Global security dominates the news and the early priorities of the Trump administration, driving policy pronouncements on immigration and refugees. Yet a critical threat to U.S. security, one that has been under scrutiny since the presidency of George W. Bush, has been denied, disparaged, or downplayed across the administration, presumably for ideological reasons. Despite attempts to make it political, climate change does not sit on one side of the partisan divide. It attacks our nation’s interests directly, endangering our security and the safety of millions of people around the world.
In 2007, 11 retired three- and four-star generals and admirals released "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," a report crafted as part of an advisory board. Their approach helped shape policies and actions beginning at the end of the Bush administration. Their bottom line: “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States.”
In the decade since the report’s release, the threats it described have moved from largely theoretical to insistent and real. Climate-related impacts are altering weather patterns, leading to heat, extreme weather events, and volatility. A 2015 Department of Defense report opens by simply stating: “DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests globally.” The report noted that the department is already seeing the effects of climate change around the world. It specifically mentioned Hurricane Sandy here at home, as well as drought in Syria.
Much of the concern is based on how climate change exacerbates existing instability. Much of the Middle East and Syria was enmeshed in turmoil before a record drought from 2006 to 2009 decimated crops and killed livestock. The drought added extraordinary stress. It displaced individuals and families. It left people with no livelihoods, no food, and no water. Syrians deserted the countryside and joined refugees of Iraq’s war in overburdened cities. Between 2002 and 2010 Syria’s urban population ballooned from 8.9 million to 13.8 million. Deadly unrest began in 2011, and Syrian refugees are now reshaping the globe.
The U.S. military also sees direct threats to its own assets due to climate change. By 2050, half of the military’s 18 installations on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States are predicted to suffer extreme flooding. The Pentagon is already spending money to build flood protections, elevate electrical equipment at Langley Air Force Base, and raise the piers at Norfolk Naval Base.
The vessels departing from Norfolk fulfill a range of critical U.S. military priorities, including rapid response to storms themselves. In 2013 the United States responded to Typhoon Haiyan, one of the strongest such storms ever recorded, by deploying thousands of troops and providing millions of dollars in support. Retired Brig. Gen. Stephen A. Cheney, the chief executive officer of the American Security Project, later commented that “there is no country in the world that can … provide that level of humanitarian assistance. We are the only ones.”
Months before Haiyan hit, Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, who was leading U.S. Pacific Command, was asked what the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific was. In a region with critical relationships and challenges such as China and North Korea he surprised many with his answer: climate change. He specifically mentioned the increase in super typhoons and the possibility of millions of displaced people.
Given this range of threats, how should we prioritize the U.S. response? First, we should restore the process of admitting refugees. The United States has a detailed vetting system, one that was often criticized under the Obama administration for being too restrictive. It takes 18-24 months for a Syrian refugee to be cleared to settle in the United States.The United States should recommit to its established humanitarian goals.
Second, leaders must work across party lines to bring forward climate solutions, something that despite campaign rhetoric is an area where Americans actually agree. The 2016 Chicago Council Survey of American public opinion found that majorities of self-described Republicans, Democrats, and independents back U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement on climate change. The recent Republican proposal for a tax on carbon also offers an opportunity to find common ground on solutions instead of fighting about causes.
Third, local and state leaders should drive climate action. Enhancing security by addressing climate change benefits communities across the United States. Late in 2016, Republican governors in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio all crafted paths to cleaner energy. A low carbon energy mix creates jobs, choice, and energy security in the United States.
Fourth, the administration and lawmakers should ensure the military has the tools needed to protect security. Energy efficiency and renewables can often enhance military effectiveness. In one example, something as simple as solar panels and rechargeable batteries can help save lives. Soldiers now carry less weight in batteries, and they have eliminated the trail of used batteries that used to telegraph their paths to the enemy.
The United States is the largest historical contributor to the greenhouse gases driving climate change, which is amplifying conflicts around the world. Many of the desperate refugees the United States now refuses to help are fleeing the effects. The U.S. Department of State website reads: “The U.S. refugee resettlement program reflects the United States’ highest values and aspirations to compassion, generosity and leadership.”
To truly improve our national security we must confront the carbon emissions driving climate change, not the people fleeing it.
