National Security Network

Veterans, Military Leaders Say Climate Change and Energy Security are National Security Priorities

Print this page
Report 10 September 2009

Energy Energy climate change energy security global warming military vets

9/10/09

Today veterans from around the country join former Republican Senator John Warner at the White House to make the case for action on climate change and energy security. As Warner has noted, "On the battlefield, we never wait until we have 100 percent certainty or wait for the conditions to be 100 percent ideal. We have to act when we have enough information to act. And I think the information we have is clear. Again, I emphasize, the U.S. cannot and should not wait for other countries to take the lead." National security experts, retired military officials, and many prominent conservatives are in agreement that the twin challenges of climate change and energy security pose a threat to our way of life, global order, and our security. This is why our military, as it shifts its focus to 21st century challenges, is now focusing on the threats posed by climate change and energy security. But tackling these issues will require action from all areas of government. The House of Representatives recently took a hugely important step in passing energy and climate change legislation, but the legislation now looks to be bogged down in the Senate. Many conservatives continue to be vocal skeptics of climate change and hostile to efforts to make our energy supply more diverse and our energy usage more efficient.

Warner's leadership and the military's concern highlight that energy security and climate change are not partisan issues - they are long-term challenges to our security, our economy and our way of life that we need to start meeting as a nation now.  Pretending we can just go on as we are isn't just ignorant, it's dangerous.

Veterans and military experts come to Washington to support climate change legislation.  Today, Sen. John Warner (Ret.) (R-VA), former Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, former Secretary of the Navy and veteran of two wars, along with over 150 veterans from across the country, are meeting with the White House to discuss the dangers that climate change poses to our country's security.  The Washington Post reports that, "A coalition of environmental, labor, veterans and religious groups formally launched a lobbying campaign Tuesday aimed at mobilizing grass-roots support for passage of a Senate climate bill this fall... By enlisting the support of groups not traditionally associated with green issues, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the progressive-minded Truman National Security Project -- the coalition hopes to broaden the debate over energy legislation, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate."  There is a growing emphasis from military experts for the need to tackle climate change.  As Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, who is speaking today along with John Kerry at an event for the American Security Project on climate change, recently said --"Some may be surprised to hear former generals and admirals talk about climate change and clean energy. But they shouldn't be, because in the military we learn quickly that reducing threats and vulnerabilities is essential well before you get into harm's way. Our dependence on all fossil fuels poses threats to the military mission and the country at large." [Washington Post, 9/9/09. Dennis McGinn, via the Miami Herald, 9/8/09]

Our military faces twin challenges rooted in energy security and climate change that must be addressed as part of a 21st century defense strategy. A recent Brookings report by Peter Singer and Jerry Warner finds that for the Department of Defense - which uses more energy than any public or private organization in the world - energy must considered as a strategic-level issue.  According to the report, "Access to reliable and affordable energy resources is absolutely fundamental to the operations and readiness of the U.S. military. In recent years, rising costs, variability in supply, and a host of challenging technical and environmental objectives have elevated the issue of energy security for our armed forces. The challenges are particularly acute for petroleum-based fuels. Their availability and cost now significantly impact military budgets, combat mission execution, institutional capabilities, and, by implication, our national security. Yet, as a recent board of retired military leaders declared, 'The nation's current energy posture is a serious and urgent threat to national security.'"

Accounting for the effects of climate change is also a challenge that concerns our military - and affects our national security.  A Center for Naval Analyses report from 2007 recommended that "Defense Strategy should include appropriate guidance to military planners to assess risks to current and future missions caused by projected climate change. The next Quadrennial Defense Review should examine the capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events, pandemic disease events, and other related missions."  A 2009 follow-up report echoed this call, urging that "climate change goals should be clearly integrated into national security and military planning processes." [Brookings, 8/25/09. CNA, 2007. CNA, May 2009]

Many conservatives continue to ignore the threat and danger to American national security posed by climate change.  While veterans and the military are advocating for climate change legislation, many conservatives continue to keep their heads in the sand:

  • House Minority Leader John Boehner: "the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear..." [ABC News, 4/19/09]
  • Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee: "Between the years of 1998 and 2005, I was the only member of the United States Senate who would take on what I call 'the Hollywood elitists' and the United Nations on this hoax called global warming and I went through seven years of purgatory on that issue." [Countrywide and the Sun, 6/26/09]

Meanwhile experts agree that climate change poses real threats to American and global security.  Last year a joint report by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described conditions arising from global warming, including intensifying "tropical cyclones" that force resettlement in the coastal U.S., "water shortages" in Mexico, "which will drive immigration into the United States," and rising sea levels in the Caribbean.  

Climate change also carries the potential to exacerbate violent conflict.  This reality led the National Intelligence Council, in its recent Global Trends 2025 report, to argue that global warming was one of three major threats that could destabilize the international system. The NIC warned that climate refugees, resource wars, and an increase in destructive weather events could all undermine American and international security.   Retired Vice Admiral Lee Gunn recently wrote in the New York Times that, "climate change will lead to increased conflicts around the world because of water and agricultural shortages, changes in patterns of human migration, and further destabilization in areas like South Asia, potentially fostering an increase in global terrorism.  Climate change has already contributed to conflicts in regions like Darfur; it has already affected United States military operations; and it will increasingly affect American military planning for contingencies around the world. And if we don't lead the way on curbing these changes, others will." [Center for New American Security & Center for Strategic and International Studies, 11/07. International Alert, 11/07. Global Trends 2025, 11/08. NY Times, 8/20/09]

What We're Reading

European leaders are asking for a new assessment of progress in Afghanistan while the International Criminal Court considers some preliminary investigations of human rights abuses. The Afghan Electoral Commission has started throwing out fraudulent ballots in their ongoing recount of the presidential election, while back in the US, Congress boosts funding for the training of the Afghan National Army and Police.

British lawmakers led by Des Brown pressed President Obama on his commitment to cut nuclear arms Wednesday during an event at Carnegie.

The latest truck bomb in Iraq kills 19.

Iran submits their proposal to begin talks on their nuclear issues with the international community. Meanwhile American intelligence agencies conclude Iran has enough nuclear fuel for one nuclear weapon, but Iran has not initiated construction of that weapon. Meanwhile, opposition figures in Iran believe they may be arrested soon.

Al Qaeda begins a new push to send operatives to Somalia and Yemen, while fighting in Somalia continues to put an extra burden on young children.

A prominent rebel in the Philippines believes their insurgency should control a wider sway of territory to continue their activities.

The Black Sea represents a new flash point between Russia and Georgia, as tensions linger form last years' war.

The largest media company in Turkey is fined billions for its consistent criticism of the government of Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, worrying advocates of Turkey's entry into the EU.

Commentary of the Day

Jim Hoagland explains why the evidence of fraud in Afghanistan's recent presidential elections has ramifications for President Obama's plan to ramp up training of Afghan Security Forces.

David Ignatius gives us an update of the reorganization of Iran's intelligence services to include more loyalists to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and how that could result in some blowback.

Daoud Kuttab argues for the international community to protect Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's plan for developing a viable Palestinian state, with or without concessions from Israel.

Meghan Daum explains the paradox of feminist arguments about conservative Islamic clothing for women and the recent case of convicted Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein.