Tom Friedman on Mideast Drought, Climate and Security May 28, 2014

It used to be when you heard about a disaster in the third world, if you thought about it at all, you might send 10 bucks to the Red Cross, or maybe nowadays,text it.

What we have to wrap our minds around is that many developing countries are now armed with weapons of mass destruction. In the case of Syria, chemical weapons, India and Pakistan, and soon, maybe Iran, and a host of others (thanks to our friend the atom!) nukes.

They will not go quietly. As the rivers dry up, the fields go barren, the temperatures rise, the rains fail, and the glacier melt stops flowing – they will not go quietly.

ClimateProgress:

Sea level rise impacting naval bases. Climate change altering natural disasterresponse. Drought influenced by climate change in the Middle East and Africa leading to conflicts over food and water — as in, for instance, Syria. The military understands the realities of climate change and the negative impacts of heavy dependence on fossil fuels. The U.S. House does not. With a mostly party-line vote on Thursday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) that seeks to prevent the Department of Defense from using funding to address the national security impacts of climate change. “You can’t change facts by ignoring them,” said Mike Breen, Executive Director of the Truman National Security Project, and leader of the clean energy campaign, Operation Free. “This is like trying to lose 20 pounds by smashing your bathroom scale.” The full text of McKinley’s amendment reads: None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order In other words, the House just tried to write climate denial into the Defense Department’s budget. “The McKinley amendment would require the Defense Department to assume that the cost of carbon pollution is zero,” Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) said in a letter to their colleagues before the vote. “That’s science denial at its worst and it fails our moral obligation to our children and grandchildren.” The amendment forces the Defense Department to ignore the findings and recommendations of the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC’s latest climate assessment, specifically with regard to the national security impacts of climate change. It would also do the same for the Social Cost of Carbon, which provides a framework for rulemakers to take into account the societal, security, and economic costs associated with emitting more carbon dioxide. If the Pentagon cannot use its funding to implement the recommendations from the NCA and the IPCC reports, the specific impacts on DoD would be vague — and troublesome — because the reports are crystal clear.

US Department of Defense:

By Terri Moon Cronk

American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, May 27, 2014 – Climate change is among the factors Defense Department officials consider in protect national security around the globe, a senior DOD official told a Senate panel here last week. Daniel Y. Chiu, deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee May 21. Chiu said while DOD plans for contingencies and unexpected developments to protect the nation’s security, climate change can create sea-level rise, storm surge, shifting climate zones and more severe weather conditions that can affect operations. And while some of those conditions have affected military installations, he said, such changes can also have a negative impact on other DOD concerns. “We are also seeing the potential for decreased capacity of DOD properties to support training, as well as implications for supply chains, equipment, vehicles and weapon systems that the department buys,” he explained. Even while infrastructures are being adapted to climate change threats, DOD also is conducting a baseline study to determine which infrastructure elements are most vulnerable to extreme weather events and sea-level increases, he said, adding that the study is due for completion late this year. Climate change effects potentially could alter, limit or constrain environments where troops operate, Chiu said, using sea-level increases as an example of an impact on amphibious operations. Another demonstration of climate change’s effects is diminishing sea ice in the Arctic region, he said, which can make the Arctic Ocean “increasingly accessible.” While such a scenario is a “decades-long dynamic,” he said, the region must now be monitored. DOD’s Arctic strategy, released in November, seeks through U.S. leadership and collaboration to “preserve an Arctic region that remains free of military conflict in which nations act responsibly and cooperatively and where economic and energy resources are developed in a safe and sustainable manner,” Chiu said.