A Powerful Climate Stakeholder Emerges

“Green” issues have their stereotypes. You hear it many times when an environmentally-friendly initiative is written off for its “tree-hugger” qualities or as a luxury that doesn’t warrant investment. Given the political divide caused by the climate change issue, it would seem we still have a ways to go before we have a universal appreciation for the need to act before the impacts of climate change are fully manifested. Still, with such a political divide, it can come as quite a surprise to some when stakeholders who would never be characterized as “green” emerge to bridge that chasm for reasons of cold math or analysis—such as in national security.

Such is the case when Secretaryof Defense Leon E. Panetta recently expressed the Pentagon’s concerns about a changing climate.

“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,” Panetta said. “Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”

Panetta went on to discuss issues that fall not only under the umbrella of “energy security,” but also fiscal responsibility, noting that the last year’s Department of Defense tab for fueling its fighters, tanks, and ships was in the neighborhood of $15 billion, and operations in Afghanistan cost the department more than $50 million each month for fuel.

The interesting thing about Secretary Panetta’s views is that he speaks at a time in which with many of his subordinates are already are working to prepare the nation’s military for the impacts that a changing climate could bring—in the case of strategically considering natural resource issues, the military is fertile ground for this sort of trickle-up policy. 

Defense Secretary Panetta speaks at an annual reception for the Environmental Defense Fund, May 2, 2012. DoD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo.

Panetta’s views also serve to clear the road a very direct path to action: the removal of the politics of GHG mitigation efforts in favor of a broad acceptance of adaptation as the goal (the idea being that any future security environment requires planning and action, and adaptation-oriented strategies naturally complements existing national security functions). This is something we look at in the book, and certainly in our chapter on national security—the development of strategies that make sense for organizations, with the added benefit of providing a means for addressing the climate change issue.

In 2013, it’s expected that the Defense Department will invest more than $1 billion in technologies that make alternative fuels and energy efficiency a reality for its weapon systems. But the costs associated with such initiatives are attractive targets in political battles, particularly when the shrinking defense budget is viewed with a zero-sum mentality.

The reality is that sometimes the most promising solutions that science and technology can provide first require support from the public sector; consider all that has been made possible because of the space program—not just Tang, but also GPS and Teflon. And the military is a large customer in the energy market. Their ability to make such options a viable solution to energy issues should be encouraged. This is particularly true when the alternative is the status quo and its associated risks. As many in uniform know, being frozen and still on a battlefield is one of the fastest ways to become a casualty—which  certainly doesn’t achieve the mission.

Still, military leaders have some policy issues to overcome and balance. For example, previous Congressional action has tied the military’s hands on the alternative fuels issue (Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) effectively bans them from buying alternative fuels other than biofuels). The bright side, according to LMI energy security expert (and one of the book’s authors) Jeremey Alcorn, energy security efforts abiding by 526 often have side benefits that include not only climate mitigation but the establishment of a new domestic industry here at home.