• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Pentagon Releases New Climate Roadmap, Plans for Constrained Training, Challenged Infrastructure, Expanding Missions

    October 13, 2014 By Schuyler Null
    Katrina

    A series of executive orders signed by President Obama since his first year in office requires all federal agencies to begin planning for climate change and produce an updated adaptation plan by May of this year. The Pentagon is a little late, but today they released their second-ever climate roadmap.

    “Climate change will affect the Department of Defense’s ability to defend the Nation”

    The roadmap is an update to the U.S. military’s first climate roadmap, released in 2012, and largely echoes the frank assessments of climate change’s impact on national security seen in Department of Defense strategy documents since the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.

    “Climate change will affect the Department of Defense’s ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security,” the new roadmap says.

    hr

    These climate-related effects are already being observed at installations throughout the U.S. and overseas and affect many of the Department’s activities and decisions related to future operating environments, military readiness, stationing, environmental compliance and stewardship, and infrastructure planning and maintenance.

    The roadmap is explicitly about adaptation, not mitigation. The Department of Defense is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, thanks to its immense fuel and energy consumption, but plans to scale back and increase efficiency are reserved for its annual Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan.

    A Three-Point Plan

    The military’s adaptation goals are three-fold:

    • To identify and assess the effects of climate change on the Department now and in the future;
    • To integrate consideration of climate change into decisions at every level; and
    • To maximize collaboration on expected challenges, both internally and externally.

    Each section of the roadmap provides a progress report on these goals and a more detailed agenda for what still needs to be done.

    The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), the Pentagon’s environmental science and technology program, completed an assessment last year on the vulnerability of the Department’s coastal infrastructure, noting many of the steps needed to adapt to rising seas will be less costly now than in the future. A new “screening level” survey assessment tool, developed by SERDP, was deployed this year to assess other installations.

    The military is concerned about readiness issues, like the increasing number of “black flag” days, when the wet-bulb globe temperature – a composite of air temperature, humidity, wind chill, and sunlight – is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit and outdoor training is suspended. But a more in-depth look remains on the docket for future study.

    The military is concerned about readiness

    Research currently under way includes examining how “increased temperature trends and changes in the fire regime in the interior of Alaska will impact the dynamics of thawing permafrost and the subsequent effects on hydrology, access to training lands, and infrastructure; and changes in storm patterns and sea levels will impact the Department’s Pacific Island installations, including their water supplies.”

    Further exploring how climate change will affect state stability is a concern, though there are no updates on progress. “The impacts of climate change may cause instability in other countries,” the authors recognize, “by impairing access to food and water, damaging infrastructure, spreading disease, uprooting and displacing large numbers of people, compelling mass migration, interrupting commercial activity, or restricting electricity availability.”

    These developments could undermine already-fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively or challenge currently stable governments, as well as increase competition and tension between countries vying for limited resources. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism.

    It’s not clear what role the military would have in efforts to stabilize climate-vulnerable states, even if the relationship is better understood at some point. There are concerns about the “securitization” of climate change from those that see building climate resilience as primarily a social or development concern.

    Emergency response is certainly within the Pentagon’s purview, however, and in addition to raising the possibility of more instability, the roadmap acknowledges the potential for increased disaster relief and humanitarian assistance missions, noting the Department will review and modify capacities as needed.

    Climate Everywhere

    “Adaptation to climate change,” the authors write, “cannot be a separate decision-making process, but rather integrated into the Department’s existing management processes.”

    The Department has identified 58 directives, policies, manuals, and guidance documents that do not incorporate climate change but should – at the risk of “adversely impacting the Department’s mission.” A plan for updating them is supposed to be developed this year.

    DOD has identified 58 directives, policies, manuals, and guidance documents that do not incorporate climate change but should

    Since the last roadmap, several new mandates have been established that require including consideration of changing climate conditions when building new structures, and the authors report there have been scattered individual efforts to harden existing facilities.

    Besides incorporating climate change into every relevant point along the military’s gargantuan decision-making tree, the roadmap outlines ways the Pentagon and its Senior Sustainability Council, which is in charge of coordinating the roadmap, are looking to work with other federal agencies, environmental stewardship organizations, and foreign militaries.

    Such military-to-military cooperation around climate change – which Secretary Hagel highlighted in a speech at the Council of Defense Ministers of the Americas in Peru – would build on the Department’s track record of efforts to build cooperation around environmental issues and disasters, and provide an avenue for potentially addressing climate’s destabilizing effects on fragile states.

    Ensuring supply and acquisition lines are not interrupted, continuing to train effectively, and adapting to new infrastructure and operational environments will all be more difficult without collaboration. The Arctic is a key example: Melting ice is opening the Arctic Circle up to sea travel and possible resource exploitation, requiring the Navy and Coast Guard to adapt to a new environment, as well as work with other Arctic states and key countries (China and India, for example, which joined the Arctic Council last year, despite geography).

    —

    The roadmap is impressive for its breadth, but many of its core components remain aspirational. The sections on actual results and efforts since the last edition are frustratingly light. There are also places where the military’s ethos of trying to plan for everything runs into the massive scale of the climate challenge.

    The authors note: “Effective adaptation planning will ensure the continued availability of the land, air, and water resources at our installations and ranges so the Department can train and operate today and into the future.”

    In that respect, the Pentagon is just like the rest of us – increasingly aware of its own vulnerability but not quite able to make many of the changes called for on its own.

    Sources: Global Green USA, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, The White House.

    Photo Credit: A U.S. Army helicopter flies over New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, courtesy of Jacob N. Bailey/U.S. Air Force.

    Topics: adaptation, Arctic, climate change, conflict, energy, environment, environmental peacemaking, environmental security, featured, flooding, humanitarian, Infrastructure, military, risk and resilience, security, U.S., water
    • Bob

      The US military has been a multiclimate, all weather fighting force for quite some time. Now, it suddenly needs to be filled with climate warriors? Do we get new MOS’s? Do they end in Bravo Sierra?

    • Kristin Parrish

      It’s great to hear that climate change is a phenomenon that
      is on our government’s radar! I was not previously aware that creating a plan
      for climate change was a mandated executive order. As a government employee
      myself, I think that it is great that agencies are taking climate change into
      consideration as it will be something that can affect our daily operations,
      whether its effects are felt instantaneously or drawn out over time. Climate
      change is not just an issue that will affect our environment and ecosystems,
      but rather it will affect all the world’s citizens on a personal level, which
      in turn will be an issue that governments must address. As this article states,
      climate change is such a large phenomenon that it will even put our national
      security at stake. A change in climate impacts our entire surroundings, from
      the temperatures in which we thrive to the stability of the infrastructure we
      rely on for daily activities. Furthermore, this article makes an important
      point in mentioning that not only could it affect the stability of the United States,
      but climate change can equally have a large effect on the stability of other
      countries, many of whom already struggle with fragile governments, impaired
      access to resources, and displaced people. Climate change would only heighten
      these struggles, which would in turn place a larger burden on the US if faced
      with threats or more responsibilities to protect these unstable countries.

      As I mentioned, it is refreshing to know that climate change
      is an issue that the government recognizes and is planning for in advance. It
      is good to know that new policies are starting to take climate change into
      consideration, especially in decision making, as well as learning how to
      identify climate change, as this is an issue that is gaining more and more
      importance with every day. In addition, I believe that the encouragement for
      cooperation between agencies, environmental organizations, and other foreign
      militaries has benefits that go beyond what was mentioned within this article:
      This cooperation has the potential to lead to peacebuilding opportunities as
      well, as all militaries can agree that climate change is a common enemy to
      fight against. Perhaps focusing states’ efforts on protecting against climate
      change and emphasizing the need to work together in this area will improve
      relations between otherwise unfriendly nations.

      However, despite it all, I do find fault in this planning
      strategy: The government is merely asking for a plan on how to adapt to climate
      change, not how to mitigate it. If the same time and energy was put into
      creating a plan on how to prevent climate change, then an adaptation strategy
      would not be necessary. I think that this strategy would be a lot more useful,
      as it would not only protect the environment but it would also help to maintain
      the stability of our nation as is seen from all the adaptations that would be
      necessary if climate change was allowed to continue occur.

      The government has made an important step forward in
      recognizing that climate change is an existing threat, but the next step is to
      recognize that steps to prevent it can be taken as well.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: "Feminism materializes through investment in human capital and caregiving sectors of the economy...
  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: People who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy are often the ones who benefit from it. So please, say...
  • Water desalination pipes A Tale of Two Coastlines: Desalination in China and California
    Dr S Sundaramoorthy: It is all fine as theory. What about the energy cost? Arabian Gulf has the money from its own oil....

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000