How climate change shapes national security
By Robyn Blumner
To Global Warming Holdouts and Oil Drilling Enthusiasts:
OK, maybe you don’t care or believe that within a couple of generations global warming’s effects on sea levels will swamp the world’s coastlines, displacing hundreds of millions of people. And maybe you don’t care or believe that already-dry regions will experience extended droughts, leaving millions more people without adequate food and water. Or that thousands of species will be wiped out. Or that the coral reefs are toast.
But what about America’s fighting forces? Do you support our troops? If so, you might want to get behind the push for alternative energy and a reduced carbon “bootprint,” because our military says it’s essential for American security.
The people sounding these alarms have impressive insignia on their chests, and there is probably not a pair of Birkenstocks among them. From the Pentagon to the intelligence community, the word coming down is that our national security and war readiness are at risk if we don’t respond to the threats of global warming and energy dependence. So are you ready to listen, please?
Let’s first talk about the really short run, as in right now, as in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the “tether of fuel” is compromising our mission effectiveness. In “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security” (www.cna.org/documents/PoweringAmericasDefense.pdf), written by some of the military’s most respected retired generals and admirals, the case is made that energy efficiency and alternative energy systems are already essential to battlefield success.
As the May 2009 report describes, our fuel supply lines in modern war theaters are terrifically vulnerable, but you can’t run vehicles and generators at forward operating bases without a lot of fossil fuel. As a result, we defend miles-long fuel convoys with huge amounts of manpower and machinery. In Afghanistan especially, fuel logistics slow troop movements and limit deployment options.
Then there is the impact of our inefficient energy systems on our infantry forces when each soldier in Afghanistan must carry more than 26 pounds of batteries in his pack for a 72-hour mission.
