I mentioned my visit to the local British Consulate-General yesterday and some discussions there. I also mentioned the enviable climate and energy politics across the pond in “Oh, to be in England” a while back. The three major parties in the UK have had their differences, but as can be evidenced by the new coalition’s policies relative to the Labor government’s, on climate and energy they have more in common than not. Would the Democrats and Republicans were the same here. (But not in my lifetime.)
Over three years ago, the British, holding the presidency of the UN Security Council at the time, raised the issue of climate change in that highly visible forum. The Foreign Secretary at the time, Margaret Beckett, also gave a talk at the Foreign Policy Association: Climate Change – the Gathering Storm. Last year, in March, there was a conference in Washington on climate change and security. There have been a number of other developments as well, including both the CIA and DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) listing climate change as a threat. The QDR said, among other things: “While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.”
This was the subject of a panel discussion last week at the American Museum of Natural History. Two Navy men, one on active duty from the UK and one retired from the US, had some good insights. Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, climate and energy security envoy of the UK Ministry of Defense and Foreign Commonwealth Office, called climate change a “threat multiplier.” Vice Admiral (Retired) Dennis V. McGinn characterized it as a “magnifier and accelerator” of conflicts.
On top of some of the more obvious threats to human security such as the pressure of climate migrants on neighbors and the loss of livelihoods from the devastation of natural resources and the competition among groups that may engender, there is also the burden of relief operations that will inevitably ensue as storms intensify as a direct consequence of the increasing rise in sea surface temperature and drought consumes other communities.
The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), with which Adm. McGinn is affiliated, has done some outstanding work, as has International Alert, a London-based NGO. One of the areas that the CNA has explored, though, and McGinn mentioned is the “opportunity” for military establishments in dealing with the climate crisis. (I do love that word – particularly in the context of climate change.) What presents itself for the militaries of the world, as well as for every other sector, is an extraordinary chance to do things smarter, cleaner, cheaper and in a more secure fashion. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey know it: the pending energy and climate legislation from them from last year is called the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
The military is very involved in both researching the ins and outs of confronting global climate change. See this, for instance, from the excellent ClimateWire via the “NY Times,” in which we get a sense of what DOD is concerned about and what was discussed at a recent conference held by the newly created Center for Environment and National Security at Scripps.
Opportunity? DOD is really starting to take energy efficiency and renewables seriously. It has scores of projects. This Air Force compendium of renewable energy projects doesn’t even mention this impressive 500 MW PV installation at Edwards Air Force Base. See also DOD’s green website for much more.
Morisetti said something most interesting to me. You may be aware of the stunningly bold and exciting Desertec initiative – to bring wind and solar power to the Middle East and North Africa and also to export it to Europe, as much as 25% of Europe’s electricity demand. I’ve noted it at the blog several times, including here. When I’ve gone over this project in my classes, I’ve often gotten the reaction that the power coming from such an unstable region might be a bad bet. My response has been that this is the kind of relationship between Europe and the MENA states that would create understanding and mutual economic benefit. Morisetti said precisely the same thing.
My one bone to pick with the panelists was their acceptance of resource extraction in the Arctic as an inevitability. They are fully conversant with the implications of further melting in the Arctic, yet were entirely indifferent, even contemptuous of my suggestion to institute a ban on activity that would only further exacerbate the situation there. Black carbon from shipping, industrial activities and tourism, not to mention the greenhouse gases that fossil fuel taken from the Arctic, would simply, well…add fuel to the fire. I’m afraid that the sort of institutional blinkers that these two good men wear don’t allow them to see the obvious. It’s, in my humble opinion, madness to pursue all the “riches” of the Arctic. (For much more on this important area of concern, see the FPA blog on The Arctic.)
