The Center for Naval Analyses is a think tank that dates back to World War II. Last month, they released a report on the national security implications of climate change, authored by a panel of 11 former admirals and generals. The report suggests that the science of climatology needs to be incorporated into US security planning, and energy-efficient technology needs to be made accessible to both the military and developing world as soon as possible.

The panel's take on climate change was a bit diverse. A number of the members had spent time in science agencies, including NASA, since ending their military careers; they tend to accept the scientific consensus. Others emphasized the remaining uncertainties in the science but suggested they were irrelevant, as the military constantly engages in planning with incomplete information. Indeed, there were frequent references to worst-case climate scenarios representing the sort of "low probability/high consequence event" that has been the centerpiece of national security planning since the Cold War. As one panel member noted, "As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failing to act because a warning isn’t precise enough is unacceptable."

For the most part, however, the study's language echoes the recent IPCC reports on climate change in terms of the probability and impact. They view it as a serious issue, suggesting that "global climate change presents a new and very different type of national security challenge." The difference is clear in comparison to the Cold War, where the challenge was to keep the geopolitical situation stable. Climate change, in contrast, brings with it the specter of inevitable instability through failed states. "It has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today. The consequences will likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope."

The failed states that result from this political instability are more likely to harbor terrorists and become involved in warfare (both national and civil) over scarce resources, including water. Even the more stable Western democracies are likely to feel strains, as they are compelled to deal with mass migrations, refugees, and demands for humanitarian intervention—a fear echoed in other recent reports.

The panel produced five recommendations on how to cope with these impending security issues. The first is simply that we need to start incorporating climate change into our security analysis and military planning. There appears to be some movement in that direction, as the US House has dictated in a recent appropriations bill that climate change be considered in the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates. The panel also recommend that the US government become directly involved in international efforts to limit carbon emissions. Here there is little sign of movement, as the US continues to reject international agreements.

Other recommendations are more practical, such as the suggestion that the military should begin planning for the potential loss of coastal facilities due to rising ocean levels. The potential for a warmer atmosphere to produce more severe weather was also acknowledged, as it was suggested that the military plan to have its normal operations disrupted by weather, and to have some of its resources put to use in helping storm-damaged communities within the US.

There are two recommendations, however, that may have a significant impact on technology spending. One is that the US should get involved in assisting borderline states with both energy efficient tech and resources for mitigating the impact of climate change with the goal of preventing their failure. The second is that the US military needs to become radically more energy efficient. The panel noted that 70 percent of the tonnage the military brings to the battlefield is fuel, and that analyses within the Pentagon have long recognized that a more energy-efficient military would be more flexible and potent.

If these last recommendations are backed up by research money, they have the potential to have a major impact on energy technology, and possibly technology research in general. Mitigation efforts directed at failing states will be faced with the limited resources and capabilities of those states. As a result, any technology developed for these efforts will necessarily be cheap and easily applied.

Creating an energy-efficient military may have an even more profound effect. The military is able to fund long-term, "blue sky" research of the sort that has gone the way of the dinosaurs in private industry. Although military technology is often very expensive in early iterations, some of it eventually reaches the public in an affordable, mass-market form (like GPS receivers).

Hype about a hydrogen economy aside, most of the actively funded areas of energy research involve an evolutionary approach to existing forms of battery, wind, biofuel, and solar technology. Getting the military involved might send some money towards more exotic technology that could eventually revolutionize the global energy economy. This might benefit not only the military and national security, but the planet as a whole.