Posting #31: The story of the Climate Crisis and the US Military

The Story: The US military’s absolute first priority is to be the world’s best fighting force.  This means having warfighters trained for all potential contingencies and the most technologically evolved equipment for those warfighters to use.  Fighters are well-trained and well-equipped—which is why the DoD budget increases every year—so the story concludes that the environmental conditions under which the American forces fight do not matter.  Most Americans likely assume that our hard-boiled military doesn’t waste its time on finicky issues such as climate change. 

 

My take on the story: What might seem to be the logical ending to this story of absolutes is that climate change—caused by humans—is a “hoax” or a “scam,” that only those who are “politically correct” or “woke” believe it, and that because it is so well-funded, the US military does not need to pay attention to the “weather.”  Interestingly, the conservative partisans who most often support all-things-military are the ones now accusing the US military of being overly attentive to climate change.  

For instance, in a May 2024 Senate Committee on the Budget hearing, the committee’s ranking Republican member, Chuck Grassley, wrote in his all-single-sentence-paragraphs opening statement:

Climate change is hardly one of the most important challenges that the Defense Department ought to focus its attention on.  The [Democratic] Biden administration’s obsession with reducing the military’s carbon footprint actually distracts from the armed forces’ real mission of deterring and defeating our enemies. (emphasis added)

But even just a glance at the last nearly fifty years of environmental history shows how warranted and bipartisan concern about the dire effects of the dramatically changing climate have been, are, and will be on the US military. By my count, except for Trump, every president since 1981, regardless of political orientation, has prioritized climate change and its impact on national security.

·      Ronald Reagan (1981-1989).  Though US modern environmentalism began shortly after World War II, the environmental impact on US national security worried scientific communities since at least the (Republican) Reagan years. At that point, the communities

began to produce the first looks at the growing risks of climate change for international security. These assessments included the risks of extreme weather events, impacts on food production and the availability of water resources, rising sea level, and dramatic changes in the Arctic, including access to northern energy resources.

Later in the Reagan Administration, the 1987 National Security Strategy prepared by the White House to guide national defense priorities cited “the global population explosion and related food, water, and poverty problems” as “destabilizing international threats and problems which can seriously damage U.S. interests if not properly addressed.”  

·      George WH Bush (1989-1993). At the end of the Cold War, during the first (Republican) Bush Administration, the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence commissioned the intelligence community’s assessment of the impact of climate change on national security.  The subsequent Naval War College study issued in 1990 reports that

Demands on resources wrought by future climate change will be tremendously expensive and stressing for all sectors of our nation. Defense, as a whole, and the Navy, in particular, must insure that the policy formulation, planning, and analysis processes adequately address the impact of global climate change before other sectors take precedence in resource allocation matters and public support. The payoff will be a Navy fully capable of required operations in the new environment through less demanding, planned expenditures over a greater period of time rather than massive, unpopular budget requests once the most drastic effect occur. (emphasis added)

Furthermore, the decade-long MEDEA Program was also instituted during the first Bush Administration, a program that permitted scientists with security clearances to conduct “Environmental Intelligence Analysis utilizing National Security Assets” and then advise the intelligence community and the White House on environmental issues.

·      Bill Clinton (1993-2001).  The (Democratic) Clinton Administration emphasized climate change policy, making it even more a part of U.S. diplomacy and military action than in previous years and, according to declassified documents, the US Congress “considered appropriating funds to the Pentagon for fuel cells and electric vehicles.”  According to that same cache of declassified documents, “The military simultaneously doubled down on domestic environmental programs and emphasized ‘environmental security’ as part of national security policy.”  Then-Secretary-of-Defense William J. Perry argued in November 1996 that a “strong environmental program” was important to the US military, critical as it was to military “quality of life” and military readiness.

Unfortunately, it was also during this period that the US military garnered emission exemptions from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that “set binding emissions targets for signatory nations. During the 2015 Paris talks, the exemption was removed, but reporting of military emissions remains optional.”  As of 2019, the US military was the world’s largest consumer and emitter of hydrocarbons.

·      George W. Bush (2001-2009).  In his 2007 State of the Union address, (Republican) Bush called for “help… to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.” One response to that was the 2007 Center for Naval Analyses study that concluded climate change “poses a serious threat to America’s national security” because “it will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.”  Among the five recommendations the study offers are two specifically aimed at the DOD: first, improve US combat power through energy efficiency; second, assess “the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.”

·      Barack Obama (2009-2017).  It was during this (Democratic) administration that then- Secretary-of-Defense Hagel ordered an assessment of the vulnerability to climate change of the US military installations worldwide. Hagel stated in 2014 that

We are considering the impacts of climate change in our war games and defense planning scenarios, and are working with our combatant commands to address impacts in their areas of responsibility…At home, we are studying the implications of increased demand for our National Guard in the aftermath of extreme weather events. We are also assessing impacts on our global operations -- for instance, how climate change may factor into our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. 

Consequently, in the 2016 Department of Defense draft report about the dire impact of climate change on these installations, analysts found that “out of more than 3,500 military sites around the world, 782 reported being affected by drought, 763 by major wind events, and 706 by flooding, along with other problems.”

·      Donald Trump (2017-2021).  But when the final DoD report was issued during the (Republican) Trump Administration, in a reflection of the climate change denialism of the Commander-in-Chief, the final version erased the sense of urgency in the draft.

Internal changes to a draft Defense Department report de-emphasized the threats climate change poses to military bases and installations, muting or removing references to climate-driven changes in the Arctic and potential risks from rising seas… The earlier version of the document, dated December 2016, contains numerous references to “climate change” that were omitted or altered to “extreme weather” or simply “climate” in the final report, which was submitted to Congress in January 2018. While the phrase “climate change” appears 23 separate times in the draft report, the final version used it just once. 

Not only did Trump try to stall the US military’s climate change plans decades in the making, he also withdrew the United States from the 2016 international Paris Agreement, ended the US participation in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or “Iran nuclear deal,” promoted the use of fossil fuels, rolled back nearly 100 environmental policies, and actively worked to weaken environmental protections.  All signs are that as the President-elect, he will try to do even more to quash the DOD’s attempts to address climate change and thereby improve national security.

·      Joe Biden (2021-2025). On January 21, 2021, the day after he was inaugurated, Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) on “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.”  The EO outlines in three exceptionally detailed parts how each agency in the federal government is responsible for approaching what had been “climate change” and now is “climate crisis.”  Part I is “Putting the Climate Crisis at the Center of US Foreign Policy and National Security,” and says

The scientific community has made clear that the scale and speed of necessary action is greater than previously believed.  There is little time left to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.  Responding to the climate crisis will require both significant short-term global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and net-zero global emissions by mid-century or before. 

In this same part of the EO, the Secretary of Defense is deputized to develop a “Climate Risk Analysis,” consider the security implications of climate change, and produce annually an update “on the progress made in incorporating the security implications of climate change into these documents and processes.”

Not only does the most recent Defense National Intelligence Annual Threat Assessment (2024) continue to raise the alarm about the intersections of climate change and geopolitics, the DOD’s 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan echoes that alarm:

Climate adaptation efforts must align with and support the Department’s warfighting requirements. Reducing climate risks and bolstering installation resilience is critical to prevent disruptions to DOD’s operational plans, enable rapid recovery from extreme weather and climate impacts, and maintain mission readiness. The DOD is invested in increasing its resilience and improving combat capability, all while reducing the Department’s own contributions to climate change. Efforts include reducing energy demand, substituting clean energy and materials, and leveraging rapid advancements in clean energy markets and technologies. Preparedness and adaptation require the incorporation of climate considerations into strategic, operational, and tactical decision-making. To be effective globally, these efforts need to be done in collaboration with allies and partners.

These recent DOD actions—and the last nearly fifty years of environmental priority-setting—makes utterly clear that the US military cannot do its fundamental job of protecting the United States without a critical awareness of and response to current and future environmental conditions.

So that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley—at 91 years old, the oldest Senator in the US Congress—especially poo-poos the US military’s current prioritization of climate change is astonishing, given that he has been in the Congress for all of this time and so should be familiar with each administration’s moves on climate change rather than faulting Biden alone for this concern. 

Grassley began his political career in 1959 as an Iowa state House of Representatives at the age of 26 (1959-1975), was elected to the federal House of Representatives in 1975 and served three terms (1975-1981), and then was elected to the Senate in 1981, where he has remained since.  Because of his extremely long tenure and that, on his website he purports to support “green power,” you’d think he would know that climate change had been a concern for national security as a threat multiplier for decades and across administrations, and were not initiated by the Biden Administration.

So what?

Except for Donald Trump, climate change’s impact on national security and the US military has been a non-partisan issue in every presidential administration for nearly half a century.  That the Department of Defense—which spends billions of dollars annually on defending the United States—takes climate change seriously says a lot about the reality of climate change and a lot about the abilities of the US military to operate in less-than-ideal conditions.

DOD recognizes the threats of melting sea ice, subsequent rising sea levels, and the potential for conflict over Arctic resources and new sea lanes.  It recognizes how warming seas and oceans will obstruct US Navy ships, which require cold water to cool their moving parts.  It recognizes the poor air quality produced by its fighter jets, tanks, and the approximately 500 military bases throughout the United States that are largely hazardous waste sites.  It recognizes the conflict that emerges from extreme weather and food scarcity, whether from exceptionally heavy rains and flooding or no rain and severe drought.  It recognizes that these conditions can force migration, increasing the likelihood of debilitating pandemics and border conflicts.

DOD’s action during the last nearly fifty years may be too little too late. 

But at least it is acknowledging its own role in climate change, that climate change has made its defense of the nation harder if not impossible, and it is trying to reform.

It’s not hard to conclude, then, that if the US military is taking something seriously because it effects America’s warfighting ability, you KNOW there’s a problem.