Get Energy Smart! NOW!

When it comes to security planning one of the oldest adages is “Plan for the worst, hope for the best.” For example, in the business management real, IT managers plan need to plan and prepare for back-ups of all data in the event of catastrophic failure of the main system.

This adage certainly has its place in national, especially military, security. During the Cold War, the principal focus was not on the challenges of Soviet integration of minorities into the military and the implications of that on military effectiveness, but on the number and capabilities of Soviet systems. At times, that led to the “ten-foot tall” Soviet phenomena. The same can occur when it comes to considering, today, the Chinese, Iranian, terrorist and other threats. This enables, however, testing capabilities against plausible threats to aid decision-making about force structures and concepts of operations. “Plan for the worst, hope for the best” has a long and valid history as being a core element of security planning.

Why raise this?

Simply put, when it comes to the quite plausible case that Global Warming could represent the most serious existential threat to the United States (at least in its current constitutional structure) over the coming decades, there is a very strong tendency within the national security community to “Plan for the best and ignore the worst”.

Even with mention of climate change in the Quadrennial Defense Review and increased attention to climate issues in many military commands (and even a Navy Task Force Climate), the defense communities work on climate change tends toward the rather optimistic forecast space rather than examining quite plausible worst case situations.  (For an excellent discussion of assessing risk, see Dr. Jay Gulledge, Scientific Uncertainty and Security Risks of Climate Change, pages 47-58 in L. Dean Simmons, editor, Climate & Energy: Imperatives for Future Naval Forces, 2010, Proceedings, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, 2010) Even this limited attention to climate change does not have deep support in the defense community (and is ridiculed by some). Based on personal experience in war games, conferences, discussion groups, and otherwise, the number of otherwise intelligent and educated people within the national security community who, quite viscerally, reject the Scientific Theory of Global Warming is remarkable. Considering the plausible threats that Global Warming portends and the security environment that could create, this goes beyond notable to gravely concerning.

Two caveats / comments

Every single major relevant scientific institution on the planet has come out with statements stating that the planetary climate is warming, that humanity is a major driving factor for this warming, and that action is required to reduce emissions to avoid serious risks from accelerated climate change. In the face of this, too many seem to reject the scientific method with an assertion that “global warming is the greatest hoax ever played on the American people”. This sort of comment is a direct attack on science with the not-hidden accusation that 10,000s of scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud. While there is room for honest debate and discussion, debating levels of risk and best paths forward is a different discussion than a blanket rejection of the scientific method. Even those rejecting the science, however, could well find value though a ‘no regrets’ strategy such as items discussed below.

And, to lay my views clearly: I would love for the scientific Theory of Global Warming to be proved wrong as this would remove the specter of this very serious threat from the future concerns of my nation and my children. Sadly, I do not expect this to happen as almost every day brings new evidence, new data, and new studies strengthening the science and highlighting the risks we face from catastrophic climate chaos.

Skeptism and No Regrets Strategy …

If one is skeptical about the Theory of Global Warming, this should not mean an utter rejection of the plausibility or possibility of the scientific community being correct on the core issues. And, these core issues (from disrupted weather patterns, (gradually) rising seas, acidification of the oceans, threats to water supplies, increasingly severe storms, disruptions to agriculture, mounting threats to infrastructure, etc …) create a multiple of quite real and, additionally, plausible (dealing with 100s of millions of ‘climate refugees’ as a potential) national security concerns and resulting military missions.

Considering these risks drives a question: At what point of uncertainty is one ready to move from “Plan for the Best, ignore the worst …” to “Plan for the worst” when it comes to Global Warming?

And, as part of that, at what point does one quite seriously start asking and working on (at a minimum) “no regrets” strategies that might help reduce Global Warming impacts?

As for “No Regrets,” this refers to measures that will produce value irregardless of their benefits in addressing climate change. The preeminent example of a “no regrets” value is the “low hanging fruit” of energy efficiency. There are broad opportunities for cost-effective implementation of more energy efficiency systems across the entire spectrum of the U.S. (and, generally, global community’s) use of energy. This includes the military force. And, efficiency (and, potentially, renewable power) has very clear implications for operational effectiveness. If after Desert Storm, a growing community focus turned to reducing the “iron mountain of supplies” with the resulting cost and operational implications of this huge cargo movement, we still face a “sea of oil” when it comes to fuel requirements. Addressing that “Sea of Oil” is at the centerpiece of the Secretary of the Navy’s five energy initiatives (Navy Task Force Energy) and something that greatly concerns, for example, the Commandant of the Marine Corps who recognizes that the primary cargo moving into Afghanistan is fuel and that Marines die protecting fuel convoys. Reducing fuel demand directly correlates with increased combat effectiveness while reducing casualties.

While there is increased focus on the technological and planning options that will foster lower energy demand, this has yet to truly penetrate the services’ cultures. Any non-commissioned officer (NCO) would berate, heavily, a private smoking a cigarette in a foxhole in a way visible to an adversary. Would that same NCO berate privates for leaving lights on (or for having incandescent light bulbs rather than LEDs) in a tent powered in a forward operating base via a diesel generator? Almost certainly not, even though the second likely places more American lives at risk due to the requirements to move (and escort / defend) diesel fuel in the operational theater to get to that generator which is then supporting often (very) wasteful / inefficient uses of the electricity.

Again, across the Department of Defense there are efforts to reduce deployed electricity demands in no small part to reduce the risk due to moving diesel fuel around the theater.

And, this efficiency is not just a question for operating bases or just US military forces. Could we not inculcate a focus in this domain on how we interact with (train) other militaries? Could not the Kazakhs, Iraqis, Botswanans and others gain from having more energy efficient approaches to the military operations?

A much stronger emphasis on energy efficiency presents a good example of a type of win-win-win strategy that “skeptics” about Global Warming should embrace, support, and engage in wholeheartedly.

Within the military force, itself, this offers the potential for

• Improved operational effectiveness due to reducing fuel movements, reducing forces/personnel dedicated to moving / securing fuel and other benefits (such as less generator noise).  These all enable either smaller force deployments or deployed forces that can focus more on missions other than supporting (fuel) logistics movements, etc …
• Financial savings (avoided cost) which will enable resources to be used for other requirements.

For the nation, this energy efficiency focus provides an improved operational force, reduced risk of casualties, higher likelihood of operational success, and a reduced cost of military operations. And, to the extent it matters, it helps to (slightly) reduce liquid fuel demand amid a general global supply/demand curve tension that – all things being equal – drives higher gas prices at the pump. And, as an ‘oh by the way’ benefit, it helps move the military down a path of reducing its “Global Warming footprint”.

Thus, a strong pursuit of “energy efficiency” provides an operational effectiveness win option, a financial/economic win path, and a global warming mitigation win path. And, the first two remain high-value “wins” even without considering Global Warming.

Returning to Plan for the Worst

It remains a major issue to consider if one is in the national security arena and ‘fighting’ the science on Global Warming. What degree of uncertainty is acceptable and still not be taking major “insurance” action against Global Warming risks and threats to the very existence of the United States of America? What degree of uncertainty is acceptable without tackling, with real urgency, at a minimum, a ‘no regrets win-win-win’ strategy?

The strenuous efforts that occur, all too often, by many within the national security committee to deny Global Warming and take it off the table as a real issue to tackle seem fundamental at odds with the core premise of “Plan for the Worst, hope for the Best …”

Some relevant material / sites:

• Global Warning (tip of the hat to CNAS’s Will Rogers)
• Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board, National Security and The Threat of Climate Change
• PEW, National Security Implications of Climate Change
• Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), National Security and Climate Change
• Christine Parthemore, Will Rogers, Center for New American Security (CNAS),   Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the Quadrennial Defense Review
• Skeptical Science, Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?