resources. Greater cooperation and coordination to manage these shared resources will be critical to meeting human and development needs. Governing institutions in the developing world often fail to understand water challenges or make the necessary difficult political and economic decisions to correct deficiencies in water quality and quantity for human consumption, agriculture, or industry.
Rapidly changing environmental conditions (e.g., large scale shifts or increases in hydrological variability), political shifts, and/or unilateral development increase the likelihood of conflict over shared water within a basin. Sound institutions that provide a means for raising and addressing concerns reduce the likelihood that disagreements/conflicts will become violent. In the absence of mitigating action, fresh water scarcity at local levels will have wide-ranging implications for US national security. This scarcity will aggravate existing problems-such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions-and thereby threaten state or regional stability. A whole-of-government approach using the best modeling expertise from agencies outside the IC-will be needed to assess the impact of water and other resource scarcity on state stability.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/471503p.pdf
Integrate the DoD Natural Resources Conservation Program with other ASD(EI&E) activities, including, but not limited to, business enterprise integration, environmental management, safety, occupational health, facilities, global climate change, ecosystem services, renewable energy, installations requirements, geographic information systems (GIS), environmental management systems (EMS), the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, project planning programs, and range and training area management and sustainment programs.
All DoD Components shall, in a regionally consistent manner, and to the extent practicable and using the best science available, utilize existing tools to assess the potential impacts of climate change to natural resources on DoD installations, identify significant natural resources that are likely to remain on DoD lands or that may in the future occur on DoD lands and, when not in conflict with mission objectives, take steps to implement adaptive management to ensure the long-term sustainability of those resources.
http://www.denix.osd.mil/sustainability/dod-sspp/unassigned/dod-sspp-fy-2011/
“The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review highlighted the importance of managing the effects of climate change, citing energy security and climate change as significant challenges requiring a change in how the Department operates. Climate change is predicted to affect the Department in many ways, including direct effects on installations and less direct impacts such as the destabilization of regions of the world already prone to conflict. Climate change can directly impact military installations and operations by limiting the availability and quality of ranges and other lands needed for operations, and increasing flood and fire hazards and grid vulnerability. The Department’s low-lying installations are threatened by coastal erosion and inundation due to sea level rise, which can damage or destroy infrastructure, reduce availability of land for operational needs, and perhaps reduce water supply due to seawater intrusion. In areas of the United States with hurricanes, evidence points to more intense hurricanes. In other areas, climate change may increase the intensity of precipitation events, raising the threat of flooding.”
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=10755
Population growth and urbanization in the Middle East, Africa, and South Central Asia will contribute to increased water scarcity and may present governance challenges. The uncertain impact of global climate change combined with increased population centers in or near coastal environments may challenge the ability of weak or developing states to respond to natural disasters.
http://www.dbw.ca.gov/csmw/pdf/EC_Sea_Level_Change.pdf
Recent climate research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts continued or accelerated global warming for the 21st Century and possibly beyond, which will cause a continued or accelerated rise in global mean sea-level. Impacts to coastal and estuarine zones caused by sea-level change must be considered in all phases of Civil Works programs. The planning and design of USACE water resource projects in and adjacent to the coastal zone must consider the potential for future accelerated rise in GMSL to affect the local MSL trend.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf
Changes in climate patterns and their impact on the physical environment can create profound effects on populations in parts of the world and present new challenges to global security and stability. Failure to anticipate and mitigate these changes increases the threat of more failed states with the instabilities and potential for conflict inherent in such failures.
https://www.nae.edu/19582/Reports/24757.aspx
“Global sea-level rise is projected to be a major impact of climate change. Many naval coastal installations would be affected and would likely require adaptation. The committee reviewed an assessment of U.S. military coastal installations at risk from coastal inundations caused by sea-level rise. Many of the 31 U.S. military installations identified in the assessment as being at “very high risk” or at “high risk” are naval installations.
U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps coastal installations around the globe will become increasingly susceptible to projected climate events. In the committee’s opinion, U.S. maritime forces are more likely than other U.S. military forces to experience more direct impacts of climate change on their operations, installations, and missions.
U.S. naval leadership should thus continue to exercise a strong voice and leadership in influencing the U.S. and international military adaptive response.”
http://www.dodworkshops.org/Appendix_A_-_DoD_Climate_Change_Adaption_Roadmap_20120918.pdf
“The foundation for DoD’s strategic policy on climate change adaptation began with the publication of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in 2010 by the Secretary of Defense. The QDR is a principal means by which the tenets of the National Defense Strategy are translated into new policies and initiatives. The QDR sets a long-term course for DoD as the Department assesses the threats and challenges that the nation faces and re-balances DoD’s strategies, capabilities, and forces to address today’s conflicts and tomorrow’s threats. The QDR acknowledged that climate change has national security implications and must be addressed by DoD and its partners.
As articulated in the Department’s Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, DoD’s sustainability vision is to maintain our ability to operate into the future without decline, either in the mission or the natural and man-made systems that support it. Including climate change and climate variability considerations in our planning processes will enhance operational and infrastructure resilience.
Climate change is expected to play a significant role in DoD’s ability to fulfill its mission in the future. Climate-related effects already are being observed at DoD installations throughout the U.S. and overseas. The physical changes are projected to include rising temperature and sea level and increases in both heavy downpours and the extent of drought. These will cause effects such as more rapid coastal erosion, shifts in growing seasons, and changing water tables.
The direction, degree, and rates of the physical changes will differ by region, as will the impacts to the military’s mission and operations. By taking a proactive, flexible approach to vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning that recognizes uncertainty and incorporates the best available science, the Department can keep pace with changing climate patterns and minimize their impact on operations.”
http://www.denix.osd.mil/sustainability/dod-sspp/unassigned/dod-sspp-fy-2012/
The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review highlighted the importance of managing the effects of climate change, citing energy security and climate change as significant challenges requiring a change in how the Department operates. Climate change is predicted to affect the Department in many ways, including direct effects on installations and less direct impacts such as the destabilization of regions of the world already prone to conflict. Climate change can directly impact military installations and operations by limiting the availability and quality of ranges and other lands needed for operations, and increasing flood and fire hazards and energy grid vulnerability.
Assess potential impact of global climate change on U.S. national security.
March 12, 2013. Statement for the Record, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Intelligence%20Reports/2013%20ATA%20SFR%20for%20SSCI%2012%20Mar%202013.pdf
“We now monitor shifts in human geography, climate, disease, and competition for natural resources because they fuel tensions and conflicts. Local events that might seem irrelevant are more likely to affect US national security in accelerated time frames. Risks to freshwater supplies—due to shortages, poor quality, floods, and climate change—are growing. These forces will hinder the ability of key countries to produce food and generate energy, potentially undermining global food markets and hobbling economic growth. As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia face particular difficulty coping with water problems. Lack of adequate water is a destabilizing factor in countries that do not have the management mechanisms, financial resources, or technical ability to solve their internal water problems.”
https://doi.org/10.17226/14682.
“Climate change can reasonably be expected to increase the frequency and intensity of a variety of potentially disruptive environmental events--slowly at first, but then more quickly. It is prudent to expect to be surprised by the way in which these events may cascade, or have far-reaching effects. During the coming decade, certain climate-related events will produce consequences that exceed the capacity of the affected societies or global systems to manage; these may have global security implications.”
“Climate change will have serious implications for the ability of the Department of Defense (DoD) to maintain its natural and built infrastructure and to ensure military readiness. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) requires DoD to conduct climate impact assessments at its permanent installations. Several studies have been completed or are currently underway by the military Services.
The effects of climate change will adversely impact military readiness and Department of Defense (DoD) natural and built infrastructure unless these risks are considered in DoD decisions. Considerations of future climate conditions need to be incorporated into the planning, design, and operations of military facilities, as well as into the strategic infrastructure decisions facing the military Services and DoD as a whole.
The effects of climate change are being experienced now and are expected to increase in the coming years, even if aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation efforts are implemented globally. The interaction of climate change with geological and other environmental conditions in different regions will result in a variety of outcomes across the nation. Key coastal climate stressors include rising sea levels and changes in storm intensity and frequency, as well as changes in temperature and precipitation patterns. These changes will increase the vulnerability of military installations, including risks to facilities and infrastructure, natural areas, and operations. Climate models that simulate future climate conditions indicate that the impacts of climate change will grow with time and that the rates of warming and sea level rise in the 21st century will be greater than those in the 20th century. Given the anticipated magnitude and pace of future change, it is likely that many of the steps that can be taken to adapt will be less costly and most cost-effective if they are taken now, rather than in future decades.”
May 2013: US Coast Guard Arctic Strategy, U.S. Coast Guard. https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/Strategy/cg_arctic_strategy.pdf
“The Arctic is a region of highly complicated networks, interests, and governance structures that will continue to evolve with the expansion of maritime activity. The principal drivers of expanding activity include new access to undiscovered resources, increasing interest in adventure tourism, and more economical routes of cargo trans-shipment. These factors are becoming more pronounced through the dynamics of climate change which include a reduction in the amount of sea ice, diminishment of permafrost, and expansion of ice-free ocean…
Climate-change impacts in Alaska are already apparent, including earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, warmer permafrost, drier landscapes, and more extensive insect outbreaks and wildfires. Climate change and technological innovations are reshaping many activities and fostering growth.
These increasing and sometimes competing uses will challenge norms of safety, security, and environmental sustainability throughout the region.”
https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID=24949
All DoD Components shall, in a regionally consistent manner, and to the extent practicable and using the best science available, utilize existing tools to assess the potential impacts of climate change to natural resources on DoD installations, identify significant natural resources that are likely to remain on DoD lands or that may in the future occur on DoD lands and, when not in conflict with mission objectives, take steps to implement adaptive management to ensure the long-term sustainability of those resources.
http://www.denix.osd.mil/sustainability/dod-sspp/unassigned/dod-sspp-fy-2014/
‘The SSPP addresses climate change, which has an impact on national security, whether by increasing global instability, opening the Arctic, or increasing sea level and storm surge near our coastal installations. We are actively integrating climate considerations across the full spectrum of our activities to ensure a ready and resilient force.”
https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA610110
Among the future trends that will impact our national security is climate change. Rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels, and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. They will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe.
In our defense strategy, we refer to climate change as a “threat multiplier” because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today – from infectious disease to terrorism. We are already beginning to see some of these impacts.
A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions. The military could be called upon more often to support civil authorities, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the face of more frequent and more intense natural disasters. Our coastal installations are vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased flooding, while droughts, wildfires, and more extreme temperatures could threaten many of our training activities. Our supply chains could be impacted, and we will need to ensure our critical equipment works under more extreme weather conditions. Weather has always affected military operations, and as the climate changes, the way we execute operations may be altered or constrained.
While scientists are converging toward consensus on future climate projections, uncertainty remains. But this cannot be an excuse for delaying action. Every day, our military deals with global uncertainty. Our planners know that, as military strategist Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight.”
https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/MAB_5-8-14.pdf
“Projected climate change is a complex multi-decade challenge. Without action to build resilience, it will increase security risks over much of the planet. It will not only increase threats to developing nations in resource-challenged parts of the world, but it will also test the security of nations with robust capability, including significant elements of our National Power here at home. Even though we may not have 100 percent certainty as to the cause or even the exact magnitude of the impacts, the risks associated with projected climate change warrant taking action today to plan and prepare for changes in our communities, at home and abroad. The update serves as a bipartisan call to action.
It makes a compelling case that climate change is no longer a future threat—it is taking place now. It observes that climate change serves as a catalyst of conflict in vulnerable parts of the world, and that projected changes in global migration patterns will make the challenges even more severe. It identifies threats to elements of National Power here at home, particularly those associated with our infrastructure and our ability to maintain military readiness.
The update makes clear that actions to build resilience against the projected impacts of climate change are required today. We no longer have the option to wait and see.”
http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
“The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities. Our actions to increase energy and water security, including investments in energy efficiency, new technologies, and renewable energy sources, will increase the resiliency of our installations and help mitigate these effects.
Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.
Finally, the Department will employ creative ways to address the impact of climate change, which will continue to affect the operating environment and the roles and missions that U.S. Armed Forces undertake. The Department will remain ready to operate in a changing environment amid the challenges of climate change and environmental damage.”
Risks to freshwater supplies—due to shortages, poor quality, floods, and climate change—are growing.
These forces will hinder the ability of key countries to produce food and generate energy, potentially undermining global food markets and hobbling economic growth. As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia particularly will particularly face difficulty coping with water problems. Lack of adequate water is a destabilizing factor in developing countries that do not have the management mechanisms, financial resources, or technical ability to solve their internal water problems. Other states are further stressed by heavy dependence on river water controlled by upstream nations with unresolved water-sharing issues. Wealthier developing countries will probably face increasing water-related, social disruptions, although they are capable of addressing water problems without risk of state failure.
http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf
Anticipating the impacts of climate change, the Navy will take deliberate steps to prepare for near-term (2014-2020), mid-term (2020-2030), and far-term (beyond 2030) Arctic Ocean operations. As security conditions change and the Arctic Region becomes more accessible, the Navy will re-evaluate its preparedness.
This Navy Arctic Roadmap update underscores the need to develop strong cooperative partnerships with interagency and international Arctic Region stakeholders. It acknowledges the role climate change plays in energy security, research and science, the economy, fisheries, tourism, the assertion of sovereignty, and other related issues. To be prepared to address the emerging challenges caused by the opening of the Arctic Ocean waters, this Roadmap recognizes that changes in the environment must be continuously examined and taken into account.
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/national-intelligence-strategy-2014.pdf
“Many governments will face challenges to meet even the basic needs of their people as they confront demographic change, resource constraints, effects of climate change, and risks of global infectious disease outbreaks. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions—conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence. The risk of conflict and mass atrocities may increase.”
“Weather shocks represent a major threat to global security. Climate stress increases risk of conflict, particularly among agriculturally dependent economies.1 The U.S. Department of Defense’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) declared climate-induced stressors as threat multipliers among the world’s fragile regions.2 An empirical relationship between higher temperatures and sub-state violence has been demonstrated in a number of studies.3 The stability of modern societies – not just in ancient times – relates strongly to global climate. Building on these earlier works, our white paper specifically looks at various scenarios that could happen during a strong El Niño year. Using the latest findings in meteorology and social science, this study is organized into two major parts: (1) the fundamental science and prediction of the El Niño phenomenon, and (2) ten potential security scenarios that may be induced or exacerbated by El Niño.”
“This report responds to the Congressional request to the Department of Defense to identify the most serious and likely climate-related security risks for each Combatant Command, the ways in which the Combatant Commands are integrating mitigation of these risks into their planning processes, and a description of the resources required for an effective response.”
DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015, is clear that climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water. These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.”
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf
“Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water. The present day effects of climate change are being felt from the Arctic to the Midwest. Increased sea levels and storm surges threaten coastal regions, infrastructure, and property. In turn, the global economy suffers, compounding the growing costs of preparing and restoring infrastructure.”
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Unclassified_2015_ATA_SFR_-_SASC_FINAL.pdf
“Extreme weather, climate change, and public policies that affect food and water supplies will probably create or exacerbate humanitarian crises and instability risks.
Risks to freshwater supplies—due to shortages, poor quality, floods, and climate change—are growing. These problems hinder the ability of countries to produce food and generate energy, potentially undermining global food markets and hobbling economic growth. Combined with demographic and economic development pressures, such problems will particularly hinder the efforts of North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia to cope with their water problems. Lack of adequate water might be a destabilizing factor in countries that lack the management mechanisms, financial resources, political will, or technical ability to solve their internal water problems.
Some states are heavily dependent on river water controlled by upstream nations. When upstream water infrastructure development threatens downstream access to water, states might attempt to exert pressure on their neighbors to preserve their water interests. Such pressure might be applied in international forums and also includes pressing investors, nongovernmental organizations, and donor countries to support or halt water infrastructure projects. Some countries will almost certainly construct and support major water projects. Over the longer term, wealthier developing countries will also probably face increasing water-related social disruptions. Developing countries, however, are almost certainly capable of addressing water problems without risk of state failure. Terrorist organizations might also increasingly seek to control or degrade water infrastructure to gain revenue or influence populations.”
https://www.navy.mil/local/maritime/150227-CS21R-Final.pdf
“Environmental trends are increasingly shaping the maritime security environment, particularly in the littorals where most of the world’s population resides. Climate change–enhanced storms, rising sea levels, and coastal flooding are disproportionately affecting many island nations. This may trigger social instability and more frequent humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations. Rising ocean temperatures present new challenges and opportunities, most notably in the Arctic and Antarctic, where receding ice leads to greater maritime activity. In the coming decades, the Arctic Ocean will be increasingly accessible and more broadly used by those seeking access to the region’s abundant resources and trade routes. The predicted rise in maritime activity, including oil and gas exploration, commercial fishing, tourism, and mineral mining, is expected to increase the region’s strategic importance over time.”
2015: DoD Instruction 3200.21 “Sustaining Access to the Live Training Domain”: U.S. Department of Defense
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/320021p.pdf
(1) Evaluate the risks to training and range capability from the impacts of climate change trends.
(2) As climate science advances and as future climate scenarios and predictive tools are adopted by DoD, incorporate scenarios and predictive tools into evaluations of climate change impacts, risks, and adaptation strategies.
Identify the most serious and likely climate-related security risks for each Combatant Command.
Identify ways Combatant Commands integrate risk mitigation in their planning processes, including in the areas of:
- Humanitarian disaster relief;
- Security cooperation;
- Building partner capacity; and
- Sharing best practices for mitigation of installation vulnerabilities.
Describe resources required for an effective response and the timeline of resources needs.
http://www.denix.osd.mil/sustainability/dod-sspp/unassigned/dod-sspp-fy-2015/
The SSPP addresses climate change, which is having an impact on national security, whether by contributing to global instability, opening passages through the Arctic, or increasing sea level and storm surge near our coastal installations. We are actively integrating climate considerations across the full spectrum of our activities to ensure a ready and capable force. Our efforts will improve the resiliency of our fixed installations and further embed sustainability considerations into the conduct of DoD business.
http://www.navy.mil/local/maritime/150227-CS21R-Final.pdf
“Environmental trends are increasingly shaping the maritime security environment, particularly in the littorals where most of the world’s population resides. Climate change–enhanced storms, rising sea levels, and coastal flooding are disproportionately affecting many island nations. This may trigger social instability and more frequent humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations. Rising ocean temperatures present new challenges and opportunities, most notably in the Arctic and Antarctic, where receding ice leads to greater maritime activity. In the coming decades, the Arctic Ocean will be increasingly accessible and more broadly used by those seeking access to the region’s abundant resources and trade routes. The predicted rise in maritime activity, including oil and gas exploration, commercial fishing, tourism, and mineral mining, is expected to increase the region’s strategic importance over time.”
http://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/Reports/Tab%20B%20-%20FY%202014%20AEMR_FINAL.pdf
This Annual Energy Management Report (AEMR) details the Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 performance toward its objectives of energy supply expansion, energy efficiency and demand reduction, and the adaption of future forces and advanced technologies on fixed installations. It also details its activities addressing climate change impacts to its energy portfolio, including enhancing energy resilience.
“Long-term changes in climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on critical Earth systems like oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity. These in turn will almost certainly have significant effects, both direct and indirect, across social, economic, political, and security realms during the next 20 years. These effects will be all the more pronounced as people continue to concentrate in climate-vulnerable locations, such as coastal areas, water-stressed regions, and ever-growing cities.
Effects of Climate Change on National Security: Possible Pathways
Climate change and its resulting effects are likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years through the following pathways:
- Threats to the stability of countries.
- Heightened social and political tensions.
- Adverse effects on food prices and availability.
- Increased risks to human health.
- Negative impacts on investments and economic competitiveness.
- Potential climate discontinuities and secondary surprises.”
2016: Report to Congress on Strategy to Protect the United States National Security Interests in the Arctic Region, U.S. Department of Defense. http://www.sullivan.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016_ArcticStrategy-Unclass.pdf
“According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Arctic is warming more rapidly than the rest of the planet. To operate safely and effectively in the region, DoD must adapt current and future operations to address the effects of environmental changes through: identification and assessment of the effects of climate change on the DoD mission; taking those effects into consideration in developing plans and implementing procedures; and anticipating and managing any risks that develop as a result of climate change to build resilience to the changing operational environment in the Arctic.”
https://fas.org/man/eprint/ncfa.pdf
Globally, climate change has numerous implications for national security. Warming trends are lessening agricultural productivity in many areas and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events. The resulting food and water insecurities may increase resource competition between and within states. Changes in the Arctic have the potential to create benefits for the global economy, but may also become a flashpoint for confrontation. Russia has ambitious designs on the resource-rich Arctic region and has substantially expanded its Arctic forces. In addition to overlapping claims by Arctic nations, many non-Arctic nations, including China, have strong interests in facilitating access to low-cost shipping routes and Arctic resources.
http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/471521p.pdf
In accordance with the direction in Executive Order 13653, this issuance establishes policy and assigns responsibilities to provide the DoD with the resources necessary to assess and manage risks associated with the impacts of climate change. This involves deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the DoD to:
• Facilitate federal, State, local, tribal, private sector, and nonprofit sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience, and to implement the 2014 DoD Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.
• Help safeguard U.S. economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources.
• Provide for the continuity of DoD operations, services, and programs.
http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf
“climate change — Variations in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer that encompass increases and decreases in temperature, shifts in precipitation, and changing risk of certain types of severe weather events. (DODD 4715.21)”
Just as sustainability directly affects the ability of DoD to perform its mission in the future, so does the Department’s ability to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. Sustainability and adaptation to climate change go hand in hand with DoD’s efforts to ensure resilience and success. Climate change is a clear national security concern, affecting us today and forecast to affect us more in the future. To address this concern, the Department issued DoD Directive (DoDD) 4715.21, Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, on 14 January 2016, which establishes policy, roles, and responsibilities for the integration of climate change resilience across the Defense enterprise.
“Global change, including climate change, poses unique challenges to the Department of Defense (DoD). In particular, coastal military sites, and their associated natural and built infrastructure, operations, and readiness capabilities, are vulnerable to the impacts of rising global sea level and local extreme water level (EWL) events.”
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/worldwide-threat-assessment_dni_2016.pdf
Extreme weather, climate change, environmental degradation, related rising demand for food and water, poor policy responses, and inadequate critical infrastructure will probably exacerbate—and potentially spark—political instability, adverse health conditions, and humanitarian crises in 2016. Several of these developments, especially those in the Middle East, suggest that environmental degradation might become a more common source for interstate tensions.
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/nic_global-trends_paradox-of-progress.pdf
Changes in the climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on humans and critical systems , including oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity. These changes, in turn, will have direct and indirect social, economic, political, and security effects. Extreme weather can trigger crop failures, wildfires, energy blackouts, infrastructure breakdown, supply chain breakdowns, migration, and infectious disease outbreaks. Such events will be more pronounced as people concentrate in climate vulnerable locations, such as cities, coastal areas, and water-stressed regions.
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/worldwide-threat-assessment_dni_2017.pdf
We assess national security implications of climate change but do not adjudicate the science of climate change. In assessing these implications, we rely on US government-coordinated scientific reports, peer-reviewed literature, and reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the leading international body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hr2810enr/pdf/BILLS-115hr2810enr.pdf
SEC. 335. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Secretary of Defense James Mattis has stated: ‘‘It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.’’.
(2) Secretary of Defense James Mattis has stated: ‘‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation.’’.
(3) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford has stated: ‘‘It’s a question, once again, of being forward deployed, forward engaged, and be in a position to respond to the kinds of natural disasters that I think we see as a second or third order effect of climate change.’’.
(4) Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has stated: ‘‘Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability.’’.
(5) Former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Gordon Sullivan has stated: ‘‘Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.’’.
(6) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has stated: ‘‘Many countries will encounter climate induced disruptions—such as weather-related disasters, drought, famine, or damage to infrastructure—that stress their capacity to respond, cope with, or adapt. Climate-related impacts will also contribute to increased migration, which can be particularly disruptive if, for example, demand for food and shelter outstrips the resources available to assist those in need.’
(7) The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated: ‘‘DOD links changes in precipitation patterns with potential climate change impacts such as changes in the number of consecutive days of high or low precipitation as well as increases in the extent and duration of droughts, with an associated increase in the risk of wildfire. . . this may result in mission vulnerabilities such as reduced live-fire training due to drought and increased wildfire risk.’’
(8) A three-foot rise in sea levels will threaten the operations of more than 128 United States military sites, and it is possible that many of these at-risk bases could be submerged in the coming years.
(9) As global temperatures rise, droughts and famines can lead to more failed states, which are breeding grounds of extremist and terrorist organizations.
(10) In the Marshall Islands, an Air Force radar installation built on an atoll at a cost of $1,000,000,000 is projected to be underwater within two decades.
(11) In the western United States, drought has amplified the threat of wildfires, and floods have damaged roads, runways, and buildings on military bases.
(12) In the Arctic, the combination of melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, and sea-level rise is eroding shorelines, which is damaging radar and communication installations, runways, seawalls, and training areas.
(13) In the Yukon Training Area, units conducting artillery training accidentally started a wildfire despite observing the necessary practices during red flag warning conditions.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) climate change is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and is impacting stability in areas of the world both where the United States Armed Forces are operating today, and where strategic implications for future conflict exist;
(2) there are complexities in quantifying the cost of climate change on mission resiliency, but the Department of Defense must ensure that it is prepared to conduct operations both today and in the future and that it is prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on threat assessments, resources, and readiness; and
(3) military installations must be able to effectively prepare to mitigate climate damage in their master planning and infrastructure planning and design, so that they might best consider the weather and natural resources most pertinent to them.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qr3ti5l5u82tksm/GAOClimateChangeAdaptation.pdf?dl=0
The expected impacts of weather effects associated with climate change pose operational and budgetary risks to overseas infrastructure according to the Department of Defense (DOD), but DOD does not consistently track the impacts’ estimated costs. Operational risks (including interruptions to training, testing, and missions) and budgetary risks (including costs of repairing damages) are linked to these impacts. However, installations inconsistently track these costs because there is no requirement for such tracking. Without a requirement to systematically track such costs, DOD will not have the information it needs to integrate climate-related impact resource considerations into future budgets.
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-206
“According to DOD, climate change will have serious implications on the ability to maintain infrastructure and ensure military readiness. DOD has identified risks posed by climate change and begun to integrate adaptation in guidance. GAO was asked to assess DOD's actions to adapt overseas infrastructure to the expected challenges of climate change.
The expected impacts of weather effects associated with climate change pose operational and budgetary risks to overseas infrastructure according to the Department of Defense (DOD), but DOD does not consistently track the impacts' estimated costs. Operational risks (including interruptions to training, testing, and missions) and budgetary risks (including costs of repairing damages) are linked to these impacts. However, installations inconsistently track these costs because there is no requirement for such tracking. Without a requirement to systematically track such costs, DOD will not have the information it needs to integrate climate-related impact resource considerations into future budgets.
“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”
“Climate change can be a driver of instability and the Department of Defense must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.”
“As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.”
“I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation. I will ensure that the department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future, and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources, and readiness.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf
“Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system. U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty. The United States will continue to advance an approach that balances energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while expanding our economy.”
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/worldwide-threat-assessment-2018.pdf
“Challenges from urbanization and migration will persist, while the effects of air pollution, inadequate water, and climate change on human health and livelihood will become more noticeable. Domestic policy responses to such issues will become more difficult—especially for democracies—as publics become less trusting of authoritative information sources.”
“The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.
The past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization, and the past few years have been the warmest years on record. Extreme weather events in a warmer world have the potential for greater impacts and can compound with other drivers to raise the risk of humanitarian disasters, conflict, water and food shortages, population migration, labor shortfalls, price shocks, and power outages. Research has not identified indicators of tipping points in climate-linked earth systems, suggesting a possibility of abrupt climate change.
Worsening air pollution from forest burning, agricultural waste incineration, urbanization, and rapid industrialization—with increasing public awareness—might drive protests against authorities, such as those recently in China, India, and Iran.
Accelerating biodiversity and species loss—driven by pollution, warming, unsustainable fishing, and acidifying oceans—will jeopardize vital ecosystems that support critical human systems. Recent estimates suggest that the current extinction rate is 100 to 1,000 times the natural extinction rate.
Water scarcity, compounded by gaps in cooperative management agreements for nearly half of the world’s international river basins, and new unilateral dam development are likely to heighten tension between countries.”
This study provides “basic understanding and specific information on storm ocean surface wave-driven flooding of atoll islands that house Department of Defense (DOD) installations and (2) assess the resulting impact of sea-level rise inundation and storm wave-driven flooding on infrastructure and freshwater availability under a variety of sea-level rise and climatic scenarios.
These findings have relevance not only to current or decommissioned DOD facilities on Pacific atolls (Kwajalein, Wake, Johnston, Bikini, and Enewetak Atolls), but those utilized by DOD (Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory), US Minor Outlying Islands (Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands) and those under the US defense umbrella (Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia). Together, these results provide an improved understanding of the planning and management strategies necessary to protect infrastructure and natural resources on low-lying atoll islands globally in the face of future climate change.”
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/worldwide-threat-assessment-2018.pdf
“Challenges from urbanization and migration will persist, while the effects of air pollution, inadequate water, and climate change on human health and livelihood will become more noticeable.
The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.
The past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization, and the past few years have been the warmest years on record. Extreme weather events in a warmer world have the potential for greater impacts and can compound with other drivers to raise the risk of humanitarian disasters, conflict, water and food shortages, population migration, labor shortfalls, price shocks, and power outages. Research has not identified indicators of tipping points in climate-linked earth systems, suggesting a possibility of abrupt climate change.”
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf
“The Department of Defense (DoD) has significant experience in planning for and managing risk and uncertainty. The effects of climate and extreme weather represent additional risks to incorporate into the Department’s various planning and risk management processes. Various studies have identified a broad range of effects that could impact our ability to fully execute the Defense mission of protecting and maintaining the security interests of the United States at home and around the world.”
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf
“Senate Report 114-67 accompanying the fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill included language directing the DoD to include an assessment of coastal erosion and potential flooding risks in the siting of proposed military construction projects. In a July 23, 2015, report to Congress regarding the security implications of climate-related risks, the Department noted that is [sic] has directed a global screening level assessment to determine installation vulnerabilities to climate-related security risks with the goal of identifying serious vulnerabilities and developing necessary adaptation strategies…
The Department of Defense (DoD) has significant experience in planning for and managing risk and uncertainty. The effects of climate and extreme weather represent additional risks to incorporate into the Department’s various planning and risk management processes. Various studies have identified a broad range of effects that could impact our ability to fully execute the Defense mission of protecting and maintaining the security interests of the United States at home and around the world.”
January 29, 2019. Director of National Intelligence. Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/worldwide-threat-assessment_dni_2019.pdf
“The United States will probably have to manage the impact of global human security challenges, such as threats to public health, historic levels of human displacement, assaults on religious freedom, and the negative effects of environmental degradation and climate change.”
“Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.”
2019: Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense. As required by Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/29/2002084200/-1/-1/1/CLIMATE-CHANGE-REPORT-2019.PDF
“The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations. Our 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power competitors by focusing the Department’s efforts and resources to: 1) build a more lethal force, 2) strengthen alliances and attract new partners, and 3) reform the Department’s processes.
To achieve these goals, DoD must be able to adapt current and future operations to address the impacts of a variety of threats and conditions, including those from weather and natural events. To that end, DoD factors in the effects of the environment into its mission planning and execution to build resilience.”
January 2019: National Intelligence Strategy of the United States of America. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/national_intelligence_strategy_2019.pdf
“Increasing migration and urbanization of populations are also further straining the capacities of governments around the world and are likely to result in further fracturing of societies, potentially creating breeding grounds for radicalization. Pressure points include growing influxes of migrants, refugees, and internally displaced persons fleeing conflict zones; areas of intense economic or other resource scarcity; and areas threatened by climate changes, infectious disease outbreaks, or transnational criminal organizations.”
March 2019: Letter to the President of the United States: 58 Senior Military and National Security Leaders Denounce NSC Climate Panel.
In March 2019, 58 senior military and national security leaders wrote to President Trump to denounce his efforts to form a committee in the National Security Council "to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change."
Part of that letter is below:
March 5, 2019
Dear Mr. President:
We write to you as former US national security leaders to offer our support to our uniformed military, civilian national security professionals, and members of the scientific community, who across the past four Administrations have found that climate change is a threat to US national security.
Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts. In this context, we are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change. This includes second-guessing the scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and applying that to national security policy. Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security."
April 22, 2019: U.S. Coast Guard's Arctic Strategic Outlook.
Department of Defense Arctic Strategy.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5973939/Arctic-Strategic-Outlook-APR-2019.pdf
"Arctic communities face increasingly frequent and severe incidents due to changing climate and growing human activity."
"Since the release of the Coast Guard Arctic Strategy in 2013, the renewal of global strategic
competition has coincided with dramatic changes in the physical environment of the Arctic. The
interaction of these drivers has made the Arctic a strategically competitive space for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Competition does not preclude cooperation, and the Coast Guard will always look for opportunities to collaborate to solve complex issues. However, the Service must do so within the context of the Nation’s national security interests."
June 2019: Report to Congress
Department of Defense Arctic Strategy.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jun/06/2002141657/-1/-1/1/2019-DOD-ARCTIC-STRATEGY.PDF
This 2019 Report to Congress on the Department of Defense Arctic Strategy is an update of the previous 2016 DoD Arctic Strategy as requested by Section 1071 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year (FY) 2019.
Among the key conclusions, the report cites the latest US National Climate Assessment:
"The Arctic’s physical environment continues to change, including through diminished sea ice coverage, declining snow cover, and melting ice sheets. Temperatures across the Arctic region are increasing more than twice as fast as global average temperatures, accompanied by thawing permafrost and loss of sea ice and glacier mass. Diminishing Arctic sea ice is opening new shipping lanes and increasing access to natural resources during the summer months. If the warming trends continue at the current rate, Arcticwide sea ice loss may result in nearly ice-free late summers by the 2040s. Thawing permafrost, compounded by storm surge and coastal erosion, adversely affects infrastructure, including DoD installations, and complicates the development of new and resilient DoD infrastructure."
The report also notes that among the "Service Roles and Missions" for the military is "examining the effects of a changing climate."
June 1, 2019. Department of Defense’s Indo-Pacific Strategy Report.
"The Indo-Pacific region continues to experience a myriad of security challenges from a range of transnational threats, including: terrorism; illicit arms; drug, human, and wildlife trafficking; and piracy, as well as dangerous pathogens, weapons proliferation, and natural disasters. Multiple terrorist organizations, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), operate in countries throughout the region. The heavily-traveled Indo-Pacific sea lanes are targets for pirates seeking to steal goods or hold ships and crews for ransom. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing further challenges regional peace and prosperity. A region already prone to earthquakes and volcanoes as part of the Pacific Ring of Fire, the Indo-Pacific region suffers regularly from natural disasters including monsoons, hurricanes, and floods to earthquakes and volcanic activity, as well as the negative consequences of climate change."
June 1, 2019. U.S. Government Accountability Office Report: Climate Resilience: DOD Needs to Assess Risk and Provide Guidance on Use of Climate Projections in Installation Master Plans and Facilities Designs. (GAO-19-453)
Conclusions: Department of Defense (DOD) installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions. For example, DOD’s 2018 preliminary assessment of extreme weather and climate effects at installations was based on the installations’ reported past experiences with extreme weather rather than an analysis of future vulnerabilities based on climate projections.
Recommendations: The GAO recommends that military departments work together to update planning criteria to require an assessment of extreme weather and climate change risks and to incorporate DOD guidance on the use of climate projections into facilities design standards. GAO also recommends that DOD issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into installation master planning and facilities project designs. The DOD concurred with all eight of GAO’s recommendations.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act, 50 USC § 404A, imposes a requirement that an Annual National Security Strategy Report be prepared and transmitted to Congress.
(1) The President shall transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States (hereinafter in this section referred to as a “national security strategy report”).
(2) The national security strategy report for any year shall be transmitted on the date on which the President submits to Congress the budget for the next fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31.
(3) Not later than 150 days after the date on which a new President takes office, the President shall transmit to Congress a national security strategy report under this section. That report shall be in addition to the report for that year transmitted at the time specified in paragraph (2).
Gleick, P. H. (1988). The effects of future climatic changes on international water resources: the Colorado River, the United States, and Mexico. Policy Sciences, 21(1), 23–39.
Gleick, P. H. (1989a). Climate change and international politics: problems facing developing countries. Ambio, 18(6), 333–339.
Gleick, P. H. (1989). The implications of global climatic changes for international security. Climatic Change, 15(1), 309–325.
Myers, N. (1986). The environmental dimension to security issues. The Environmentalist, 6, 251–257.
Ullman, R. H. (1983). Redefining security. International Security, 8(1), 129–153.
Westing, A. H. (Ed.). (1986). Global Resources and International Conflict: Environmental Factors in Strategic Policy and Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Oxford, United Kingdom: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, United Nations Environment Programme. Oxford University Press.
