[Senate Hearing 111-207]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-207
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL SECURITY: CHALLENGES, THREATS AND DIPLOMATIC
OPPORTUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 21, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-243 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JIM WEBB, Virginia ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Burke, Sharon, vice president, Center for a New American
Security, Washington, DC....................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Gunn, VADM Lee F., USN (Ret.), president, American Security
Project, Washington, DC........................................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 3
McGinn, VADM Dennis, USN (Ret.), member, Center for Naval
Anaylsis Advisory Board, Lexington Park, MD.................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Warner, Hon. John, former U.S. Senator, Alexandria, VA........... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 9
(iii)
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL SECURITY: CHALLENGES, THREATS, AND DIPLOMATIC
OPPORTUNITIES
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kerry, Cardin, Casey, Shaheen, Kaufman,
Lugar, and Corker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
I apologize to everybody for being just a little bit late.
We just had a business meeting of the committee, over in the
Capitol, which is why the doors were shut, and why the Senators
weren't here. We just passed out a slew of Ambassadors and
various Assistant Secretaries, et cetera. So, we're on track,
and I thank all the committee--subcommittee chairs for moving
all of those folks as rapidly as they have.
We're here today to--Senator Lugar, incidentally--I
normally don't start without him, but he is on his way over--
he's right here. Terrific. Thanks, Dick.
We're here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to
global stability, human security, and America's national
security. As you're going to hear from all of today's
witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not
simply an academic concern for the future; it's already on us,
happening now. As a matter of fact, I just came from a meeting
earlier today with the Governor of Colorado, Gov. Bill Ritter,
who was describing the impact on Colorado, which has lost a
million acres of pine trees as a consequence of the pine beetle
that needs a 3-week period each year, at the right time, to
freeze. And that time is normally in the, sort of, early fall.
Doesn't happen anymore. So, for the last 6 years or so, the
absence of that freeze has allowed the infestation to take
place, and literally millions of acres of forest have been
lost, not just there, but north up into Canada, Alaska, and so
forth. So, it is not academic. It is happening now. The effects
are being felt globally in different ways.
Earlier this year, a 25-mile-wide ice bridge connecting the
Wilkins Ice Shelf to the Antarctic land mass shattered,
disconnecting the shelf from the Antarctic Continent. In 4
years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free
summer--not in 2030, as many earlier predicted, but in 2013.
So, the threat is magnifying, growing, in the evidence that is
coming at us.
Just as 9/11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could
not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if
we believe that climate change will somehow stop at our
borders.
Fortunately, America's most trusted security voices,
including those here today, have been sounding the alarm. In
2007, 11 former admirals and high-ranking generals issued a
seminal report, from the Center for Naval Analysis, where VADM
Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They
warned that climate change is a ``threat multiplier'' with the
potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian
disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today. This is
because climate change injects a major new source of chaos,
tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world.
It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics,
more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human
displacement on a staggering scale.
Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict,
and resource competition that often creates refugees, and
``IDPs'' as we call them--internally displaced persons--will
now confront these same challenges, with an ever-growing
population of ``EDPs''--environmentally displaced people. We
risk fanning the flames of failed-stateism, and offering
glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international
system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us.
Nowhere is the nexus between today's threats and climate
change more acute than in South Asia, the home of al-Qaeda, and
the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning
that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a
billion people, from China to Afghanistan, could disappear
completely by 2035. Water from the Himalayas flows through
India into Pakistan. India's rivers are not only agriculturally
vital, but they are central to the religious practice of that
country. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on
irrigated farming. Even as our Government scrambles to ratchet
down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen
Pakistan's capacity to deliver for its people, climate change
threatens to work powerfully in the opposite direction.
Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile
place even more combustible. The Middle East is home to 6
percent of the world's population but just 2 percent of the
world's water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply
will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn't need
another reason to disagree.
Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American
foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate.
Diego Garcia Island, in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our
military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll,
just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our
Atlantic fleet, will be submerged by 1 meter of sea-level rise
during this century alone. That's if we prevent the West
Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Sheet from melting.
If they melt, you're looking at 16 to 23 feet of sea-level
increase.
Now, these problems today, as we sit here now and measure
them, are not insurmountable, but they are going to be
expensive in some places, over time, and they risk compromising
our readiness. The future has a way of humbling those who try
to predict it too precisely, but, we do know from scientists
and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail
to connect the dots, if we fail to take action, the simple,
indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living, not
only in a ravaged environment, but in a much more dangerous
world.
We're honored to be joined today by a number of experts in
this field of security, one that has not, frankly, been paid
enough attention to, and has, in many ways, been absent from
the debate. Today's hearing is meant to put it front and center
where it belongs, with people whose credibility, frankly, is
unmatched.
We're joined by an old friend, who needs no introduction in
these halls, but I'll just say a few words. John Warner served
five terms as a U.S. Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the
Navy at the age of 17, served as a sailor in World War II,
fought as a marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of
the Navy. I had the pleasure of being connected to him during
that period of time while I was serving in Vietnam. Senator
Warner became a friend, a colleague for 24 years, and one of
the great gentlemen of this institution. When he retired--and I
was rewarded his old office--Senator Warner's gift to his
fellow Navy man was a binnacle, a tool that sailors use to
point out the right direction and to light the path forward.
And, of course, I couldn't ask for a better guide than Senator
Warner's own words and his life, but now I've got his binnacle
to remind me about all of those. I'm pleased that he continues
to use his great credibility to speak directly to the American
people about the urgency of this issue.
Each of the other witnesses are equally impressive. Admiral
Lee--VADM Lee Gunn, a decorated, 35-year veteran of the United
States Navy, now serving as president of the American Security
Project--I think, in his last position on Active Duty was at
the Pentagon, where he was the director of logistics and
planning.
Sharon Burke is vice president for natural security at the
Center for New American Security, where she directs the
center's work on national security implications of global
national resource challenges.
VADM Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory
Board and a former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare
Requirements and Programs.
So, we're lucky to have each of you here today, and
grateful for your willingness to be here. I'm delighted to turn
to my ranking member, whose leadership on issues of national
security are well known to all of us.
Senator Lugar.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses, and I
join you in a special word of greeting to John Warner. We are
so delighted that he is here today to be with us once again.
Let me just say that we have talked, in fact, about
national security matters with John Warner before, when the
Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee
got together, as we did occasionally, informally--sometimes
formally. Therefore, we have some preparation for today's
hearing. To adequately prepare our military forces for future
threats, we need to understand how climate change might be a
source of war and, certainly, instability. Climate change
projections indicate greater risks of drought, famine, disease,
and mass migration, all of which could lead to conflict. We
also must ensure that our military infrastructure can adapt to
new circumstances, a component of which is developing secure,
alternative sources of fuel.
The United States is confronted by a cluster of national
security threats that arise from our economic and cultural
reliance on fossil fuels. First, we face a current dependence
on oil, a large percentage of which is controlled by hostile or
unstable regimes concentrated in the volatile Middle East. And
this increases our vulnerability to natural disasters, wars,
and terrorist attacks that can disrupt the lifeblood of the
international economy, as well as our own. It also means that
we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to
authoritarian regimes. This revenue stream emboldens oil-rich
governments, and enables them to entrench corruption, fund
anti-Western demagogic appeals, and support terrorism.
And second, we face the prospect of manipulation of oil and
natural gas supplies by producers seeking political leverage.
Nations experiencing a cutoff of energy supplies, or even the
threat of a cutoff, may become desperate, increasing the
chances of armed conflict, terrorism, and economic collapse.
Third, we face longer term prospects of declining global
oil production. As we approach the point when the world's oil-
hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of
energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict.
And fourth, we face international crises arising out of
drought, food shortages, rising seas, and other manifestations
of climate change. Any of the threats in this cluster could be
a source of catastrophe for the United States and the world.
Now, this list does not necessarily exhaust the
possibilities, but it underscores one of the dilemmas for
national security planners; namely, that these threats are not
identical. Each has a unique time horizon, a unique threat
intensity. Some steps, such as developing renewable fuels, may
be useful in addressing the entire cluster of threats, but some
steps that might be beneficial for climate change are not
necessarily helpful in addressing other threats in the cluster.
For example, expanding offshore oil drilling and opening up
the Arctic National Wildlife Region to oil exploration is
generally opposed by climate change advocates. Yet, increasing
domestic oil production could help hedge against midterm energy
vulnerabilities. Similarly, encouraging nuclear power
development overseas would produce climate change benefits, but
the national security risks have to be managed very carefully.
Further, region by region, military planners are likely to have
divergent priorities, depending on the immediacy of various
threat scenarios.
Thus, our task is not just to anticipate all possible
national security threats that might emerge in the future due
to climate change, and our dependence on fossil fuels; we have
to develop timelines that compare the relative immediacy of
these threats, and then we have to make rational choices about
where and how to apply limited national security resources.
The American military is at the forefront of those working
to develop energy resources that do not depend on the goodwill
of unpredictable and sometimes hostile regimes. America is rich
in coal, as are large developing nations, like China, India,
and Ukraine. Coal remains a big part of the energy plans of
many countries. The United States and the world are unlikely to
be able to deal with climate change without progress on clean
coal technologies or sequestration of carbon.
The Pentagon is experimenting with coal-to-gas and coal-to-
liquid technologies to fuel America's military. As the Pentagon
moves to expand the use of coal fuels, it should simultaneously
work to develop cost-effective carbon sequestration methods,
and cooperate with other agencies and entities engaged in this
endeavor.
As I have mentioned in previous hearings, as we consider
how to address climate change we should give priority to steps
that would simultaneously yield benefits for other United
States priorities, such as bolstering energy security,
generating export markets for high-technology industries,
strengthening our rural economy, improving our air quality.
I thank Senator Kerry, again, for holding this hearing,
inviting this distinguished panel, and we look forward to your
testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Senator Warner, we'll begin with you. Again, thank you for
being here with us, and we'll just run right down the line at
the table.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR,
ALEXANDRIA, VA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Interesting feeling, to be seated in this room where I
spent 30 years of my life, from time to time, introducing and
participating in the important work of this venerable and
distinguished committee of the United States Senate, and I
commend the leadership that it has today, and my two dear
friends, the chairman and the ranking member, and thank you for
your kind remarks on my behalf.
I say to my colleagues, the function of a hearing is for
witnesses to come forth and try and help better inform the
Senate through the committee structure and the members in
attendance. But, listening to those very well prepared, and
very well delivered opening statements, I can just about ease
back in my chair, because you've covered much of what I have
before me. And consequently, as a courtesy to the committee and
to my colleagues, distinguished panel that they are--and I know
all of them, and have worked with them for years--I'll be very
brief and ask that my statement be made part of the record.
The Chairman. Well, your full statement will be made part
of the record----
Senator Warner. Thank you.
The Chairman [continuing]. As if read in full, Senator.
But, let me just say to you, we're elected politicians, you're
now a statesman, so we want to hear what you have to say.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Well, don't count me out. I might try to
get reelected to something. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, if you'd follow Senator Specter's
example, we'll welcome that. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I thought long and hard about what I wanted
to say today, and I'm going to--in a few sentences--yeah,
sure--in a few sentences, I'm going to summarize what I will
cover extemporaneously and briefly.
I look upon the challenge before this committee--and I
don't say this in any disrespect to my former colleagues on the
other committees--but you have got to be the leaders, for this
reason: This is one of the most complex issues that's ever been
faced by the Congress of the United States. The ramifications
are multifold. We're talking about emitters. It's almost every
business--except the smaller ones, that are exempted--every
business--manufacturing, transportation, everything in our
country. Enormous consequences to our impact. We're talking
about a cap-and-trade system, and the magnitude of that could
well exceed the current markets we have for the New York Stock
Exchange over the counter, the NASDAQ, and the like. This is
huge. And, this committee's role--I say it--it's like
fashioning and forging the axle, the centerpiece around which
all the other issues and parts and spokes rotate. And it's
essential--I hope that this Congress can reconcile its
differences, find a common ground, provide a bipartisan
solution to this issue, and put it in legislative form, that,
No. 1, can be understood and accepted by the general public,
because the weight of this issue is going to be on their backs
and on their pocketbooks, and they've got to understand it.
Then the key to your forging this axle is working with the
other nations to adopt policies, commitments, and then,
eventually, ``binding targets,'' the term used by the Indian
Prime Minister the other day. And, that's got to be a structure
that's got to work, and not just serve America, but to serve
the global community. Because the whole world, no matter where
the people are, are affected by this situation.
So, your job is to work with the other committees. And I
want to now commend Senator Reid and other leaders who have
decided to take the several committees, synthesize their views,
and bring to the floor a bill. Senator Lieberman, for whom I
have tremendous respect and affection--we were loners, we did
have Chairman Boxer, of that committee, who gave us the
support--but I, as you well know, Senator Lugar, was the only
Republican on that committee that signed on. I don't say that
in derogation of my colleagues at all. It's just factual
history. And, when we got to the floor, the rest is history.
But, we did lay a landmark. As we say in the Marines, we
laid a beachhead. By the way, this is quite a Navy team, you
know. One, two, three sailors--four, five up there--I don't
know about the rest of you, but anyway, we laid a beachhead and
the rest is history. You know what the House has done, and
you're beginning to comprehend what the Senate--but, I come
back--the United States, hopefully, with the support of the
Congress, having forged a legislation, with your leadership,
can go to the international conference in Copenhagen, and
become a leader, and step out in front, and take the position
which we must take.
Now, that's, in simplicity, what I have to say. But, I'll
add this. It's my judgment that if we do those steps and give
this thing an honest chance, and the rest of the community join
us, the American public will go with you. But, if the American
public, in a year or two, perceive that we're going it alone in
the United States, and that the other nations of citizens
aren't bearing part of their responsibilities and the burden
and the cost, the American pub-
lic could pull a plug on this legislation. That's--I don't mean
to threaten--but, I have been around a little while, and I'm
out on the hustings now, with my good friend, General--Admiral
McGinn down here, speaking to people and listening very
carefully.
Just for the purposes of ethics, I've got to point out that
I'm now a partner in my old law firm, Hogan & Hartson. I left
there 37 years ago to be Under Secretary of the Navy, and they
kindly took me back. I'm also working on behalf of the Pew
National Trust--Charitable Trust, and particularly the Pew
Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate. I work
exclusively with the executive branch. I do not do anything
with regard to the Congress, to comply with title 18, section
207, but that title enables me, at your invitation, to testify,
and that is what I do today. But, my remarks are those of my
own and not necessarily of the law firm or the clients that I
represent.
We've tried, at Pew, to bring together the concept--which
is not originated with Pew; the other colleagues have--in their
testimony, will give you the background. And it's--I view this
thing as a tripod. It rests on climate change, on our future
energy policy, and national security. And it's on that
foundation that we've got to build this international
relationship--and you forge that axle of the finest strength
that you can possibly make it--around which all the other
decisions have got to eventually be made.
Now, you pointed out very clearly, both of you, that our
U.S. military could be drawn into these conflicts as a
consequence of the instability their nations are now
experiencing, and that instability can be further destabilized
by the consequences of climate change, water shortage--whether
that be climate or otherwise--energy, and the like. So, we're
really talking about the men and women in uniform of our U.S.
military.
Now, I was interested--yesterday, the Secretary of Defense
said he's got to increase the size of the U.S. Army. The
decision--were I here, I would support it wholeheartedly,
because they're stretched, their families are stretched, and
they have done valiantly under the concept of the All-Volunteer
Force. And you, Senator Kerry, were in the military at the time
we adopted the All-Volunteer Force. You came in, I think, at
the time we had the draft. You weren't drafted--you got----
The Chairman. That's correct.
Senator Warner [continuing]. Volunteers. But, that All-
Volunteer Force is fragile, like everything else in life. But,
it has withstood a tremendous stress of times, here, with two
very significant combat actions we're in right now.
So, as we progress today, let's think of the men and women
in uniform and their families, whose missions, today, tomorrow,
and in the future, could be definitely affected by global
climate change, energy shortages, and the like.
I was very proud to work with a number of people--Secretary
of Defense Gates has spoken on this; ADM Denny Blair, colleague
of ours in the Navy, has spoken on the need for this; a number
of Active-Duty--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has spoken on the
necessity of this, and many retired, of which you referred to--
the chair and the ranking member. So, I will not go into those
statements.
But, I do want to go back, tell a little personal story
about how I got into this thing, because when I was chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, it really wasn't on my scope.
But, I remember you, Senator Kerry. You used to convene
meetings in S-207, with terrible sandwiches, I remember----
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner [continuing]. And you'd bring in energy
experts, other experts, to tell us what was coming. That was 5
or 6 years ago, you were looking at this issue. And I commend
you. And I got interested. I went to those luncheons and
receptions that we had and listened to the private sector,
largely, tell us what was coming. And, sure enough, it's here
today. So, that was one way I got started.
And then, I listened to your opening statement and that
short story. In 1943, I was getting ready to go into the Navy.
My father had been in World War I in the trenches as a medical
doctor, and he said, ``You haven't really had a man's job. Go
get one. I'll pay your way, anywhere in the United States, but
you've got to get enough money to get home or you're going to
stay there.''
So, in those days, youngsters didn't have a chance to
travel like they do today, so I got the longest train ride I
could get. And I got a job with the U.S. Fire Service in Coeur
d'Alene, ID, as a firefighter and a trailblazer. So, I went out
there. And the point is, we were taken back into those
absolutely magnificent pristine forests, where we worked. And
we fought fires, and indeed, personal risk is firefighting, I
assure you. Not an easy job. And it's etched in my mind, the
magnificence of that forest.
Fast-forwarding, about 5 years ago I went to Coeur d'Alene
to give a speech, and I asked the Fire Service to take me back
up there. And, Senator Kerry, I saw exactly what that Governor
of Colorado told you. Those very trees and forests, among which
I lived for 3 months with those other fellows in 1943, are
decimated, dead, dying, because of that bark beetle and the
lack of severity--the normal severity of the winter season to
curtail their propagation. That is my example. So, those two
things got me into this thing.
Now, in 2007, I was privileged, as a member of the Armed
Services Committee--with Senator Clinton--and, the two of us--
she, largely--initiated the first statute for the Pentagon to
begin to look to future missions and roles as affected by
climate change and energy. And I've attached that statute to
this text I'm delivering here today, and it directs the
Department of Defense, in its planning, to begin to plan to
take on these added missions. Now, the severity of those
missions, the complexity, and the stress on the Armed Forces is
directly correlated to how much we can achieve or not achieve,
now and tomorrow, by way of reducing greenhouse gases and the
cause for this instability throughout the world.
I won't go into the instability situation, because I want
to defer to this panel. Having had the opportunity to resonate
my voice in this Chamber many times, I think their first time,
and I'm going to yield a good deal of my time to them.
But, I do strongly suggest that we take the lead and step
out in Copenhagen. And the work that you do here, in putting
that axle together, will largely depend on the success there.
The other thing I would recommend--and this is slightly
afield of what--the jurisdiction of this committee--but, I
would hope that maybe the Armed Services Committee and the
Intelligence Committees could be invited to look at this
legislation, being formulated by distinguished Leader Reid, and
see whether or not they could also participate, because it
directly relates to what we're speaking, today, and they have
jurisdictions over the welfare of the men and women of the
Armed Forces.
I think, Mr. Chairman, for the moment, I will conclude,
yield the floor to these distinguished colleagues over here,
and then rejoin in the question period.
I thank the members of the committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Warner, Former U.S. Senator,
Alexandria, VA
Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, members of this committee, many of my
longtime friends and colleagues, thank you for the invitation to
provide this important committee with my thoughts on the pressing
issues of a new energy future, global climate change, and the potential
consequences to national security, of not only the United States, but
the security of nations worldwide.
Since retiring from the Congress on January 3, I have been
fortunate to join, as a partner, the firm Hogan and Hartson, where I
started my legal career many years ago. I am honored to be working with
the Pew Charitable Trusts on the Pew Project on National Security,
Energy and Climate. However, today, the views that I offer are mine
alone.
The Pew Project brings together science and military experts to
examine new strategies for combating climate change, protecting our
national security, increasing our energy independence and preserving
our Nation's natural resources. Pew provides this information and
outreach to the general pubic.
I spent 30 years in the U.S. Senate working on behalf of our men
and women in uniform serving our country; in my last years, on issues
related to the potential impact of climate changes on their future
military roles and missions. Leading military, intelligence, and
security experts have publically spoken out that if left unchecked,
global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in
already fragile regions of the world.
If we ignore these facts, we do so at the peril of our national
security and increase the risk to those in uniform who serve our
Nation. It is for this reason that I firmly believe the United States
must take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Other
nations are moving ahead and the United States must join and step to
the forefront.
With the Pew Project, I am working with State and municipal
governments, the administration, local organizations, and military,
security, and climate experts in the United States to address the
climate-energy-national security nexus. And I hope this work will
educate the American public on these potential risks to our national
security posed by global climate change.
Just last week, the Pew Project went to Missouri where we held two
fora, one in St. Louis and one in Kansas City, examining the link
between national security, energy and climate change. Tomorrow, I
travel with the Pew Project to Charleston, SC, for similar events, and
later in the summer and early in the fall, we are slated to visit the
States of Michigan, Virginia, and Indiana. Your witness today, retired
VADM Dennis McGinn travels with me and is a most articulate, credible
spokesman on the threats climate change and our energy policies pose to
national security.
In my 30 years in the U.S. Senate, I have not seen an issue as
complicated as the challenges posed by national security, energy, and
climate change.
As the committee well knows, in the last Congress, I was privileged
to work with an extraordinarily capable legislator, Senator Joe
Lieberman--and with the chairman and members of the Senate Environment
Committee--to produce the only climate change bill to reach the Senate
floor.
Even before I teamed up with Senator Lieberman, this issue had my
attention. I was privileged to serve for many years as the chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee. In 2007, I was pleased, as a
senior member of the Armed Services Committee, to cosponsor with then-
Senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a provision in the fiscal
year 2008 defense reauthorization bill that would require the
Department of Defense to consider the effects of climate change on
department facilities, capabilities, and missions. This provision,
signed into law, requires future periodic revisions of long-range
national strategic plans to take account of the impact on U.S.
interests of global climate change.
Secretary Clinton and I included this language in the annual
defense bill because we recognized at that time the strategic, social,
political and economic consequences climate change could have on
political instability in parts of the world.
Accordingly, I firmly believe that the challenge before us is to
build a foundation resting on three legs: Energy, climate change, and
national security. Eventual success requires all three legs to remain
equally strong.
I want to credit the many national security experts who have
expressed their concerns, which I share. Many senior retired officers,
from all branches of our services, including my friend and thought
partner, VADM Dennis McGinn, have come forward and joined in the public
debate, expressing clearly their views in support of action on climate
change.
One extraordinary solider, the former Chief of Staff of the United
States Army, GEN Gordon Sullivan, who chaired the Military Advisory
Board of the Center for Naval Analysis, succinctly framed what we face:
``The cold war was a specter, but climate change is inevitable. If we
keep on with business as usual, we will reach a point where some of the
worst effects are inevitable . . . back then, the challenge was to stop
a particular action. Now the challenge is to inspire a particular
action. We have to act if we are to avoid the worst effects.''
Today our Nation and much of the world is in the grips of an
economic crisis without precedent. The brave men and women of our Armed
Forces and that of other nations are engaged in two wars.
Understandably there is a measure of legitimate fear in our hearts as
to whether we should undertake at this time such an enormous and
uncertain challenge as posed by the issues before us in this hearing.
But I say, in the spirit of the generations, which showed the courage
to find solutions to move our country forward, that it is our duty to
replace fear with confidence.
We as a nation can do it again, provided we come up with sound
solutions; solutions that can be understood and made acceptable to the
American people. This is for the benefit of their children and
grandchildren.
Our President has shown courage and committed to work with the
Congress on this matter, and I hope the resulting legislation will rest
on the tripod that I have described. Such action will lay the
groundwork for the United States to go to Copenhagen in December as a
leader.
When I testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee
earlier this year, I suggested that climate legislation should
incorporate a specific role--equal to other departments and agencies--
to the Department of Defense and the Intelligence agencies. They bring
to this issue a very different and critical perspective, but also vast
knowledge and resources to get this job done.
Looking back, we should have included such language in the
Lieberman-Warner bill. We could have garnered more support. A
reasonable objective analysis of polling data today shows that the
American public is motivated toward action on climate change by the
likelihood that more jobs will be created and our national security
strengthened.
To be specific, in the arena of national security, one of the most
critical components is maintaining stability in the world.
Many factors can lead to instability. To name a few associated with
global climate change: Severe droughts, excessive sea level rise,
erratic storm behavior, deteriorating glaciers, pestilence, shift in
agriculture ranges.
These factors can result in water wars, crop failures, famine,
disease, mass migration of people across borders, and destruction of
vital infrastructure, all of which can further lead to failed nations,
rise in extremist behavior, and increased threat of terrorism. Much of
this is likely to happen in areas of the world that are already on the
brink of instability. In other words, climate change is a ``threat
multiplier'' making worse the problems that already exist.
Global climate change has the potential, if left unchecked, of
adding missions to the already heavy burdens of our military and other
elements of our Nation's overall national security.
To the extent we can plan today how best to minimize these
contingent disasters means, the less we may have to call upon our Armed
Forces tomorrow.
Whose military is best equipped, most capable to help with the
evacuation of distressed areas? Who is going to be called upon to
intervene in such humanitarian disasters? The United States military
will be called to action. Such action will not only bear financial
costs to our military, and thus our taxpayers, it will divert resources
and troops from other areas of the world.
For those volatile nations that are not capable of dealing with the
pressures of climate change, governments can fail and extremism and
terrorism can fill the void.
In 2007, the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of the Center for Naval
Analysis, a nonprofit think tank, issued a report titled ``National
Security and the Threat of Climate Change.'' The MAB is comprised of
many of the most distinguished and highest ranking retired military
leaders in the United States. They made several of the conclusions I
have shared with you in today's remarks. To quote from that report, in
the words of ADM T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.), ``You have very real
changes in natural systems that are most likely to happen in regions of
the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.''
Delaying action on global climate change will exacerbate these
threat multiplying effects and will cost the United States more in the
long run. The difference is that these later costs will not only be
economic; there will be a human cost.
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 United States cannot and should not wait
for other countries to take the lead. Certainly it is our desire to
have all nations commit to economywide emissions targets; however, that
policy may not be practical at this time. This reality must not be a
basis for delaying the United States from stepping forward to take a
greater leadership role.
Our international position must be to encourage developing nations
to adopt a framework of policy commitments for a national program.
These commitments could include sustainable forestry, renewable energy,
and other programs that achieve emission reductions.
There is a critical role for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in the development of our domestic legislative program and our
international leadership role toward crafting an international treaty.
To foster early international participation, our domestic climate
change program must provide for robust international offsets. Until
advanced technologies become commercially available, we must take
advantage of low-cost, readily available emission reduction
opportunities wherever they are, which today often means in other
countries.
International offsets provide the best chance to slow tropical
deforestation and are a critical component of our domestic challenge to
reduce compliance costs, Analysis from EPA and in nongovernmental
analysis shows domestic compliance costs are dramatically reduced with
the availability of international offsets. By purchasing emission
reductions made abroad, U.S. companies save money, save jobs, and
foster critical relationships in developing nations.
Climate change is a global problem that demands a global solution.
But the United States is uniquely positioned to be a strong leader in
the effort to reduce greenhouse gases, while also putting safeguards in
place to protect our economy, jobs, and national security.
______
Public Law 110-181, Sec. 951. Department of Defense Consideration of
Effect of Climate Change on Department Facilities, Capabilities, and
Missions
(a) Consideration of Climate Change Effect.--Section 118 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(g) Consideration of Effect of Climate Change on Department
Facilities, Capabilities, and Missions.--(1) The first national
security strategy and national defense strategy prepared after the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 shall include guidance for military planners--
``(A) to assess the risks of projected climate change to
current and future missions of the armed forces;
``(B) to update defense plans based on these assessments,
including working with allies and partners to incorporate
climate mitigation strategies, capacity building, and relevant
research and development; and
``(C) to develop the capabilities needed to reduce future
impacts.
``(2) The first quadrennial defense review prepared after the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 shall also examine the capabilities of the armed forces to
respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular,
preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events and
other missions the armed forces may be asked to support inside the
United States and overseas.
``(3) For planning purposes to comply with the requirements of this
subsection, the Secretary of Defense shall use--
``(A) the mid-range projections of the fourth assessment
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
``(B) subsequent mid-range consensus climate projections if
more recent information is available when the next national
security strategy, national defense strategy, or quadrennial
defense review, as the case may be, is conducted; and
``(C) findings of appropriate and available estimations or
studies of the anticipated strategic, social, political, and
economic effects of global climate change and the implications
of such effects on the national security of the United States.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `national security strategy'
means the annual national security strategy report of the President
under section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
404a).''.
(b) Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that
subsection (g) of section 118 of title 10, United States Code, as added
by subsection (a), is implemented in a manner that does not have a
negative impact on the national security of the United States.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. And
that's an excellent suggestion, which we will follow up on with
respect to the formulation of the amalgamated bill.
Admiral Gunn.
STATEMENT OF VADM LEE F. GUNN, USN (RET.), PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
SECURITY PROJECT, WASHINGTON, DC
Admiral Gunn. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the
committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
before you today to share my assessment of the national
security risks facing the United States because of changes
expected in the Earth's climate.
I'd like to say a few words now, and submit a lengthier
statement for the record.
The Chairman. Absolutely. All statements will be placed in
full, and if you summarize, that's terrific.
Admiral Gunn. Mr. Chairman, this committee's attention to
the national security implications of climate change adds an
important dimension to the public debate, a piece that, in my
opinion, has been missing for too long.
Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's
climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving
the beauty of mountain glaciers; climate change is a threat to
our national security, as has been said here earlier. Taking it
head on, is about preserving our way of life.
I know that there remain some who are still not convinced
by the science of climate change. I'm convinced. Many remain to
be persuaded by science that humans are at least contributing
in important ways to the warming of the globe. I'm not in that
group, either. But, leaving aside the merits of the science,
permit me to offer this observation from my 35 years of service
in the U.S. Navy: threats and risks never present themselves
with 100-percent certainty. By the time they achieve that
level, as GEN Gordon Sullivan, former Army Chief of Staff has
observed, something bad will have happened on the battlefield.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, something bad is
happening already in our climate. Something worse will happen
if we don't act with urgency, as a nation, and as a global
community, to meet this threat.
The consequences of climate change will be found, and are
being found, around the world. New climate conditions will lead
to further human migrations and create more climate refugees,
including those crossing our own borders. The stress of changes
in the environment will increasingly weaken marginal states.
Failing states will incubate extremism.
In South Asia, the melting of Himalayan glaciers, as has
been mentioned, jeopardizes fresh water supplies, for more than
1 billion human beings. In North America, agriculture could be
disrupted by increases in temperatures and shifting weather
patterns that limit rainfall. Globally, major urban centers
could be threatened by rising sea levels.
Malaria and other tropical diseases are moving into new
areas, and outbreaks are increasing in frequency as the planet
warms and weather patterns change. As America debates climate
change, its effects threaten to undo the good work in fighting
malaria, which has benefited from this committee's leadership.
All of this is just the foretaste of a bitter cup from
which we could expect to drink, should we fail to address--
urgently--the threat posed by climate change to our national
security.
I'm here today as president of the American Security
Project, a bipartisan initiative that, more than a year ago,
identified climate change as one of the four principal national
security challenges of the 21st century.
But, the American Security Project is not the only group of
national security thinkers and operators concerned with the
threat posed by climate change. Since retiring from the Navy, I
have served as president of the Institute for Public Research
at CNA. CNA is a not-for-profit analysis-and-solutions
institution heavily involved in helping leaders understand and
deal with complex operational and public policy issues.
In 2007, CNA organized a Military Advisory Board, mentioned
by the chairman, composed of 11 retired generals and admirals.
Admiral McGinn will include in his testimony a further
discussion of that group. This Military Advisory Board
concluded unanimously, though, that climate change poses a
serious threat to America's national security. They saw changes
in the Earth's climate as--as the chairman has told us--threat
multipliers for instability in some of the most volatile
regions of the world, while also adding to tensions in regions
whose stability we now take for granted.
In 2008, the final defense national security strategy of
the Bush administration recognized climate change among key
trends that will shape U.S. defense policy in the years ahead.
Additionally, the National Intelligence Council completed its
own assessment last year of the threat posed by climate change.
The national security community is rightly worried about
climate change, because of the magnitude of its expected
impacts around the globe, even in our own country.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, it's easy to get lost in the
abstractions when you talk about climate change and national
security. I'd like to reduce this to specific and practical
defense applications.
A changing and uncertain climate will, in my view, demand
we adapt to new conditions affecting: First, why we apply our
Nation's power, in all its forms, around the world; second, how
and where, specifically, our military is likely to fight and
operate; and third, the issues driving alliance relationships.
To us, it means with whom we are likely to be on the
battlefield, and will they be on our side, or will they be our
opponents.
First, why we apply power: Climate change will force
changes in why the United States fights, gives aid, supports
governments, provides assistance, and anticipates natural, and
man-made disasters. It will do so because climate change
threatens unrest and extremism as competition for dwindling
resources, especially water, spreads. Weak or poorly
functioning governments will lose credibility and support of
their citizens. Under these conditions, extremists will
increasingly find willing recruits.
In particular, climate change will certainly expand the
number of humanitarian relief and disaster assistance
operations facing the international community. America's men
and women in uniform will be called on increasingly to help in
these operations directly and to support the operations of
legitimate governments and nongovernmental organizations,
alike.
To how we fight: Climate change will force changes in how
we operate our forces around the world. Changes will affect
ground operations and logistics, as well as operations at sea
and in the air. Sea-level rise threatens large investments in
U.S. facilities around the world. Desertification and shifts in
the availability of water can change logistics patterns
drastically for all our forces.
As was mentioned earlier, the British Indian Ocean
Territory, the island of Diego Garcia, is a critical staging
facility for United States and British naval and air forces
operating in the Middle East and Central Asia. It sits just a
few feet above sea level at its highest point. Rising sea
levels may swamp a part of Diego Garcia, and deny the United
States this critical operating hub for its Armed Forces. There
are myriad other examples of contingencies for which our
national security team must prepare.
These challenges are not insurmountable, but they will be
expensive, as Senator Warner has suggested, to address, and
have to be thought through carefully, lest they impact
readiness. In any case, confronting changes in the military's
operating environment and mission set may lead to somewhat
different decisions about U.S. force structure, in my opinion.
Consider that it takes 20 or more years to build a new aircraft
for the U.S. Air Force or for the Navy, and that Navy ships are
designed to last 30 to 50 years. With these extended
timeframes, a basing structure secure from threats posed by
climate, as well as more traditional foes, is a real national
security consideration. We must anticipate new and revised
missions for our military forces, and factor those into our
calculations of the consequences of climate change for
America's national security.
Then to alliances: The Arctic is a prime example of how
alliances will be forced to adapt to the realities of climate
change. Just a few years ago, the scientific community, as the
chairman said, was predicting that the Arctic wouldn't be ice-
free until the middle of the century. Now the predictions put
that date at 2013.
In the Arctic, the loss of sea ice has caused concern for
the U.S. Navy for nearly a decade. What naval planners know is
that loss of sea ice at the North Pole has the potential to
increase commercial and military activity by other powers. As
if we needed any evidence of this, look no further than the
2007 expedition by Russia--to plant its flag in the seabed at
the North Pole. Not surprisingly, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and
the United States, all nations bordering on the Arctic,
responded critically to Russia's actions.
New climate conditions, new geographic realities, changes
in economic and commercial circumstances, and pressures of
migrating populations, all will test old alliances. Some
changes may create new international friendships, on the other
hand, friendships that will depend on America's ability to help
smooth the turmoil associated with those climate changes.
Supporting other nations' successes will continue to be an
important part of our military's role in U.S. national
security.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, we at the American Security
Project have also thought about the regional impacts of climate
change on our security. I would like to submit some of our
ideas about the security implications of those regional effects
as part of my written statement, for the record.
The Chairman. It will be put in the record.
Admiral Gunn. I would like to close with one final thought.
Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United
States of America. But, if we respond appropriately, I believe
we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst
climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy
revolution.
This spring, a second CNA Military Advisory Board--which,
again, Admiral McGinn will address, as an esteemed member of
that board--reported on a year-long consideration of energy and
security issues. The report, entitled ``Powering America's
Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security,'' suggests
strongly that national security, linked to energy security and
economic growth, which undergird all of our Nation's power, can
be achieved by taking action now, to avert the worst
consequences of climate change.
It is for all these reasons, taken in their totality, that
the American Security Project will be launching a major
initiative in the coming months, to analyze and educate the
public about the national security implications of these
threats. We will be convening national security and climate
change experts from around the country. We'll be talking to
corporate leaders who see the business case for action, and we
will be working hard to continue the work you have already
begun to educate the general public on the dire consequences of
inaction.
The imperative, then, is for leadership and action on a
global scale. The United States must act. The United States
must lead.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Gunn follows:]
Prepared Statement of VADM Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.), President, American
Security Project, Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to share my assessment
of the national security risks facing the United States because of
changes expected in the Earth's climate.
I'd like to say a few words now and submit a lengthier statement
for the record.
Mr. Chairman, this committee's attention to the national security
implications of climate change adds an important piece to the public
debate--a piece that, in my opinion, has been missing for too long.
Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is
not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of
mountain glaciers. Climate change is a threat to our national security.
Taking it head on is about preserving our way of life.
I know that there remain some who are still not convinced by the
science of climate change. I am convinced. Many remain to be persuaded
by science that humans are at least contributing in important ways to
the warming of the globe. I am not in that group either. But leaving
aside the merits of the science, permit me to offer this observation
from my 35 years of service in the United States Navy: Threats and
risks never present themselves with 100 percent certainty. By the time
they achieve that level, as GEN Gordon Sullivan, former Army Chief of
Staff, has observed, something bad will have happened on the
battlefield.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, something bad is happening
already in our climate. Something worse will happen if we don't act
with urgency--as a nation and as a global community--to meet this
threat.
The consequences of climate change will be found, and are being
found now around the world. New climate conditions will lead to further
human migrations and create more climate refugees, including those who
cross our own borders. The stress of changes in the environment will
increasingly weaken marginal states. Failing states will incubate
extremism.
In South Asia, the melting of Himalayan glaciers jeopardizes fresh
water supplies for more than 1 billion human beings. In North America,
agriculture could be disrupted by increases in temperatures and
shifting weather patterns that limit rainfall. Globally, major urban
centers could be threatened by rising sea levels.
Malaria and other tropical diseases are moving into new areas and
outbreaks are increasing in frequency as the planet warms and weather
patterns change. As America debates climate change, its effects
threaten to undo the good work in fighting malaria which has benefited
from this committee's leadership.
All of this is just the foretaste of a bitter cup from which we can
expect to drink should we fail to address, urgently, the threat posed
by climate change to our national security.
I am here today as the President of the American Security Project--
a bipartisan initiative that, more than a year ago, identified climate
change as one of four principal national security challenges in the
21st century.
But the American Security Project is not the only group of national
security thinkers and operators concerned with the threat posed by
climate change. Since retiring from the Navy, I have served as
President of the Institute for Public Research at CNA. CNA is a not-
for-profit analysis and solutions institution heavily involved in
helping leaders understand and deal with complex operational and public
policy issues.
In 2007, CNA organized a Military Advisory Board composed of 11
retired generals and admirals (Admiral McGinn has reported/will report
on that Board's views) who concluded unanimously that climate change
poses a serious threat to America's national security. They saw changes
in the Earth's climate as a ``threat multiplier'' for instability in
some of the most volatile regions of the world, while also adding to
tensions in regions whose stability we now take for granted.
In 2008, the final National Defense Strategy of the Bush
administration recognized climate change among key trends that will
shape U.S. defense policy in the years ahead. Additionally, the
National Intelligence Council completed its own assessment last year of
the threat posed by climate change.
The national security community is rightly worried about climate
change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the
globe, even in our own country.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, it is easy to get lost in abstraction
when we talk about climate change and national security. I'd like to
reduce this to specific and practical defense implications. A changing
and uncertain climate will, in my view, demand we adapt to new
conditions affecting:
Why we apply our Nation's power (in all its forms), around
the world;
How and where specifically our military is likely to have to
fight;
The issues driving alliance relationships (and whom are we
likely to find on our side on the battlefield).
why we apply power
Climate change will force changes in ``why'' the United States
fights, gives aid, supports governments, provides assistance, and
anticipates natural and man-made disasters. It will do so because
climate change threatens unrest and extremism as competition for
dwindling resources, especially water, spreads. Weak or poorly
functioning governments will lose credibility and the support of their
citizens. Under these conditions, extremists will increasingly find
willing recruits.
In particular, climate change will certainly expand the number of
humanitarian relief and disaster assistance operations facing the
international community. America's men and women in uniform will be
called on increasingly to help in these operations directly and to
support the operations of legitimate governments and nongovernmental
organizations alike.
how we fight
Climate change will force change in how we operate our forces
around the world; changes will effect ground operations and logistics
as well as operations at sea and in the air. Sea level rise threatens
large investments in U.S. facilities around the world. Desertification
and shifts in the availability of water can change logistic patterns
drastically for all our forces.
The British Indian Ocean Territory, the island of Diego Garcia is a
critical staging facility for U.S. and British naval and air forces
operating in the Middle East and Central Asia. It sits just a few feet
above sea level at its highest point. Rising sea levels may swamp Diego
Garcia and deny the United States this critical operating hub for its
Armed Forces. There are myriad other examples of contingencies for
which our national security team must prepare.
These challenges are not insurmountable. But they will be expensive
to address and have to be thought through carefully lest they impact
readiness. In any case, confronting changes in the military's operating
environment and mission set may lead to somewhat different decisions
about U.S. force structure, in my opinion. Consider that it takes 20 or
more years to build a new aircraft for the U.S. Air Force or Navy and
that Navy ships are designed to last 30 to 50 years. With these
extended timeframes, a basing structure secure from threats posed by
climate as well as more traditional foes is a real national security
consideration. We must anticipate new and revised missions for our
military forces and factor those into our calculations of the
consequences of climate change for America's national security.
alliances
The Arctic is a prime example of how alliances will be forced to
adapt to the realities of climate change. Just a few years ago, the
scientific community was predicting that the Arctic wouldn't be ice-
free until the middle of this century. Now the predictions put that
date at 2013; just 4 years from now.
In the Arctic, the loss of sea ice has caused concern in the U.S.
Navy for nearly a decade. What naval planners know is that loss of sea
ice at the North Pole has the potential to increase commercial and
military activity by other powers. As if we needed any evidence of
this, look no further than the 2007 expedition by Russia to plant its
flag in the seabed at the North Pole. Not surprisingly, Canada, Norway,
Denmark, and the United States--all nations bordering on the arctic--
responded critically to Russia's actions.
New climate conditions, new geographic realities, changes in
economic and commercial circumstances, and pressures of migrating
populations; all will test old alliances. Some changes may create new
international friendships that will depend on America's ability to help
smooth the turmoil associated with those changes. Supporting other
nations' successes will continue to be an important part of our
military's role in U.S. national security.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, we at the American Security Project
have also thought about the regional impacts of climate change on our
security. I would like to submit some of our ideas about the security
implications of those regional effects as part of my written statement
for the record.
I would like to close with one final thought.
Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United
States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will
enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change
impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution.
It is for all of these reasons, taken in their totality, that the
American Security Project will be launching a major initiative in the
coming months to analyze and educate the public about the national
security implications of these threats. We will be convening national
security and climate change experts from around the country, we'll be
talking to corporate leaders who see the business case for action, and
we will be working hard to continue the work you've already begun to
educate the general public on the dire consequences of inaction.
This spring a second CNA Military Advisory Board (covered more
completely by one of its esteemed members, Admiral McGinn) reported on
a year-long consideration of energy and security issues. The report,
entitled ``Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to National
Security,'' suggests strongly that national security, linked to energy
security and economic growth, which undergird all of our Nation's
power, can be achieved by taking action now to avert the worst
consequences of climate change.
The imperative, then, is for leadership and action on a global
scale. The United States must act. The United States must lead.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Admiral. Important
testimony, and we appreciate it very much.
Ms. Burke.
STATEMENT OF SHARON BURKE, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR A NEW
AMERICAN SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Burke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar.
It's obviously a great honor for me to be here on behalf of
my colleagues from the Center for a New American Security. And
it's also a great honor because we consider this hearing a sign
of important progress. This hearing is looking at climate
change in a bipartisan way by people with such sterling defense
credentials. It's a great leap forward. And, Senator Warner, I
wish to reassure you that my father was a Marine, so I have a
right to be part of the naval hegemony today. [Laughter.]
My testimony is going to focus on three reasons why it's so
important to characterize climate change as a national security
challenge. And, of those three, first I would say, most simply
because the world is changing, the strategic environment is
changing. Second, because there is a direct relationship
between climate change and security. And finally, because of
the ways in which national security will be part of the
solution as we figure out how to go forward.
So, first, the world is changing--the global strategic
environment is changing. The Center for a New American Security
is looking at what we're calling ``natural security,'' or the
ways in which natural resources constitute national security
challenges. The modern global economy depends on access to
energy, minerals--nonfuel minerals--potable water, and arable
land to meet the rising expectations of growing world
populations. And that access is by no means assured. In some
cases, we're not even sure how vulnerable the global supply
chains are. At the same time, increasing consumption of these
resources has consequences, such as climate change, which will
challenge the security of the United States and nations all
over the world. Therefore, natural security ultimately means
sufficient, reliable, affordable, and sustainable supplies of
natural resources for the modern global economy.
Now, in this context, resource challenges are important,
but so are the connections among resource challenges. So,
consider, for example, that the United States, as we attempt to
address the inherent geostrategic weakness of our reliance on
oil, some of the proposed solutions may just swap in other
vulnerabilities and dependencies. For example, substituting
coal for oil would affect climate change consequences. Ethanol
affects food prices, which have helped provoke unrest over the
last few years in some 40 countries. Plug-in electric or hybrid
vehicles, with current technologies, often depend on lithium,
but consider that lithium is also a resource with very
concentrated supply. Bolivia, for example, has more than 50
percent of global reserves of lithium. Solar photovoltaic
panels may require minerals, such as gallium, for which the
United States is 99 percent dependent on imports. And, we don't
even know how much gallium there is in the world. Although, we
do know that China supplies almost 40 percent of current United
States consumption.
At the same time, there are ways in which conservation,
water rights negotiations, and other environmental strategies
can complement and enhance national security strategies, and
ways in which national security strategies are unlikely to
succeed without addressing such concerns. And I think we're
seeing that right now in the economic development component of
our strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, as a natural security concern, climate change, in
particular, is going to be important as a national security
concern. Climate change will affect national security in the
very broadest sense, including economic growth, trade
partnerships, the security of international shipping lanes,
social stability, and international terrorism. More narrowly,
global climate change may spur sudden-onset and slow-onset
disasters. ``Sudden'' being hurricanes and floods, for example,
and ``slow'' being such phenomena as droughts and famines. This
will happen around the world, which leads to humanitarian
crises that will require military and other governmental
responses.
Climate change will alter the military operating
environment, as well, requiring advance planning and ongoing
reevaluation of operating conditions.
But, climate-change national-security missions may go
beyond the humanitarian and disaster relief missions that we've
heard about today in this hearing, and I think a good case in
point is Somalia. Drought, famine, and other climate-related
stressors there, which may or may not be a result of global
climate change, have played a part in the disintegration of
that country. As part of the resulting chaos, U.S. forces have
been attacking terrorist positions within the country,
including al-Qaeda affiliates; they've been escorting
humanitarian convoys; they've been countering piracy off the
coast--which has been in the papers a great deal. But, they've
also been assisting regional neighbors in dealing with the
destabilizing effects of violence, refugee movements, and arms
trafficking. So, the national security community may well have
a direct role to play in any of these areas.
But, there are other ways that our community will be part
of the solutions--of climate change solutions. First, as the
United States struggles with how to cut emissions of greenhouse
gases 80 percent by 2050, the defense community will be
critical. DOD is the single largest energy consumer in the
Nation, as you mentioned, Senator Lugar; and although there is
no single measure of the Department's carbon footprint, there's
no question that it's one of the world's largest emitters of
greenhouse gases. Also, the size of the Department's budget and
its extensive need, both for transportation fuels and for
electricity, but also for information, this creates a very
important demand pull.
And, by information I mean that as the Department of
Defense plans for military operations for humanitarian and
disaster relief or for contingencies such as those in Somalia,
Department planners will need certain kinds of information
about what the trends are--the demographic trends, the security
trends. And, to date, to the extent that groups such as mine
have looked at how the United States will adapt to expected
climate changes, that kind of information has not been
available because there's been no demand for it. So, the
Department has a very important role to play in providing a
demand signal for information, as well as for innovation.
Now, the United States also has a range of capabilities
that no other nation has. And we've heard about the
humanitarian and disaster relief missions today in this
hearing. Consider that the 2004 tsunami relief, and the
conditions that devastated Indonesia, to get a sense of the
scale involved in such efforts. The Department of Defense
logged more than 10,000 flight hours and transported more than
24 million pounds of relief supplies and equipment to the
devastated areas. Men and women from every service--the Navy,
Marines, the Army, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard--
participated in that relief effort. There is no other nation
that can do this. We are the only nation that has these
capabilities, and that will come into play, going forward.
I think the national security community is also in a very
strong position to advocate for the value of preparedness, of
resilience, of a greater investment in everything from stronger
flood control to better governance in weak states. And that
will be an important part of the response, going forward, as
well.
More generally, one of the important roles that the
military has to play is that, in poll after poll, the military
is the most trusted institution in this country. Public
recognition by defense and military officials that climate
change is a threat and something that we have to take
seriously, as well as other natural resources challenges, will
help Americans more properly understand the nature of the
challenge we're facing. So, these gentlemen at the table today,
Senator Warner, Vice Admiral Gunn, and Vice Admiral McGinn,
they have a very important role to play in bringing the country
along.
Indeed, I think, looking forward, that the consequences of
climate change, the global consequences, are likely to entail
some very hard choices for the United States in how and where
and when to respond with humanitarian assistance and military
assets, as well as the aid that will promote resilience to
climate changes. And this is not going to be limited to global
contingencies. We've had hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, and
are likely to have more wildfires in Colorado, as a result of
what Governor Ritter told you, Senator Kerry, about the damage
to forests there from the pine beetle. We've seen these
contingencies here at home in recent years, and in many
instances, we've needed the National Guard and Reserves, and,
in some cases, Active-Duty Forces to respond at home, as well.
At some point in the near future, the Nation is going to
need guidance from the Commander in Chief and the National
Command Authority as to how we're going to deal with these
challenges, and which contingencies will require or warrant a
U.S. response and investment. And, as my organization, the
Center for a New American Security, has written extensively, we
also feel very strongly that there is a need for a national
strategy to help guide the nation through these very difficult
tradeoffs and choices that we'll be facing in the future. We've
seen some very promising signs out of this administration, that
they will be crafting such a strategy, and we sincerely hope
that this committee and Congress, both sides of the aisle, will
be involved in that process.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon Burke, Vice President for Natural
Security, Center for a New American Security, Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, on behalf of my colleagues at the
Center for a New American Security, I thank you for this opportunity to
testify on the threats, opportunities, and geostrategic challenges of
global climate change. My organization, the Center for a New American
Security, has made it part of our mission from our inception to look at
the ways in which energy and climate change affect national security,
and how to best integrate such concerns into the national security
community. So while it is certainly my honor to be here today in such
company, I and my colleagues are also greatly encouraged in our work by
this hearing. We consider this an important demonstration of the fact
that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic
challenge for the Nation by both political parties and by key military
and civilian defense leaders.
Indeed, my testimony today will focus on why it is so important to
characterize climate change as a pressing national security challenge.
First, the choices we make today, particularly the amount of energy we
choose to consume, will determine the climate consequences we will face
in the future, so this is very much about our actions right now.
Second, national security capabilities can take decades to build: we
need to design the ideas and equipment and recruit and train the
personnel to protect and defend the Nation 10 to 40 years in the
future, and it is clear that climate change will shape our future.
There is no question, of course, that climate change is not solely
a security issue--there are driving economic, environmental, and public
health concerns associated with climate change, as well, and all of
these concerns need to be addressed in tandem. There are compelling
reasons, however to focus on the intersection of national security and
climate change, which I will discuss today.
First, the global strategic environment is changing in ways
that have broad implications for U.S. security and stability,
and natural resources are an increasingly important driver in
that change. I will therefore begin my remarks by talking about
the importance of what the Center for a New American Security
calls ``natural security.''
Second, in addition to the overall strategic climate,
climate change is directly a military problem in that it will
affect the operating environment, geostrategic landscape, and
future military missions.
Finally, there are ways in which the national security
community will play an important part in addressing global
climate change.
the changing global strategic environment: the case for ``natural
security'' \1\
Over the last 2 years, CNAS has developed a body of work on the
highly intertwined national security and foreign policy implications of
energy and climate change. Indeed, as CNAS examined these questions, we
came to understand that not only are energy and climate change
inextricably linked, they are connected to challenges associated with
other natural resources, most notably nonfuel mineral supplies, water,
land use/food supply, and biodiversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This section is drawn from the Center for a New American
Security publication, ``Natural Security,'' published in June 2009,
which can be retrieved at http://www.cnas.org/node/2712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider, for example, that as the United States attempts to
address the inherent geostrategic weakness of its reliance on oil (and
the role the U.S. military, as a significant consumer of hydrocarbons,
plays in that vulnerability), some of the proposed solutions may just
swap in other dependencies, also with security consequences. There are
those who suggest we substitute coal for imported oil, and the United
States does have relatively abundant supplies of coal. Absent a major
breakthrough in carbon capture and sequestration technologies, however,
such a switch would greatly exacerbate global climate change and the
related security concerns. Another solution the Nation has invested in,
corn-based ethanol, can have implications for global food prices, which
provoked unrest in some 40 countries in the last 3 years.
Transportation, as the heart of U.S. oil supply dependency, merits
special attention, and proposed solutions include increased reliance on
plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles. Currently, such vehicles depend on
minerals such as lithium for their batteries, and these resources are
sometimes as highly concentrated as is oil (Bolivia, for example, has
more than 50 percent of global reserves of lithium). Solar photovoltaic
panels require a range of materials and minerals, such as gallium, for
which the United States is 99 percent reliant on imports, and for which
there is no information about the global reserves-to-production ratio.
And though we do not know how much gallium exists in the world, we do
know that China supplies almost 40 percent of U.S. consumption.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Research Council, ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and
the U.S. Economy, Committee on Critical Mineral Impacts of the U.S.
Economy'' (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, there are ways in which conservation, water
rights negotiations, and other environmental strategies can complement
and enhance national security strategies, and ways in which national
security strategies are unlikely to succeed without addressing such
concerns. For example, President Obama has stated repeatedly that peace
in Afghanistan will be contingent on economic, civic, and political
development as much as military successes. A 2009 UNEP report found,
however, that most of Afghanistan's natural resources are severely
degraded and that any recovery would depend on restoration of these
resources.\3\ Achieving U.S. goals in the region may well depend on our
ability to tie natural resources into national security. For that
matter, negotiations about climate change will be central to the
relationship between the United States and China going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Silja Halle, ed., ``From Conflict to Peacebuilding: The Role of
Natural Resources and the Environment,'' United Nations Environment
Programme (February 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 21st century, the security of nations will increasingly
depend on the security of natural resources, or ``natural security.''
The modern global economy depends on access to energy, minerals,
potable water, and arable land to meet the rising expectations of a
growing world population, and that access is by no means assured. At
the same time, increasing consumption of these resources has
consequences, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, which will
challenge the security of the United States and nations all over the
world. Natural security ultimately means sufficient, reliable,
affordable, and sustainable supplies of natural resources for the
modern global economy. This will require the United States to both
shape and respond to emerging natural resources challenges in a
changing strategic environment.
These concerns are not necessarily new, even in the context of
war--access to resources has always been a concern. In World War II,
for example, American civilians contributed their pots, pans, and car
tires to help the war effort, while both Allied and Axis forces
struggled with oil shortages. Today, however, strategic concerns
surrounding natural resources are set in a different context, because
the global strategic environment is increasingly different. Russia,
China, and other emerging (or reemerging) states are part of an
extraordinary rebalancing of global wealth and power, which will
characterize the 21st century, according to the National Intelligence
Council (NIC). These shifts are already evident: More people in more
places in the world are seeing improved living standards, with access
to modern technologies. More than half the world's population, for
example, now has access to a cell phone. Cell phones may displace or
supplement land lines in many parts of the world, but for millions of
people, it is the first time they have had telephone service; this
represents a wholly new and unprecedented demand for services and
materials. According to the NIC, such global shifts, taken together,
mean that by 2025 ``unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5
billion more people, will put pressure on resources--particularly
energy, food, and water--raising the specter of scarcities emerging as
demand outstrips supply.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ C. Thomas Fingar, NIC Chairman, ``Global Trends 2025: A
Transformed World,'' National Intelligence Council (November 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this new strategic environment, how nations actually define and
achieve security is changing. Indeed, there has been some concern, in
both the environmental and defense communities, about the
appropriateness of ``securitizing'' natural resources challenges such
as climate change (i.e., overusing the security framework to understand
challenges that are not at their heart about security), but that
concern is misguided. The concern, more appropriately, should be about
``militarizing'' such challenges. Climate change, for example, may not
be a threat that soldiers can attack and defeat but it is likely to
affect the safety and prosperity of every American, both through its
effects on global stability and on our local environments.
It follows, then, that if security threats are not always military
in nature that military means are not the only way to achieve security,
a point Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made repeatedly
(including explicitly about natural resources). ``The challenges
confronting our nation cannot be dealt with by military means alone,''
Gates noted in May 2009. ``They require instead whole-of-government
approaches.'' \5\ So security itself and how the Nation achieves
security are being redefined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, ``Opening Statement to
the Senate Appropriations Committee,'' (30 April 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this redefinition, it is worth considering the ways in
which ``natural security'' will shape the strategic environment and
affect U.S. foreign policy, economic, and military goals.\6\ First,
nations that consume imports of natural resources may be vulnerable to
disruptions of supplies, with broad economic and security consequences.
The United States, for example, depends on imports of many strategic
commodities, particularly oil and non-fuel minerals, for a range of
economic and defense uses. This import dependence is not in and of
itself necessarily a threat or even a challenge, and ideally is a force
for great global prosperity and stability for nations on either end of
the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ There has long been a serious debate about the depletion of
natural resources, and the ways in which ``peak oil'' and other
absolute scarcity may drive security concerns in the future and even
cause wars--or whether the adaptability of human society will render
such concerns moot. Yet that particular debate hits only one aspect of
the problem. CNAS believes that long before the debate about absolute,
geological scarcity and human adaptability is settled, there are likely
to be urgent strategic concerns about natural security. See John
Tierney, ``Betting the Planet,'' The New York Times Magazine (2
December 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Import dependence can become a strategic liability, however, when
the sources are highly concentrated, demand is rising, or substitutes
for the commodities are limited. In such circumstances, such as the
Arab oil embargo of 1973, the political and geostrategic motives or
stability of the suppliers can become a significant problem. In other
cases, countries with ample supplies can affect market dynamics and
drive out other producers; the United States, for example, has not
mined tungsten since 1995, even though the United States has 5 percent
of global tungsten reserves and imported about 10,000 metric tons in
2007. Tungsten is used in a range of applications, including important
defense applications (steel hardening and toughening). One reason for
U.S. import dependence is that the United States simply cannot compete
on pricing with China, which possesses two-thirds of the world's
tungsten reserves.\7\ In other cases, resource rich nations may choose
to use their wealth as a tool of economic and political power; Russia,
for example, has used natural gas exports to influence Ukraine, but
also Turkmenistan, Iran, Turkey, and all of western and Eastern Europe.
The Presidents of both Venezuela and Iran have explicitly linked energy
wealth to their ability to counter U.S. foreign policy goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Department of Defense, ``Reconfiguration of the National
Defense Stockpile Report to Congress,'' (April 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A complicating factor for import dependence is the lack of
information about global supply chains. Lack of reliable data on
reserves-to-production ratios for oil or natural gas can directly
affect the market. For example, markets played an amplifying role in
the oil price shock of 2007-08; at the time, it was unclear why prices
were escalating so much, so fast. In retrospect, oil production had
stagnated in the face of sharply growing Chinese demand, but it is
still unclear why production stagnated.\8\ Sharply rising oil prices
certainly played a part, and perhaps a dominant part, in the ongoing
global economic crisis, with pervasive security and stability
implications.\9\ In the case of minerals, there is uncertainty about
global supply chains. The United States, and this includes for
militarily significant systems, does not actually know if we are
vulnerable to supply disruptions of some strategically important
minerals.\10\ Planning for and managing such uncertainty can be a
security challenge. Note also that supply chains are physically
vulnerable: The entire energy supply and distribution infrastructure--
from pipelines to shipping chokepoints to the vast domestic electric
grid--is highly vulnerable to sabotage, natural disasters, and
disrepair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ James D. Hamilton, ``Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock
of 2007-2008,'' Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution, Spring 2009).
\9\ See Hamilton (2009) and Blair (25 February 2009).
\10\ National Research Council, ``Managing Materials for a Twenty
First Century Military,'' (Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration of supply can also be a problem for the supplier
nations, leading to instability in a variety of ways, including
conflict over land use between pastoralists and farmers in Darfur or
tensions over water rights in the Levant. But there is a more
fundamental way in which resources can be destabilizing, variously
described as the ``resource curse,'' the ``paradox of plenty,'' and
other terms. While commodities, such as oil and critical minerals, can
bring in significant funds, in many parts of the world these proceeds
come through state-owned companies and go directly into state coffers.
This has a tendency to promote corruption, undermine accountability,
increase vulnerability to market forces outside the country's control,
spur tension, and, in some cases, depress long-term growth. It can even
facilitate armed rebellion: As one economist has noted, ``where natural
resources abound in rural areas they are uniquely vulnerable because
they are difficult to defend, lucrative, and immobile,'' \11\ thus
attracting rogue groups and vigilantes. Even when commodity prices are
low, the ``resource curse'' can be tremendously destabilizing, as seen
with the prospects of civil unrest in Zambia in early 2009, stemming
from sharply falling copper prices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Paul Collier, ``Natural Resources, Development and Conflict:
Channels of Causation and Policy Interventions,'' Oxford University and
the World Bank (28 April 2003): 5-6.
\12\ Karin Brulliard, ``Zambia's Copperbelt Reels From Global
Crisis: Downturn in Commodities Trade Leads to Devastating Mine
Closures,'' The Washington Post (25 March 2009): A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these vulnerabilities of supply, high consumption
rates are creating other weaknesses. More countries are competing for
the same strategic resources, at a time when access to those resources
increasingly will be compromised by climate change and loss of
biodiversity. This has the potential to directly promote tension, mass
migration, and even interstate conflict, as well as more natural and
humanitarian disasters, such as last year's devastating cyclone in
Burma and the collapse of food supplies in Haiti, which led to the fall
of the government. As disaster rates rise, the U.S. military and
civilian assistance agencies are likely to be called upon increasingly
to conduct and support humanitarian and disaster relief operations,
similar to Operation UNIFIED ASSISTANCE, which responded to the Indian
Ocean tsunami. These disasters will vary in scale and location and the
United States and other developed nations will be unable to bring
relief in all cases. Social unrest and state instability may result,
which will likely increase and contribute to supply disruptions and
influence U.S. strategic priorities.
Finally, while these issues--from natural disasters to geostrategic
tensions--demonstrate the importance of natural security to the future
of the Nation, climate change in particular is what CNA has called a
``threat multiplier,'' \13\ and so warrants today's focus on how
climate change is a national security problem--and as a challenge with
national security solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The CNA Corporation, ``National Security and the Threat of
Climate Change,'' 2007, http://securityandclimate.cna.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
why climate change is a national security problem
Climate change may well be a predominant national security
challenge of the 21st century, posing a range of threats to U.S. and
international security. There will be, for example, direct threats to
the lives and property of Americans from wildfires, droughts, flooding,
severe storms, and other climate-related events. Evidence suggests
there will also be less direct, second-order effects, such as the
spread of various water- and vector-borne diseases into areas where
they do not currently flourish. At the same time, there will be
pervasive new challenges, such as that of mass migrations of threatened
populations within or into the United States as coastal regions flood
and agricultural breadbaskets shift or even disappear. Climate-induced
disasters in other parts of the world, such as East Asia or Europe, may
affect everything from crucial trade relationships to the safety of
U.S. troops and their dependents based in those regions. Indeed, the
direct effects on the military may include challenges to infrastructure
(i.e., military installations affected by droughts, wildfires, floods,
sea level rise, and cyclonic storms), the need to adjust or adapt to
changing conditions, such as longer and more pronounced heatwaves, more
pervasive and stronger storms at sea, changing undersea conditions, and
supply chain challenges for food, fuel, and water, and the rise in
climate-related missions, such as humanitarian and disaster relief.
Promoting a better understanding among military leaders of the
causes and consequences of climate change is an essential first step
for anticipating and responding to these challenges. There is still
some skepticism within the community on the definition of ``climate
change,'' and no clear picture of the defense community's role in
dealing with these issues. At the same time, many military personnel
remain ambivalent regarding the relative importance of climate change.
Some officers do perceive the security risks, or see synergies with
combating terrorism and improving the U.S. ability to project soft
power. From this perspective, American efforts to limit climate change
will engender positive benefits in terms of other U.S. national
security objectives. Other defense experts worry that increasing
defense efforts regarding climate change will lead to underfunding of
other priorities. More broadly, many feel that while climate change is
a serious danger to the United States and our global interests, it is
not primarily a military threat that can be met with military means. In
this view, insufficient civilian capacity is the major problem.
Compounding the multiplicity of these views, the way in which the
scientific community expresses ``scientific uncertainty'' can
complicate the military's response to this threat. While there are
certainly many valid and important debates about the consequences of
climate change, the way these debates translate to a military community
is that now is not the time to plan or respond, but rather to wait
until the scientists figure out whether there are near-term or long-
term consequences. There is an urgent need to communicate the science
in terms of risk management and plausible scenarios; the defense
community, after all, has spent billions of dollars building weapons
and training personnel to deal with risks and plausible threats in the
future.
By law, the Department of Defense is required to incorporate
climate change into all major assessments and planning processes, and
while this has helped create a new community of interest and expertise,
not all elements of the defense community seem equally prepared to
execute this requirement. For example, the June 2008 National Defense
Strategy offers a fairly perfunctory albeit helpful statement that
climate change and energy security need to be incorporated into
planning scenarios, but the recent Joint Operating Environment casts
doubt on whether climate change itself is real. There are regional
combatant commanders (generally those not currently engaged in combat
operations) who have begun to address climate change issues directly,
as well, but more as a platform for engagement with regional militaries
than as a national security challenge. There is no intramilitary
consensus on the future role the U.S. Armed Forces must play in
preparing for the national security implications of climate change, and
whether, or to what extent, this should affect future force structure
decisions.
why climate change has national security solutions
As climate change manifests, the United States is likely to come
under pressure from the international community in two key ways. First,
as a major, historic contributor to climate change, the United States
will be expected to take action to cut emissions. Second, nations
around the world will look to the United States for help in responding
to natural disasters, if for no other reason than that the United
States is now and is likely to remain the only nation with sufficient
capability to respond to major humanitarian and natural disasters. The
national security community will have a crucial role to play in both
areas.
First, as the United States struggles with how to cut emissions of
greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050, the defense community will be
crucial. DOD is the single largest energy consumer in the Nation,
accounting for 110 million barrels of oil and 3.8 billion kWh of
electricity in 2006, at a cost of $13.6 billion. Although there is no
single measure of the Department of Defense's ``carbon footprint,''
there is no question it is one of the world's single largest emitters.
Also, the size of the Department's budget and extensive needs for fuels
to support military missions can create a significant ``demand pull''
that can drive the research and response regarding climate change.
The U.S. national security community will also be important in
dealing with the consequences of climate change, bringing valuable
resources and capabilities (e.g., intelligence, medical, strategic
lift, and other transport) to efforts to manage the consequences of
climate change, particularly humanitarian and disaster relief missions.
The United States generally has a range of capabilities that most other
nations do not have, and no other nation has in sufficient quantities
for the contingencies currently anticipated by climate models. Within
that U.S. capability, the U.S. Department of Defense is better
resourced than many civilian agencies and more equipped to operate in
unstable or challenging environments. The 2004 tsunami that devastated
Indonesia provides a sense of the response a single disaster can
entail: DOD logged more than 10,000 flight hours and transported more
than 24 million pounds of relief supplies and equipment to the
devastated area. Men and women from every service--the Navy, Marines,
the Army, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard--participated in the
relief effort.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Pacific Command, ``DOD Relief Efforts Factsheet
Summary,'' as of February 14, 2005. Available at http://www.pacom.mil/
special/0412asia/factsheet.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change missions may go beyond humanitarian and disaster
relief, as well, with Somalia as a case in point. Climate-related
stresses, such as drought and famine, have played a part in the
disintegration of Somalia into anarchy. As part of the resulting chaos,
U.S. forces have been attacking terrorist positions within the country,
including al-Qaeda affiliates, escorting humanitarian relief convoys,
countering piracy off the coast, and assisting regional neighbors in
dealing with the destabilizing effects of refugees and arms
trafficking.
Indeed, the global consequences of climate change are likely to
entail hard choices for the United States in how and where and when to
respond with humanitarian assistance, military assets, and aid to
promote resilience. Indeed, as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ike and
recent flooding and wildfire responses have demonstrated, some of these
choices will be on the home front and will engage the National Guard,
Reserves, and Active Duty Forces. At some point, likely in the new
future, the Nation is going to need guidance from the Commander in
Chief as to which contingencies will require or warrant a U.S.
response, or investment in preparedness and resilience.
In the meantime, there are a number of actions the civilian and
military leadership of the Department of Defense can take to prepare
the Nation for a climate challenged future.
The U.S. military, according to annual polls, is the single
most trusted institution in the country. Public recognition of
the threat that climate change--and other resource challenges--
presents will help Americans more properly understand the
nature of the challenge.
The types of information the military needs in order to plan
and budget for future contingencies--such as vulnerability
assessments that layer climate projections, demographic
changes, and state fragility--may not currently exist. The raw
data may actually be available, but to date there has not been
sufficient demand for such information. The U.S. national
security community can provide a powerful demand pull in
academia, national assets, and private research institutions
for such information.
One of the key ways to address global climate change will be
through innovation, including a transformation in how the
Nation uses energy. How to stimulate such significant
innovation is an open question, however, with answers likely to
involve extensive public-private cooperation. The Department of
Defense can play an important part in this process by
stimulating and spurring innovation, although it should be
clear that this is not a question of applying defense dollars
against civilian needs, but rather solving military challenges.
The cost of fuel, the vulnerability of supply chains, and the
geostrategic realities of global energy supplies are all valid
military concerns.
Emphasize the need to invest in prevention, preparedness,
and resilience. Military responses, whether to disasters or
state failure such as that in Somalia, are expensive and put
lives at risk. To the extent that investments in state
stability and infrastructure (such as flood control or improved
irrigation) can lessen future military contingencies, DOD
leadership should advocate for and make such investments.
The national security community should participate in and
push for a refinement in the whole-of-government preparation
for and response to global climate change. For the Nation to
deal adequately with this challenge, there will need to be
strong executive leadership, bipartisan cooperation, and a
unifying national strategy. Moreover, this strategy must not
only look at energy and climate change, mitigation and
adaptation, but also at how all these issues link together.
Focus on issues of natural resources and security has waxed and
waned for several decades, but given the global development and modern
economic trends apparent today, it is a critical time for the U.S.
security community to deepen its understanding of the intersection of
natural resources and security and the connections among the various
issues involved. Climate change is a vital starting point.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Burke.
Admiral McGinn.
STATEMENT OF VADM DENNIS McGINN, USN (RET.), MEMBER, CENTER FOR
NAVAL ANALYSIS ADVISORY BOARD, LEXINGTON PARK, MD
Admiral McGinn. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the
committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to appear
before you today to share my views, which are based on 35 years
of service to our Nation in the U.S. Navy, along such great
guys as Lee Gunn and under the command of a former Secretary of
the Navy, Senator Warner.
Since early last year, I've had the privilege of serving,
with some of our Nation's most distinguished and retired
military leaders, on the CNA Military Advisory Board. This
Military Advisory Board has produced two reports. The first
examined the national security threats of climate change, and
has just been mentioned several times in previous testimony.
And the most recent analyzed the national security threats of
America's current and future energy posture.
Clearly, we are in the midst of the most serious global
financial crisis of our lifetimes. After a year of examining
our Nation's energy use, it is clear to all members of our
Military Advisory Board that our economic, energy, climate
change, and national security challenges are inextricably
linked and require comprehensive solutions.
In 2007, the report which was mentioned before, ``National
Security and the Threat of Climate Change,'' concluded that
climate change poses a ``serious threat to America's national
security,'' and acts as a ``threat multiplier for
instability.'' And this occurs in some of the world's most
volatile regions, adding tension to even stable regions,
worsening the likelihood of terrorism, and most likely dragging
the United States into conflicts over water and other critical
resource shortages.
Climate change has the potential, as has been already
mentioned, to create sustained natural and humanitarian
disasters on a scale far beyond what we see today, and at a
greater frequency. These disasters will foster political
instability, where societal demands for the essentials of life
exceed the capacity of fragile governments to cope with them.
Since that 2007 report by the Military Advisory Board, an
independent National Intelligence Estimate on global climate
change has confirmed our findings. And as you pointed out, Mr.
Chairman, there has been an acceleration in the effects of
climate change that have been documented by a whole array of
credible scientific studies.
Some, however, may look at various discussions on climate
analysis as a reason for delaying taking action. We believe
that would be the wrong path because, as has been noted before,
waiting for 100 percent certainty during a crisis can be
disastrous, especially one with the huge national security
consequences of climate change. The trends are clear and the
need for action is compelling.
It will take, as Senator Warner pointed out, the
industrialized nations to demonstrate leadership and a
willingness to change, not just to solve our current economic
problems, but to address the daunting issues of global climate
change. And here, the United States has the greatest
responsibility to lead. If we don't make changes, then others
will not. Furthermore, other nations will use our inaction as
an excuse for maintaining the status quo.
The CNA Military Advisory Board most recently examined our
national energy posture with a second report entitled,
``Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to National
Security.'' We found that America's current energy posture
constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security--
militarily, diplomatically, and economically. This latest
report finds that our energy dependence--not just on foreign
oil, but all oil; and not just oil, but all fossil fuels--posed
significant security threats to the military mission and to the
Nation. Our growing reliance on fossil fuels jeopardizes our
military and exacts a huge price tag in dollars and,
potentially, lives. We are, only now, just beginning to
understand how large that real price tag is.
Our fossil fuel dependence in the United States does the
following: undermines our moral authority in diplomacy and
weakens U.S. international leverage; entangles the United
States with hostile regimes; undermines our economic stability.
In our judgment, a business-as-usual approach constitutes a
threat to our national security from a set of converging risks.
First, a global market for fossil fuels which is shaped by
finite supplies, increasing demand, and rising costs--economic
costs and environmental costs. Second, a growing competition
and very high potential for conflict over the basics of fuel
and water resources. Third, destabilization in virtually every
part of the globe, driven by ongoing climate change. Unless we
take significant steps to prevent, mitigate, and adapt, climate
change will lead to an increase in conflicts in many strategic
regions.
It is in this context, a world shaped by climate change and
competition for fossil fuels, that the United States must make
new energy choices. We call on the President and Congress to
make achieving energy security in a carbon-constrained world a
top priority. It requires moving away from fossil fuels and
diversifying our energy portfolio with low-carbon alternatives.
It requires putting a price on carbon with thoughtful and
significant action now.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, with that spirit
of opportunity foremost in mind, if we act with boldness and
vision now, future generations of Americans will look back on
this as a time when we came together as a nation and
transformed these daunting challenges and worries about energy
and climate into a better quality of life and a more secure
future for our world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral McGinn follows:]
Prepared Statement of VADM Dennis McGinn, USN, (Ret.), Member, Military
Advisory Board, CNA, Lexington Park, MD
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is
an honor to appear before you today to discuss the critically important
topics of climate change and global security. Thank you for the
opportunity to share my views which are based on over 35 years of
service to our Nation in the United States Navy and as a senior
executive involved on a daily basis with the science and technology of
energy, transportation, and the environment.
Since early last year I have had the privilege of serving with some
of our Nation's most distinguished and senior retired military leaders
on the CNA Military Advisory Board.
This board has produced two reports, the first in April 2007 and
the latest in May of this year, focused on the very topic of this
hearing. The first examined the national security threats of climate
change, and the most recent analyzed the national security threats of
America's current and future energy posture.
Before I get to the details of these reports, I have to acknowledge
the elephant in the room. We are in the midst of the most serious
global financial crisis of our lifetimes. After a year of examining our
Nation's energy use, it is clear to all members of our military board
that our economic, energy, climate change and national security
challenges are intertwined and codependent. Our past pattern of energy
use is responsible, in no small measure, for our economic situation
today. If we do not adequately address our Nation's growing energy
demand and climate change now, in wise and visionary ways, future
financial crises will most certainly dwarf this one.
And, as I will describe during this testimony, our national
security is dramatically impacted by both our energy use and climate
change.
First--the national security impacts of climate change.
In 2007, after a year-long study, the CNA Military Advisory Board
produced a report called ``National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change'' which concluded that climate change poses a ``serious threat
to America's national security,'' acting as a ``threat multiplier for
instability'' in some of the world's most volatile regions, adding
tension to stable regions, worsening terrorism and likely dragging the
United States into conflicts over water and other critical resource
shortages. On the most basic level, climate change has the potential to
create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a
frequency far beyond those we see today. The consequences of these
disasters will likely foster political instability where societal
demands for the essentials of life exceed the capacity of governments
to cope.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CNA Report on ``National Security and the Threat of Climate
Change.'' http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/
National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change
.pdf (April 16, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change is different from traditional military threats,
according to CNA Military Advisory Board member VADM Richard Truly
because it is not like ``some hot spot we're trying to handle. It's
going to happen to every country and every person in the whole world at
the same time.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Military on Climate Change.'' Washington Post (April 15,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only will global warming disrupt the environment, but its
effects will shift the world's balance of power and money.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Informed Reader column ``How Global Warming Will Play With
Investors.'' Wall Street Journal (March 9, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drought and scant water have already fueled civil conflicts in
global hot spots like Afghanistan, Nepal, and Sudan, according to
several new studies. The evidence is fairly clear that sharp downward
deviations from normal rainfall in fragile societies elevate the risk
of major conflict.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Andrew Revkin, ``Global Warming Called Security Threat.'' New
York Times (April 15, 2007) http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/pdf/
waterconflict.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as you know, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the
world's leading scientific panel on climate change--including more than
200 distinguished scientists and officials from more than 120 countries
and the United States--
predicts widening droughts in southern Europe and the Middle East, sub-
Saharan Africa, the American Southwest and Mexico, and flooding that
could imperil low-lying islands and the crowded river deltas of
southern Asia.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf, James Kanter and Andrew C.
Revkin, ``Scientists Detail Climate Changes, Poles to Tropics.'' New
York Times (April 7, 2007). Anne Jolis and Alex MacDonald, ``U.N. Panel
Reaches Agreement On Climate Change Report.'' Wall Street Journal (Apr.
6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the April 2007 CNA Military Advisory Board report was
published, a National Intelligence Assessment on global climate change
confirmed our findings. And the scientific community has begun issuing
reports showing that climate change is occurring at a much faster pace
than originally believed. The Arctic is a case in point. Two years ago,
scientists were reporting that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2040.
Now, a growing number of climatologists are telling us it could happen
within just a few years.
Some may look at this changing analysis as a reason, or an excuse,
for delay. We believe that would be the wrong path. As military
professionals, we were trained to make decisions in situations defined
by ambiguous information and little concrete knowledge of the enemy
intent. We based our decisions on trends, experience, and judgment,
because waiting for 100 percent certainty during a crisis can be
disastrous, especially one with the huge national security consequences
of climate change. And in this case, the trends are clear. Climate
trends and scientific metrics continue to suggest, in an increasingly
compelling way, that the global environment is changing.
In thinking about the best ways to deal with this growing threat,
we need to keep clearly in mind the close relationship between the
major challenges we're facing. Energy, security, economics, and climate
change--these are all connected. It is a system of systems. It is very
complex. And we need to think of it in that way and not simply address
small, narrow issues, expecting to create the kind of change needed to
fundamentally improve our future national security. Interconnected
challenges require comprehensive solutions.
It will take the industrialized nations of the world to band
together to demonstrate leadership and a willingness to change--not
only to solve our current economic problems, but to address the
daunting issues related to global climate change. And here, I'd say the
United States has a responsibility to lead. If we don't make changes,
then others won't. We need to look for solutions to one problem that
can be helpful in solving other problems. That's one of the things we
uncovered in our work--there are steps that can help us economically,
militarily, diplomatically. And those steps fit with the direction the
world is heading in considering climate solutions. Those are good and
much-needed connections.
As retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of
U.S. Central Command said ``The intensity of global temperature change
can be mitigated somewhat if the U.S. begins leading the way in
reducing global carbon emissions.'' He concluded, ``We will pay now to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions today . . . we will pay the price later
in military terms and that will involve human lives.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Washington Post, ``Military on Climate Change.'' (April 15,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on a key finding in the 2007 report, that climate change,
national security, and energy dependence are inextricably intertwined,
the CNA Military Advisory Board most recently devoted over 1 year to
examining our national energy posture and this past May released a
report entitled: ``Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to
National Security.''
This report found that America's energy posture constitutes a
serious and urgent threat to national security--militarily,
diplomatically, and economically.
Moving beyond recent studies on the dangers of imported oil, our
new report finds that not just foreign oil--but all oil--and not just
oil but all fossil fuels, pose significant security threats to military
mission and the country, and are ``exploitable by those who wish to do
us harm.''
We found that our overreliance on fossil fuels does the following:
Jeopardizes our military and exacts huge price tag in
dollars and lives. Our inefficient use of oil adds to the
already great risks assumed by our troops. It reduces combat
effectiveness. It puts our troops--more directly and more
often--in harm's way. Ensuring the flow of oil around the world
stretches our military thin--and these are the same men and
women already fighting wars on two fronts.
Cripples our foreign policy and weakens U.S. international
leverage. Our dependence on oil--not just foreign oil--reduces
our leverage internationally and sometimes limits our options.
I say all oil, because we simply do not have enough resources
in this country to free us from the stranglehold of those who
do. We find ourselves entangled with unfriendly rulers and
undemocratic nations simply because we need their oil. And we
cannot produce enough oil to change this dynamic--we have to
wean ourselves from it.
Entangles the United States with hostile regimes. In 2008 we
sent $386 billion overseas to pay for oil--much of it going to
nations that wish us harm. This is an unprecedented and
unsustainable transfer of wealth to other nations. It puts us
in the untenable position of funding both sides of the conflict
and directly undermines our fight against terror.
Undermines our economic stability. We are in the midst of a
financial crisis, and our approach to energy is a key part of
the problem. We are heavily dependent on a global petroleum
market that is highly volatile. In the last year alone, the
per-barrel price of oil climbed as high as $140, and dropped as
low as $40. And this price volatility is not limited to oil--
natural gas and coal prices also had huge spikes in the last
year. While these resources may be plentiful, they are
increasingly difficult to access, and have associated local
environmental impacts, such as slurry spills and smog. The
economic and environmental costs are steep. There are many who
say we cannot afford to deal with our energy issues right now.
But if we don't begin to address our long-term energy profile
in significant ways now, future economic crises will dwarf this
one.
We also found that continuing the United States energy usage in a
business-as-usual manner creates an unacceptably high threat level from
a series of converging risks, which include:
A market for fossil fuels shaped by finite supplies,
increasing demand and rising costs.
Growing competition and conflict over fuel resources.
Destabilization driven by ongoing climate change.
As our first report showed, unless we take dramatic steps to
prevent, mitigate, and adapt, climate change will lead to an increase
in conflicts, and an increase in conflict intensity, all across the
globe. It's in this context--a world shaped by climate change and
competition for fossil fuels--that we must make new energy choices.
Our second report concludes that we cannot pursue energy
independence by taking steps that would contradict our emerging climate
policy. Energy security and a sound response to climate change cannot
be achieved by pursuing more fossil fuels. Our Nation requires
diversification of energy sources and a serious commitment to renewable
energy. Not simply for environmental reasons--for national security
reasons.
We call on the President and Congress to make achieving energy
security in a carbon-constrained world a top priority. It requires
concerted, visionary leadership and continuous, long-term commitment.
It requires moving away from fossil fuels, and diversifying our energy
portfolio with low carbon alternatives. It requires a price on carbon.
And perhaps most importantly, it requires action now.
By clearly and fully integrating energy security and climate change
goals into our national security and military planning processes, we
can benefit the safety of our Nation for years to come. In this regard,
confronting this energy challenge is paramount for the military--and we
call on the Department of Defense to take a leadership role in
transforming the way we get, and use, energy for military operations,
training, and support. By addressing its own energy security needs, DOD
can help to stimulate the market for new energy technologies and
vehicle efficiencies.
But achieving the end state that America needs, requires a national
approach and strong leadership at the highest levels of our government.
Some may be surprised to hear former generals and admirals talk
about climate change and clean energy, but they shouldn't be. In the
military, you learn that force protection isn't just about protecting
weak spots; it's about reducing vulnerabilities well before you get
into harm's way. That's what this work is about.
As a member of our board, Gen. Robert Magnus, former Assistant
Commandant for the Marine Corp said ``Our only choice is whether we're
going to make the decisions forcefully and in a timely manner. We could
lag and then we'll find ourselves in a much more serious situation,
when all of these other costs come on us.''
Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are an
interrelated set of global challenges. Without swift and serious
legislative action and investment, the United States will continue
barreling headlong toward the catastrophic national security, economic
and human suffering effects of climate change.
I conclude by quoting from the foreword to our May 2009 CNA
Military Advisory Board report: ``The challenges inherent in this suite
of issues may be daunting, particularly at a time of economic crisis.
Still, our experience informs us there is good reason for viewing this
moment in history as an opportunity. We can say, with certainty, that
we need not exchange benefits in one dimension for harm in another; in
fact, we have found that the best approaches to energy, climate change,
and national security may be one in the same.''
If we act with boldness and vision now, future generations of
Americans will look back on this as a time when we came together as a
nation and transformed daunting challenge and worry into opportunity, a
better quality of life and a more secure future for our world.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Thank you, all of you, for your important testimony here
today.
Let me begin the questioning very quickly, because I know
we have a number of interested colleagues.
Ms. Burke, the Center for a New American Security, I
understand, has been engaged in a broad range of scenario
development--what may occur, how it may occur, and how that may
impact us. And, in fact, you've created, sort of, war games,
based on global climate change and security issues. Can you
share with us the primary outcomes and lessons learned from
those efforts? Maybe describe to my colleagues what you did.
Ms. Burke. Yes, sir, I'd be delighted. And I think these
are very important tools. In a situation like this, where there
are so many unknowns, you can test some of the possible
futures, which is exactly what we did.
Last summer, we had players come from China, from India,
from Europe, and the United States, and play out a future
scenario, set in 2015. The scenario was that it's become very
clear that climate change is real, is caused by human activity,
no one--there's not any doubt any more, at that point, and many
climate-related disasters are happening that people attribute
to climate change. I'm sorry to say, we also posited a future
in which the world has not been able to do very much to cut
emissions. Nonetheless, it's clear that 2015 is a breakpoint,
and our premise was to see if this group, assembled under those
circumstances, could reach some kind of a breakthrough,
particularly on technological innovation, emissions cuts,
collaboration on disaster relief and humanitarian relief, and
also other kinds of assistance.
What we found was very interesting and is being played out
right now in the lead-up to the Copenhagen negotiations, is
that they were not able to reach any kind of an agreement. You
would think that is a disheartening result, but that result
also may suggest where some of the opportunities and challenges
lie.
For example, what we just saw with Secretary Clinton's
visit to India tracked very closely with what we saw in the
game, which is that the Indians were not willing to make any
concessions whatsoever; and it's understandable; in the
circumstances. In the context of the game, however, there was
room for negotiation in the fact that the Indians perceived
their vulnerability to natural disasters as a high negotiating
priority. Of course, other countries did not necessarily think
India's vulnerability was a high priority. It's an opportunity
for collaboration and for tradeoffs.
So, through this game, I would say that we identified a
number of opportunities. I think my biggest takeaway was
actually one of the questions we wanted to test in the first
place: If the United States makes a marked change in its
position, and wants to be a leader on climate change, and is
willing to make real concessions, did it matter, in the context
of those other major emitters? What we found is that it
mattered, in the sense that it gave the United States more
credibility, but also that it mattered far more what China is
willing to do--or unwilling to do, as the case may be. And
China--and keep in mind, we had Chinese nationals there,
playing in the game--was unwilling to do anything, without
being paid or enabled in doing it, period. They were extremely
conservative about agreeing to any tradeoffs. I suspect that's
the way it's going to be in the real negotiations.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. That's very interesting.
General Zinni, former CENTCOM commander, has said--and I,
sort of, paraphrase him; I don't have the exact language in
front of me--but, he said, basically, that climate change is
going to result in real risk to our troops, and it will involve
a ``human toll.''
Do you agree with that, Admiral McGinn? Admiral Gunn? John
Warner?
Admiral McGinn. Yes, sir. I am familiar with General
Zinni's thoughts on this, and I think he's quite right. He said
several things in the 2007 report that I think are relevant to
this hearing. The first was that there is a real cost to this--
this climate change--and it will be measured in human lives.
And whatever other cost that the Nation has to bear in dealing
with it will shrink in comparison, they'll seem very, very
infinitesimal in comparison to the costs that we must pay in
the future, when our backs are against the wall.
The other point that he made so forcefully--and this is
particularly significant coming from a former commander of the
U.S. Central Command--is that this will create the conditions--
and indeed, accelerate the conditions--as a breeding ground for
international terrorism.
The Chairman. Ms. Burke, I think you've already answered,
to some degree.
Admiral Gunn.
Admiral Gunn. I think, following on Admiral McGinn's
comments, a couple of things are worth noting. One is that,
stemming from the issues about which I testified, and the other
comments of those on the panel, I think it's easy to believe
that anticipation and preparation can therefore result in the
saving of many lives. Lives are at risk at all levels, from the
agrarian economies all the way through the fully developed
world, among civilians and people who are more directly
involved in defense issues. And I think that the answer--one of
the answers, when we're asked the question, ``What the heck is
the approach that you recommend?'' has got to be, that we have
to understand the threat, we have to anticipate a range of
consequences for those threats, and we have to prepare for
those most likely, and we have to do it quickly.
The Chairman. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look back on my days here--one of my most interesting
trips was with Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, and I took a
trip with Zinni through the region when he was the commander
out there. I come back to the word ``commander'' and the
troops. Commander in Chief is the President. And the President,
I think, has done a very credible job in showing leadership on
this issue, and I anticipate he'll even be stronger in that
leadership in the time to come. And that's why I, respectfully,
urge both the chair and the ranking member to take into
consideration the public acclaim and confidence in the men and
women in the Armed Forces, and particularly those in uniform
who have to do the fighting, and they deserve a title in this
bill. You call it an ``amalgamated bill.'' There should be a
title in there on the subject that this chairman and ranking
member and the committee are addressing today, and we're
participating in--witnesses. It's going to take a lot of
engines pulling this train to get this legislation through. And
I think you've got a title on energy, and a title on security,
and a title on diplomacy, which this committee will work on.
All of those things are needed to pull this thing through,
given the depth of the fear and concern that lingers on this
issue now, in our public. We've got to convince them.
The Chairman. Good advice.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Ms. Burke, I'm curious whether, at your
institute or in these games that you have described--were there
metrics that you were able to develop that indicated what kind
of change was occurring in this country, quite apart from China
or India or Russia or other places? In other words, when we
talk about a baseline, and up or down 5 or 10 percent, how do
you determine the baseline?
Ms. Burke. Well, sir, we were very ably assisted in finding
that baseline by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They provided
actual projections, based on real observations, and also
climate mathematical models, for what was likely to happen. We
did apply this analysis at a regional level, as well. We were
able to make some projections about what would happen, as far
as resource scarcity and migration, in each country represented
in the game. And these were complex projections: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory had a demographer on staff, for example,
who helped us figure out where people were likely to move in
the future. We actually had very credible projections, based on
Oak Ridge's research, for what might happen in each of these
regions.
Senator Lugar. The reason I ask is, not only is there a
problem of a general public credibility, but it seems to me,
aside from the testimony of the scientists and the military,
people we've talked about, hopefully there will come, someday,
some type of graphic, such as we used to see, as to how the
national debt is going up. A person can go out and see the
figures rising. One can say, ``Well, how could you know, to the
dollar?'' Probably not. But, there was a general indicator. The
public had something to look at. The problem that I find, with
my constituents, is that a majority are not really convinced
there is that much of a problem.
Now, we will have this hearing today, with knowledgeable
people like yourselves, and one can say, ``Well, after all,
whether our constituents understand it or not, or whether they
believe it, we have a responsibility--and I accept that fact.
But, this will only go so far. As Senator Warner has suggested,
let us say Copenhagen occurs and, as you suggested, the
response of the Indians, for the moment, was not very pleasant
for Secretary Clinton, but this has been true, really, with all
of us dealing with the Chinese. And they are very
knowledgeable, and they are doing a lot of things, in nuclear
energy. During the Olympics, temporarily, they got some of the
pollution out of the capital so that the athletes could
operate. Although, it came back, in due course.
Now, the problem here, for them, is enormous, given the
numbers of people and the history of the country. And we
understand that. But as Senator Warner suggested, maybe the
timeframe is not right--1 year, 2 years, 3 years. We proceed
along, and the United States public, who was not altogether
convinced to begin with, says, ``Listen, we're being taken.''
Now, this is likely to bring, as it already has in the House
legislation, people who say, ``Well, we're going to exact some
penalties on those Chinese and on the Indians.'' Trade
penalties, for example. Those who were already protectionists
in our country, would say, ``American jobs have been going to
these places for a long time,'' and ``This is a good chance to
cure a couple of things, as a matter of fact.'' And before
long, we're off to the races. Meanwhile, we're also sending
Secretary Geithner over there, meeting Chinese students, who
are skeptical now, about how the dollar is working out. In
other words, ``Should we diversify our portfolio?'' Well, we
say, ``Certainly not. We need every one of your buyers of U.S.
Treasury bonds,'' because we've got huge trillion-dollar debts
to pay.
I mention all of this, not to confuse the issue before us
today, but to say that this is crucial, right at the beginning,
to have some understanding among the major polluters, of which
we are one of the three, along with China and India. Others
contribute, but this is where the big three is. And if two of
the three are indicating, ``not us, not now, you've had a
century to develop so compensate us if you're that concerned
about it.'' And the American public says, ``What do you mean,
compensate? Money to the Chinese, to the Indians, in one form
or other? Not on your life.''
I'm just wondering if there is some way, despite the
testimony or the gravity of military people or institutions
such as yours, Ms. Burke, that we can get some degree of
measurement of what we are doing right now, quite apart from
what we might suggest to the Chinese. Because I have heard
testimony here, which was not convincing, that their guidelines
are very reliable. Ten percent from where? Can you comment at
all on this general series of questions?
Ms. Burke. Yes, sir. First of all, your first point, that
we need some kind of environmental indicators--leading
environmental indicators, if you will--we just had a meeting
with policymakers and scientists, last night, where I think
that was the general consensus, that we have leading economic
indicators and we need leading environmental indicators.
Senator Lugar. Good.
Ms. Burke. And, I think there are plenty of actual
observations to base that on. And if you've been to Rocky
Mountain National Park recently, you'll see what Governor
Ritter has been talking about. Two-thirds of the trees on the
west side of the park are dead. Perhaps people don't need as
much convincing as they used to.
As for China, their position is understandable, and our
position is understandable. The United States has engaged in
difficult diplomacy before, over things far more consequential,
even, such as thermonuclear war. We can do this with the
Chinese. It's not going to be easy. It's not going to be easy
to convince the American people. But this is in our national
security interests, and it's also in theirs. And I think,
again, people need less convincing than they used to. China is
starting to experience public unrest, as well, over some of
their environmental problems, and people are starting to see
the consequences of climate change there, as well. There is
going to be some room to move, particularly, when it comes into
investing in clean technologies and an energy transformation.
Again, China and the United States, as the two biggest
consumers of energy in the world, have a lot of commonality of
interests in finding a way around our energy security problems.
Many of the needed investments are going to be in energy
sources and technologies other than fossil fuels. There's a
commonality of interests there that can pull us together, not
just the divisions, which we are going to have to talk a great
deal about.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
want to thank our panel, and, first of all, want to extend a
welcome, again, to Senator Warner. Welcome back, I should say.
I want to say, in a personal way, there are a lot of things
we could say about Senator Warner's leadership in the Senate
over 30 years, but as someone who has been here 2\1/2\ years,
in my first 2 years, you tend to look to people who have been
there a while for good examples. And I think I can speak for
other new Senators and say he was a great example of--in terms
of his work ethic, in terms of the way he served his State and
the country, but especially, in terms of his own ability to
show us how to display mutual respect and to keep the Senate on
a path which was one of constructive camaraderie, and good
examples of bipartisanship. We're grateful for that.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Casey. Because we benefit from that, and the
country does, as well. And I want to thank you for your
leadership on this issue, both in the Senate and now, as a
statesman, maybe not fully retired yet. We're grateful for
that.
And, I guess to the panel--I won't take all of my time, but
I wanted to focus on two issues. Like a lot of people, I
learned about this issue in ways you don't expect. I happened
to be reading an article in Time magazine a couple of years
ago--I think it was 2005--and there was one sentence that
jumped off the page--and I was not in the middle of this issue
in the way that Senator Kerry has been for a couple of decades
now, in the middle of the science, and the middle of the
advocacy about the urgency of this issue of global warming and
the effects on human life--but in this article in Time
magazine, one sentence said the following--and I'm
paraphrasing, but this is pretty close to what it said, that
``in 30 years, the percent of the Earth's surface that was the
subject of drought had doubled.'' That's all it said. And at
that--when I read that, almost at that moment, or soon
thereafter, I thought to myself, ``Well, if the percent of the
Earth's surface subject to drought has doubled, drought means
starvation, and starvation means darkness and death.'' That's
all you need to know. And, ever since that time, that's what
this issue has meant to me, that this is a threat to human
life, when people starve.
It's only more recently, I think, that many of us,
including the American people, I think, have made other
connections between this issue and national security. So, your
testimony and your witness and your scholarship and your
advocacy gives us the opportunity to make that connection.
The question I have is related to some of the work we've
all done on monitoring what's happening in Pakistan, just one
country, which has layers of problems or challenges or threats,
whether it's the nuclear challenge or whether it's the
challenge posed by the Taliban and, therefore, impacting the
nuclear threat. All of you pointed to this, the connection
between drought and threats to places like Pakistan.
I'd like to ask you a two-part question. One is, describe
this connection briefly. And, two, Do you think there are
better ways that we can make these points in the Senate, in
terms of public advocacy or outreach campaigns, other than the
work you've done? I know you've tried to bring the scholarship
to light. But, I guess I would ask you to just walk through
that threat, and then suggestions for how we can continue to
make this a more urgent matter with the American people.
Senator Warner. Well, first I would add, the complexity of
this subject is just awesome. And I sort of jokingly talk to my
colleagues--Ms. Burke, who's an outstanding advocate, as you
saw here just moments ago, and I have debated a little bit.
We've got to keep it simple, so that the public understands it,
because they're paying the bills. I find the public is quite
inquisitive about this whole concept of ``getting green.'' And
if you put the question to them, ``Well, what if we do nothing?
What are the consequences?'' then you begin to really get--
stimulate some of their thinking. And I often use that as a
little rhetorical comeback. I just think that this is the time
that Congress has got to forcefully lead. That's what the--we
can't follow the public, we've got to lead the public. And if
we can keep this thing--to a common understanding, I think we
can get the train out of the station and start it. And then
it's going to be up to, really, basically, diplomacy, to keep
the train running, so that we all bear an equal share of the
burden on this thing.
So, we've got to start, we've got to jump out front, and
we've got to lead. Remember that old phrase about the Frenchman
that said--he asked his staff, ``Look out the window. Which way
is the crowd going, so I can run out there and jump in front of
it.'' What was that? Somebody knows better--that phrase.
[Laughter.]
Senator Casey. Good advice. [Laughter.]
Admiral.
Admiral Gunn. I said, during my testimony, something that
was almost flip, about beautiful vistas being maintained and
the other motivations for dealing with climate change and
global warming. Too often, that kind of argument becomes the
topic of discussion in public discourse. And I agree that the
preservation of small wildlife is important. I agree very much
with what's been said here today about the loss of forests. I
think these and the increasing desertification are terribly
important manifestations of the problem that's facing us. But,
I think that creating a sense of urgency about dealing with
them, about appreciating and preparing for these problems, is
only going to come from characterizing them as important
components of national security. I think talking about the way
Americans, in uniform and out, have been required to be engaged
around the world already, and increasingly will be by various
dimensions of this problem, is a way to link the American
people to the kinds of actions that they need to authorize us
to take on their behalf.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
I know I'm out of time, but maybe what we can do is if both
of you could just submit something for the record. That might
be faster.
[The requested information follows:]
Written Response Submitted for the Record by Ms. Burke
While there are many cases in which climate change will combine
with economic, political, and social factors in ways that pose national
security challenges to the United States, Pakistan is an especially
stark example.
Today, Pakistan is the only state with nuclear weapons ranked at
highest risk for state failure in the Fund for Peace/Foreign Policy
Failed States Index. By this ranking, even North Korea is more stable.
Pakistan's instability, internal governance, economic fragility, and
social divisions are of constant concern to the United States and our
allies. Pakistan wrestles with conflicts among a variety of factions
within its borders, and its government does not have a monopoly on
control of its territory. The internal situation contributes to stress
with Pakistan's neighbors, as well. Beyond this instability, the United
States is directly vulnerable to many of the effects of Pakistan's
troubles. With a porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the
terrorists and insurgent groups that the United States and NATO are
working to weaken and suppress have gained control of territory in both
countries and use their ease of movement between the two to their
advantage. The ongoing instability in Pakistan is also affecting
logistics lines supplying U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.
Severe natural resource issues plaguing the country are part and
parcel of Pakistan's challenges. Its freshwater availability has
declined, and in combination with a growing and urbanizing population,
potable water per capita has dropped from 5,000 to 1,500 cubic meters
in the past 50 years. This water situation is in part due to decreasing
rainfall, and the resulting increases in drought and aridity of recent
years are affecting Pakistan's agricultural sector and thereby
jeopardizing the livelihoods of about 45 percent of the population. The
water and agriculture troubles speak to bigger environmental management
concerns, including the highest deforestation rate in South Asia.
Climate change projections show that all of these problems are
likely to grow worse. The shrinking Himalayan glaciers will affect--
possibly drastically--freshwater supplies, food production, and even
the ability to produce electricity (one-third of the country's energy
is supplied by hydropower). The economic, social, political, and
therefore security implications are stark.
The example of Pakistan shows clearly that failing and fragile
states are difficult, multifaceted problems for U.S. security. Indeed,
environmental considerations are an inherent part of the U.S. strategy
for Afghanistan, with its emphasis on tools such as economic stability
and agricultural productivity. Stabilizing the region and defeating the
threat our troops are there to face may well require addressing the
natural resource situation and considering how climate change might
affect the chances for long-term success.
______
Written Response Submitted for the Record by Vice Admiral McGinn
Climate change and energy security are inextricably linked national
security threats, and the threats will escalate if we do nothing. Not
only will global warming disrupt the environment, but its effects will
shift the world's balance of power and money.\1\ Acting now will thus
play a vital role in determining our national security--militarily,
diplomatically, and economically.
Here's how climate change poses national security risks, and why we
must prepare now to prepare for and mitigate these risks:
In 2007, the CNA Military Advisory Board produced a report called
``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change'' which concluded
that climate change acts as a ``threat multiplier for instability'' in
some of the world's most volatile regions, adding tension to stable
regions, worsening terrorism and likely dragging the United States into
conflicts over water, crops, fuel and other critical resource
shortages. On the most basic level, climate change has the potential to
create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a
frequency far beyond those we see today. Drought and scant water have
already fueled civil conflicts in global hot spots like Afghanistan,
Nepal and Sudan, according to several new studies. the evidence is
fairly clear that sharp downward deviations from normal rainfall in
fragile societies elevate the risk of major conflict.\2\
And climate change-induced conflict will likely intensify. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the world's leading
scientific panel on climate change--including more than 200
distinguished scientists and officials from more than 120 countries and
the U.S.--predicts widening droughts in southern Europe and the Middle
East, sub-Saharan Africa, the American Southwest and Mexico, and
flooding that could imperil low-lying islands and the crowded river
deltas of southern Asia.\3\ Without steps now to prepare for and
mitigate regional conflicts caused by shortages of vital resources, the
U.S. military risks become dangerously overextended.
We must also change our energy posture to ensure our national
security and to reduce climate change. Last May, CNA released a report
entitled: ``Powering America's Defense: Energy and the Risks to
National Security.'' This report found that America's energy posture
constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security--
militarily, diplomatically and economically.
The new report finds that not just foreign oil--but all oil--and
not just oil but all fossil fuels, pose significant security threats to
military mission and the country, and are exploitable by those who wish
to do us harm. Our overreliance on fossil fuels does the following:
Stretches our military thin by requiring our military to
ensure flow of oil around the world, putting at increased risk
the same men and women already fighting wars on two fronts.
Jeopardizes military operations in the air, at sea, or on
the ground, which are in many ways driven by the limits of the
range and performance of vehicles and how they consume fuel.
Fossil fuel inefficiency, for example, leaves our military
vulnerable to attack because of the long supply lines needed to
deliver fuel to our ground combat operations. In Afghanistan,
our supply lines sometimes stretch for miles. The more
efficient use of fuel we develop, we will reduce casualties and
increase combat effectiveness.
Cripples our foreign policy and weakens U.S. international
leverage. Our dependence on oil--not just foreign oil--reduces
our international clout and sometimes limits our diplomatic and
economic options. This involves all oil, because we simply do
not have enough resources in this country to free us from the
stranglehold of foreign oil producers. We find ourselves
entangled with unfriendly rulers and undemocratic nations
simply because we need their oil.
Funds our enemies. In 2008, we sent $386 billion overseas to
pay for oil--much of it going to nations that wish us harm.
This is an unprecedented and unsustainable transfer of wealth
to other nations. It puts us in the untenable position of
funding both sides of the conflict and directly undermines our
fight against terror.
Undermines the economic stability on which our national
security depends. We are in the midst of a financial crisis,
and our approach to energy is a key part of the problem. We are
heavily dependent on a global petroleum market that is highly
volatile. In the last year alone, the per-barrel price of oil
climbed as high as $140, and dropped as low as $40. And this
price volatility is not limited to oil--natural gas and coal
prices also had huge spikes in the last year. While these
resources may be plentiful, they are increasingly difficult to
assess, and have associated local environmental impacts, such
as slurry spills and smog. The economic and environmental costs
are steep. There are many who say we cannot afford to deal with
our energy issues right now. But if we don't begin to address
our long-term energy profile in significant ways now, future
economic crises will dwarf this one.
Our fragile electricity grid also poses national security risks.
Nearly all our stateside military installations depend on the national
grid, which is currently vulnerable to terrorist attack and mechanical
malfunction. An upgraded electrical grid would increase the security of
communications and combat operations.
By clearly and full integrating energy security and climate change
goals into our national security and military planning processes, we
can increase the safety of our nation for years to come. By addressing
its own energy security needs, the Department of Defense can also help
to stimulate the market for new energy technologies and vehicle
efficiencies. This will in turn give our nation the global competitive
advantage we need to ensure the economic security that is key to our
national security.
We call on the President and Congress to make achieving energy
security in a carbon-constrained world a top priority. It requires
concerted, visionary leadership and continuous, long-term commitment.
It requires moving away from fossil fuels, and diversifying our energy
portolio with low carbon alternatives. It rquires a price on carbon.
And perhaps most importantly, it requires action now. For either we act
now, and strengthen our stature as a global leader, or wait--and incur
a far greater price later.
----------------
\1\ Informed Reader column ``How Global Warming Will Play With
Investors,'' Wall Street Journal (March 9, 2007).
\2\ Revkin, Andrew ``Global Warming Called Security Threat,'' New
York Times (April 15, 2007) http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/pdf/
waterconflict.pdf.
\3\ http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf. Kanter, James and Andrew C.
Revkin. ``Scientists Detail Climate Changes, Poles to Tropics,'' New
York Times (April 7, 2007). Jolis, Anne and Alex MacDonald, ``U.N.
Panel Reaches Agreement on Climate-Change Report,'' Wall Street Journal
(Apr. 6, 2007).
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you for being here.
And, Senator Warner, I almost hate for my voice to come out
over the microphone after listening to you, and your eloquent
way of talking. And thank all of you for your public service.
I have to think, with all the folks that are affiliated
with the Navy, and daughters of Navy, that when you look at the
issue of us and India and China, all of which are nuclear
countries, and we know that, obviously--that it has to be
awfully frustrating, since so many of your colleagues, for 50
years or so, have served on submarines that were powered by
nuclear, that we're having a discourse in this country about
nuclear today and that we've been so far behind. France is one
of the few countries that is able to adequately meet the
agreement they dealt with at Kyoto.
So, let me just--if you would, talk to me about your
frustrations there. And wouldn't we be--our country is a
country that likes to build for the future, and lead--and would
we not be, really, well off as a country, if we're concerned
about climate change? Some of my colleagues are talking about
building 100 new nuclear facilities over the next 20 years To
embrace that fully, and to also cause India and China, with our
leadership and new technologies, to embrace that fully, so
that, instead of looking at a wall that diminishes economically
in some ways--I know that China and India, some of their--their
greatest threat is really, today, not climate change, by any
means, but it's poverty within their own countries. Right? I
mean, they're concerned about their populations and the
instability that comes with people's standard of living. And I
just wonder if you might comment on that. I--surely, it has to
frustrate you, coming from where you come from, that this
country is not embarking on a massive project, and working with
China and India to do the same--nuclear countries, already--to
build many, many nuclear facilities to combat this issue that
you're so concerned about.
Senator Warner. Well, I'll lead off, Senator. I was
privileged to--when I was Under Secretary--Secretary of the
Navy for 5 years, we had practically 100 nuclear plants--
basically at sea, several on shore, for testing, and so forth--
operating. And the safety record of the United States Navy is
second to none. And it can be done. The technology is known.
And I think it's essential that part of this climate change
legislation--energy--slash energy--contain provisions on moving
America ahead with nuclear energy. It clearly--the
environmental community will have to acknowledge, the least
possible emitter of CO2. And if CO2 is the enemy, then we
should start with that factor that can contribute very
positively.
And talk about India--it was rather interesting--the
Secretary of State is--one of her agenda items was some
exchange of technology. Perhaps we can assist in building some
of those plants in India. And I think, we've got look at the--
this committee will look at international offsets. As we go
forward, hopefully, with this bill, our industrial base will be
looking for offsets. We may be able to strengthen our
relationship with these developing countries by finding offsets
that they--the domestic companies here can purchase from
abroad.
So, there are a lot of things that can be done, and health
can be improved, but--if we don't do anything, Senator, what's
going to happen is, the EPA is going to be saddled with trying
to set up a regulatory regime to control parts of this--not
all; they can't do it all--parts of it. And that one agency is
ill-equipped--I think they'd be the first to acknowledge--to
take on the magnitude of this task.
This legislation is imperative. Absolutely imperative. And
it should have a major section on nuclear, and that comes down
to the dollar bill. We've got to figure out ways to help them
finance these startup plants.
Senator Corker. Does anybody have differing testimony? I'll
move on--OK.
Admiral McGinn. In support of what Senator Warner has said,
Senator, you know, it's been said many ways that there's no
silver bullet to solve these challenges of economic security,
energy security, and national security. But, one of my
colleagues on the Military Advisory Board said, ``but there may
be silver buckshot.'' And I think one of those shot are, in
fact, nuclear power. It's not going to answer all of our needs,
in terms of either climate change or energy security, but it
can be part of a solution.
I would note that all of those buckshots are, in fact, made
of silver, however, and they carry a fairly hefty price tag, so
we have to be very, very careful in going about the cost-
benefit/risk analysis, where we put money into--American money
into these various technologies. Others that are absolutely
necessary--energy efficiency, across the board, and our
transportation sector--and I'm applying this to our military
operations, as well--all of the clean technologies of solar and
wind, biomass, et cetera, and some of the more emergent things,
like cellulosic ethanol. All of those are also silver buckshot,
and we need to apply them in the right measure, at the right
time.
Senator Corker. You know, obviously, what brings you to
this committee today is looking at strategic risk that we face
as a country. And I know that climate change is one that
we've--you've focused on today. But, Ms. Burke, I know you
mentioned Somalia, and I wonder if this concerns you also. I
was just in Darfur, and spent some time with the Sudanese
Government also talking about the agreement between the north-
south. The more imminent issue is large populations--regardless
of climate change--large populations that are using water
resources in a concentrated way. And no matter what happens
with the issue of climate change, the massive population growth
that's occurring is creating tremendous instability in those
parts of the world that have limited resources. And I'm just
wondering if it frustrates you that that more imminent issue
that's right before us today, that is a powder keg,
especially--I know Senator Kerry has had leadership on this
issue--that if we don't deal with the issue of population
growth and limited resources and density over aquifers, that we
have even more imminent issues. I'd just like for you all to
comment on that.
Ms. Burke. Yes, sir. Population is certainly part of the
picture, and it's one of the reasons that there is so much
pressure on all these resources.
What is truly sad in these circumstances is that there are
a lot of management strategies that could make those situations
better. And, in fact, Senator, your home State of Tennessee has
been grappling with these issues, itself. I think you had a
border war with Georgia over water, didn't you?
Senator Corker. It was a skirmish. [Laughter.]
Ms. Burke. Yes, sir.
Senator Corker. It's pretty well settled, yes.
Ms. Burke. Yes. These are really difficult issues, and the
growing populations are definitely putting pressure, but also,
it's the growing expectations of these populations, for the
same things that we enjoy, including things like cell phones,
that require certain minerals. And incidentally, also, nuclear
power requires water and other resources. These--all of these
things fit together. The demands of growing world population
are going to be a challenge.
Senator Corker. Actually, I'd--there was a--I know my time
is up--there's new technologies that, hopefully, are going to
be deployed in Tennessee, which is a leader in our country as
it relates to energy, for nuclear reactors that are actually
air-cooled. So, it's one of those--it's going to be one of
those few components that doesn't actually consume water, and
actually, as you know, it's a system that puts it back in
rivers, but when this air-cooled--it's not even--it's not even
doing that.
So, I thank you for your testimony and your leadership. I
do know there's a lot of unintended consequences, some of which
Senator Lugar pointed to. I was just recently looking at the
conflicts, firsthand, in Ukraine and other places, with fuel-
switching that takes place with policies, and then, all of a
sudden, countries like Russia, sort of, holding the valve to
Europe. I hope that we will move through this in a thoughtful
manner, and I certainly thank you for your testimony.
Senator Warner. Senator, could I just say, first, thanks
for making that trip. I went to that region with Senator Levin
during the Somalia problems. Severity of the drought in that
whole part of Africa has precipitated so much of this
instability, certainly Somalia's. Isn't that an example that we
can, frankly, tell the naysayers on climate change, ``Explain
that.'' You talk about that aquifer. It's down deep, and it's
going deeper and deeper, because Mother Nature's not
replenishing, from the surface, the water to go back into that
aquifer. That's an example of the need to recognize climate
change is with us today.
Senator Corker. If I could, just to set the record
straight, it's actually not near as much that issue as it is,
again, concentrations of population that are taking the water
out more rapidly than it naturally can be replenished. But,
certainly those are complicating factors, and I appreciate you
bringing it up.
The Chairman. Let me just say, having been there laying the
path for you, Senator, that there's been a 30-percent reduction
in rainfall in that part of the area. And there has been--I
forget the percentage, but a very significant percentage of
increase of desertification as a result. So, that has actually
displaced people. And then the tribal component gets involved.
So--Time magazine, I think, a couple years ago, had a headline
saying, ``How to Prevent the Next Darfur: Get Serious About
Climate Change.'' That's what they said. You know, the dots are
connected here.
Let me ask those of you with the military experience here,
Is this going to require us to rethink the nature of our force
structure, and the missions themselves, and therefore the
training and recruitment, et cetera? And, if so, is this a part
of the Quadrennial Review now?
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, that was a statute that
Senator Clinton and I put in. It's requiring the Quadrennial
Review to specifically project the future.
The Chairman. Specifically to project this.
Senator Warner. And it's right in the law. It is in the
2008 authorization.
The Chairman. I remember you said that earlier, but I
appreciate that.
Senator Warner. Yes.
The Chairman. Yes. And what about the force--I mean, what
do you envision as a consequence of this? You know, I saw what
we did in the earthquake assistance that we provided in
Pakistan a few years ago. And, more recently, we've been very
involved in trying to get supplies into Pakistan for the
displaced persons from the Swat Valley. I mean, if that is
replicated many times over in various places, it would appear
that unless we create some separate force our military forces
are going to be highly involved in this kind of response action
which requires a different kind of delivery system, different
kind of lift, different kind of training, and so forth. Is that
accurate----
Senator Warner. I would----
The Chairman [continuing]. Admiral?
Senator Warner [continuing]. Certainly say it's dead-on.
But, I yield to my colleagues, right here, who've spent 30-plus
years in uniform. Let them be on the record, too.
The Chairman. Admiral Gunn.
Admiral Gunn. You may remember Operation Sea Angel,
immediately following Desert Storm. I'll just remind people
what that was about. ADM Steve Clarey was bringing back two
Marine Expeditionary Brigades from Desert Storm, aboard 19
amphibious ships, plus escorts. And their objective was just to
go home. They were proceeding through the Indian Ocean, and one
of those horrible typhoons struck Bangladesh. They turned left,
at the National Command Authority's direction, followed the
typhoon into the Bay of Bengal, and provided what I believe,
prior to the Tsunami relief effort, was the largest relief
effort undertaken, certainly by the U.S. Navy and the Marine
Corps together. And I think--you are aware of what's aboard an
amphibious force like that, that's usable. I mean, reverse
osmosis water purification units, trucks, tracked vehicles,
landing craft, air-cushion vehicles, helicopters, bridging
units, and a medical capability that was prepared for and used
in a war.
By the way, Operation Sea Angel was named, not by the U.S.
Defense Department, but by the Bengalis. Their description was
``Angels from the Sea'' for the Americans who arrived.
My point is that a lot of what we're going to have to be
able to do is come-as-you-are mission fulfillment. We have
forces that are very nicely suited for that. I think we're
going to need some special-purpose forces, as well, of course.
But, there's always going to be that fine balance to strike.
And I think it's a mistake to underestimate what we already own
that has capability in this area.
Admiral McGinn. I would add, Senator, that roles and
missions are in the process of being evaluated, and will change
in response to the climate change scenarios that have been
discussed.
There are three words that come to mind in dealing with
climate change, from a national security standpoint: prevent,
mitigate, and adapt. And I think, in particular, the U.S.
military services can play key roles in those last two, the
mitigation and adaptation. And they can do this in a way that
isn't just a response to humanitarian assistance, disaster-
relief scenario, as Admiral Gunn pointed out. Certainly, that
will be part of their roles and mission. But, I think, in a
preventative way, in a way that works with our allies and
people who we would want to have as allies in critical regions
of the world, to share with them the kinds of technology,
perhaps in renewable energy or energy efficiency, putting
electricity where there is none, but doing it in a way that
isn't the way we did it in a fossil-fuel-driven Industrial
Revolution, but, rather, in new ways.
The example I would cite was when we first went into
Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the
Telecommunication Revolution didn't try to replicate copper,
and string wires for telephones all over Eastern Europe--leaped
over the copper and went right to wireless. And I think this is
a good argument for nations, such as China and India, who
ascribe, rightfully so--or aspire, rightfully so--to a higher
standard of living and quality of life. And they don't have to
do it the same way that we did it in the past hundred years.
There are better ways to do it, without the tremendous costs to
the globe of doing this.
The Chairman. Couldn't agree with you more.
Senator Shaheen, I apologize for interrupting the flow over
to you. I'm sorry.
Senator Shaheen. It's OK. I snuck back in.
I would actually like to follow along this line of
questions, because I certainly agree that the military has a
very important role to play as we look at responding to the
threats from global warming. And--I forget what three key words
you used.
Admiral McGinn. They were ``prevent, mitigate, and adapt.''
Senator Shaheen. I guess the concern that I have,
particularly right now, and given the urgency of what we need
to do, is whether or not--given our commitments in Iraq and
Afghanistan, if we have the capacity to engage our military in
this fight. And--so, that would be my first question.
And if the answer to that is--I guess, either way, ``yes''
or ``no''--what do we need to do to ensure that we do have that
kind of support available to us?
Admiral McGinn. Senator, I would like to start by saying
that Iraq and Afghanistan provide fantastic opportunities for
us to start shifting into these new areas, these new missions.
The Marine Corps, to cite one of the services--and all the
services are working very hard in this regard--is conducting
studies and actually sending technology forward to Afghanistan
to lighten the load for the expeditionary force of the Nation--
the Marine Corps--and to do it with things that bring a much
greater level of energy efficiency, and bring in renewable
energy, where it makes sense to do so.
Obviously, job one has to be to carry the fight to the
enemy, to carry the message to the people of Afghanistan, and
to win. But, you can do that in ways that are revolutionary, in
some sense. It isn't just pure fossil fuel--bigger diesels,
bigger tanks. It's thinking through, What is the end state that
we want to achieve? And I think we are--have learned, and we
will continue to learn, a great deal, especially in such an
austere environment, such a tenuous environment, as
Afghanistan. I am not advocating that as a test bed or
experiment. Certainly not. But, I think--I would commend the
Marine Corps and Army and other services for the tremendous
innovations they're doing as they start to think about, How can
we do this job better, not just simply the old ways, depending
on large amounts of fossil fuel?
Ms. Burke. And, Senator----
Senator Shaheen. Yes, Ms. Burke.
Ms. Burke [continuing]. If I may, I think that, also, what
Admiral McGinn said leads to another, broader consideration,
which is--as of today, it looks as though the F-22 program will
be canceled. This is just the latest reminder that the
Department of Defense is reconsidering the ``American way of
war.'' That's very much true on the ground, in the moment, in
Afghanistan and Iraq. And the competencies it requires, to have
security in those places, both the military competencies and
then the larger whole-of-government effort that the President's
been describing, are the same competencies that you need to
have in order to be able to respond to the kinds of climate
change contingencies we're talking about--failing states,
antipiracy operations and so on. These are the kinds of
consequences we'll see.
So, as a matter of fact, there is a confluence of what we
need and of what the security future looks like for us.
So, there's that, and then also, at the same time, I think
that the military--and these gentlemen would know far better
than I--always has to be prepared for the next war and the next
contingency, even if it's in the J3 and the J5, in the strategy
and planning parts of the military. Even when we're fighting a
war, we must be thinking about what comes next, and preparing
for it, or we won't be ready for it. You also talked about
that, Admiral, that the planning window for military
infrastructure and equipment is 10 to 20 to 40 years out. So,
if we're not thinking about what comes next in a climate change
future, we won't be ready. And that's as serious a
responsibility for the Nation and the Department of Defense as
is fighting the wars that we're in today.
Senator Warner. A short answer to your question--did you
want to go ahead?
Voice. No, no, please, sir.
Senator Warner. Historically, this country has always
helped the others. Our forces have marched forth from our
shores hundreds of times since 1776, never to take a square
foot of anybody else's land, simply in the cause of freedom and
in the cause of humanity. Every President comes in, with that
big American heart, to help those less fortunate than we. And
our military is the only military in the world that has the
lift capability, as Admiral Gunn said, sea capability, and
medical, all in units that are mobile and can get into, one way
or another, the remote places where catastrophic challenges to
life and limb occur in great dimensions. So, our military
stands by, and I must compliment them. Frankly, the law is on
the books, they are doing the planning right now to take care
of such future missions as this President and his successors
may decide.
Senator Shaheen. Well, certainly I would agree that they
have an admirable record of service. And having been a
Governor, as you pointed out, I've seen what the National Guard
was able to do in times of crisis in the State of New Hampshire
and across--of course, across the country. I guess I would hope
that we can avoid, as much as possible, the need to mitigate
and prepare.
So, much of the--some of the discussion this afternoon has
been around the costs of responding to climate change, and I
guess I'd like to talk a little bit about the costs of not
responding, of not doing enough now, and having to be in a
catastrophic situation, years from now, maybe even only a
couple of years from now. Have you all looked at the cost? Has
Pew, for example, Senator Warner, looked at the cost of failing
to act, and what that will mean?
Senator Warner. Yes. Pew works in conjunction with many
other organizations. I think America is fortunate that so many
of the nonprofit--or, not-for-profit groups--Sharon's group,
the Pew group, the admiral's group--they're all working
together. And Pew has made some analytical studies, but it is
extremely difficult to correlate the figure and the number.
So, at this time, I'd have to tell you, there's not a lot
of hard data out there of the cost of doing nothing. But, you
certainly can start with health. We know that CO2 is
detrimental. We know that CO2 is permeating the oceans now, and
destroying the food sources to--in the chain of reproduction of
the fish. And that, of course, is a valuable food all over the
world. You can go to area after area and see that changes are
taking place. The scientific data may be difficult to
understand, but it's before your eyes. And I just--I'm so
pleased--I just hope that you, personally, can work in support
of a good bill. A fresh mind around here is a good thing to
have among us.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. And, you know, I
personally think this is something that we've got to address.
And I have the good fortune of coming from a state where we've
already joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the
Northeast, and we're seeing positive effects from that, and
also from a State where we are seeing the impact, now, of
climate change, where we're seeing it in our forests, we're
seeing it in maple-sugaring, in the amount of snow that we're
getting, and how fast ice-out on our lakes happens. So, it's
very clear, I think, to people in New Hampshire, that this is a
challenge that we face, and we'd better respond to it.
My concern is how we convince--as you all spoke to, the
urgency of trying to get the American people to understand what
we're talking about, and also of getting some of our colleagues
here to recognize that this is something we've got to address,
despite the regional differences that we may have.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. So, thank you. And thank you all very much
for being here.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen.
I appreciate, not just that, but the rest of your work on
the committee, very, very much.
I must say, Senator, when I first came here, I sat way down
there. I used to argue, adamantly, the value of a fresh face
and new ideas. And Senator Lugar, I think, was chairman. Now he
and I both argue the value of experience. [Laughter.]
And I think you've been there.
We are very grateful to all of you. This has been a helpful
hearing, an important one, I think, in laying some foundation,
and raising some good questions which we need to pursue.
We're going to leave the record open until Friday.
Yes, Admiral.
Admiral McGinn. Senator, if I could make one final
observation.
The Chairman. Sure.
Admiral McGinn. As a newly minted admiral serving over in
Europe as a NATO officer in the early 1990s, I was so
encouraged, as an American, to hear about a thing called
``Nunn-Lugar.'' It was bold, it was visionary, and it was
bipartisan. It took from the uncertainty--in some ways, chaos--
of the post-cold-war--cold-war world, and made an initiative
that recognized uncertain dangers; not fully understanding the
full scope of the danger, just knowing that there was. And I
think that, if we go back to that time in this Nation's
history, we need the same kind of bipartisan effort and vision
and boldness to deal with this uncertainty that is affecting
now--and most certainly will, in significant ways, in the
future--our Nation's security.
And, Senator, thank you for your vision and boldness in--
along with that of your colleagues--in putting that forward. As
a private citizen now, and as a man in uniform back then, it is
greatly appreciated.
The Chairman. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Well, we're working hard to see if we can get Senator Lugar
to be a partner in this effort. And I know he's doing his due
diligence. And we'll see where we come out.
Thank you all. Thanks for being here.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
