America's New Military Threat
By Steve Maddox JGSM '10
Issue date: 9/9/09 Section: Johnson News
A new enemy is presenting itself on the horizon of our nation's security. It can't be met with military might, defeated and made to sign a treaty. It presents a set of challenges even more complex than those brought to bear by the current ideologues our military finds itself fighting today. We are at a critical juncture in our fight against this enemy, where difficult and resolute decisions must be made. The enemy is climate change, and it's time that the United States becomes the leader the world is looking for.
During my first training exercise in California's Mojave Desert, as a newly minted Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps, I was tasked to seize and hold a hill from an entrenched enemy. I set about conducting the most thorough reconnaissance in the history of that hill. It took me all night and into the morning to learn every nook and cranny. By late morning I received a radio transmission from my Commander who asked my status. I relayed that I was still devising my plan to take what was now "my" hill. I relayed that I would be ready in a couple of hours. The reply I received in return, edited to the G-rated version, was that the hill wasn't going to take itself, and that I had twenty minutes. This is the position the United States finds itself in: poised for attack with as much information on hand as would be necessary to make a decision, but hoping that the hill will simply "take itself." This will not solve the issue of climate change.
The stakes are high. In a study conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), eleven retired flag-level officers (Generals and Admirals) concluded that climate change represents a destabilizing force in both developing and developed regions. The goal of any national security strategy is to work toward stability. Regions with access to resources, generally speaking, are stable. Those without are not. There is a direct correlation between water access and stability. Iraq, Syria, and Turkey argue over the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian populations fight over the Jordan River's water. Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia fight over access to the Nile River and Lake Chad. This list goes on. These countries are the "Who's Who" list of nightly news conflict updates. Now, imagine how the issue intensifies as the atmosphere warms, evaporating inland water supplies. Countries with little access are left with no choice but to fight for what little resources are left. This conflict will exacerbate refugee populations that we already see in Sudan and Somalia today, and this issue will not remain isolated to far away regions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that Latin America will see fifty percent of its agricultural land turned to desert in less than fifty years. Imagine for a moment the kinds of issues that this would add to our already complex immigration arguments.
Take for example the Tsunami of 2004 that decimated eleven Southeast Asian countries. Another effect of an ever-warming planet is an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather, such as tsunamis and flash floods from elevated sea levels. As sea levels rise sixteen to twenty feet from their current levels, entire archipelagos would be displaced and the smaller remaining lands would be susceptible to greater damage from lesser storms. At a cost of $5 million per day to provide logistical support, disaster relief, and medical care during that event, you can start to get an idea of the kinds of economic impacts this has for the United States, above and beyond the cost in life and property for the global community. Americans know too well the effects of damage brought to bear by tropical storms. FEMA estimates that Hurricane Katrina displaced 1.1 million Americans and cost the United States over $100 billion in reconstruction.
These are examples of the effects of climate change. They are happening now and, in some part, the United States is playing a role in re-stabilizing these regions, be it through economic, military, or diplomatic aid. However, with the U.S. currently fighting wars on two fronts and grappling with our own tsunami of domestic economic problems, the tipping point of how many conflicts we can address may be just around the corner.
The question that leaders should be asking now is "Why is this happening?" and "How can we fix it?" The answer is to end our national addiction to oil. The emissions created through the burning of oil contribute mightily to the destabilizing effects of climate change discussed above. Additionally, and more importantly, it puts us in the compromising position of giving large sums of money to governments such as Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, all of which have contrasting ideologies to our own.
Any conflict with these nations would fall on the shoulders of our military who, not so coincidentally, is the largest consumer of oil in the world. Without oil, our tanks don't charge, our jets don't strike, and our ships don't leave port. What's more, the CNA estimates that every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the U.S. military $1.3 billion. On Friday, August 21 crude oil closed at just over $74 per barrel. Goldman Sachs is estimating that oil will break the $100 per barrel barrier by March of 2010. That's an annualized cost increase to our military of just over $4 billion. The variability in these costs is not sustainable.
Finally, exacerbating all of this is the rate at which the BRIC and "next 11" countries are growing. Another Goldman Sachs report this summer titled "21st Century Demographic Trends," estimated that the global middle class population will grow by two billion by 2030. These are two billion more consumers that will only help increase the rate at which fossil fuels are burned. The transfer of wealth will create another destabilizing force which extreme groups could prey on once resources become scarcer. In short, the fight for regional stability will strain our military, economic, and diplomatic capabilities. We cannot afford to have our actions increasing the effects of climate change, thereby adding to our burdens.
The solution involves investing in bio-fuels, fuel cells, and extended life battery technologies. Currently bio-fuels have shown promise in their ability to replicate ethanol-85 and JP-8 fuels, both of which our military is a large consumer of. I don't believe that jets and tanks will be electric in my lifetime, but they could most certainly run on something other than fossil fuels with investment. The solution involves providing the American public incentives to purchase zero-emissions vehicles and bolstering our mass transportation capabilities. The American consumer has shown an incredible capacity to sacrifice for the greater good, when asked and made aware of the power of their participation: goods and supplies during World War II and post-9/11 consumption to rejuvenate the economy are only two examples. Investing now in green energy solutions will not only catalyze economic recovery today, but will also create jobs that will aid in stabilizing national security going forward.
Steve Maddox spent ten years in the United States Marine Corps in the Intelligence, Infantry, and Communications fields. He spent his summer working for Goldman Sachs in their strategy and operations group.
During my first training exercise in California's Mojave Desert, as a newly minted Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps, I was tasked to seize and hold a hill from an entrenched enemy. I set about conducting the most thorough reconnaissance in the history of that hill. It took me all night and into the morning to learn every nook and cranny. By late morning I received a radio transmission from my Commander who asked my status. I relayed that I was still devising my plan to take what was now "my" hill. I relayed that I would be ready in a couple of hours. The reply I received in return, edited to the G-rated version, was that the hill wasn't going to take itself, and that I had twenty minutes. This is the position the United States finds itself in: poised for attack with as much information on hand as would be necessary to make a decision, but hoping that the hill will simply "take itself." This will not solve the issue of climate change.
The stakes are high. In a study conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), eleven retired flag-level officers (Generals and Admirals) concluded that climate change represents a destabilizing force in both developing and developed regions. The goal of any national security strategy is to work toward stability. Regions with access to resources, generally speaking, are stable. Those without are not. There is a direct correlation between water access and stability. Iraq, Syria, and Turkey argue over the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian populations fight over the Jordan River's water. Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia fight over access to the Nile River and Lake Chad. This list goes on. These countries are the "Who's Who" list of nightly news conflict updates. Now, imagine how the issue intensifies as the atmosphere warms, evaporating inland water supplies. Countries with little access are left with no choice but to fight for what little resources are left. This conflict will exacerbate refugee populations that we already see in Sudan and Somalia today, and this issue will not remain isolated to far away regions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that Latin America will see fifty percent of its agricultural land turned to desert in less than fifty years. Imagine for a moment the kinds of issues that this would add to our already complex immigration arguments.
Take for example the Tsunami of 2004 that decimated eleven Southeast Asian countries. Another effect of an ever-warming planet is an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather, such as tsunamis and flash floods from elevated sea levels. As sea levels rise sixteen to twenty feet from their current levels, entire archipelagos would be displaced and the smaller remaining lands would be susceptible to greater damage from lesser storms. At a cost of $5 million per day to provide logistical support, disaster relief, and medical care during that event, you can start to get an idea of the kinds of economic impacts this has for the United States, above and beyond the cost in life and property for the global community. Americans know too well the effects of damage brought to bear by tropical storms. FEMA estimates that Hurricane Katrina displaced 1.1 million Americans and cost the United States over $100 billion in reconstruction.
These are examples of the effects of climate change. They are happening now and, in some part, the United States is playing a role in re-stabilizing these regions, be it through economic, military, or diplomatic aid. However, with the U.S. currently fighting wars on two fronts and grappling with our own tsunami of domestic economic problems, the tipping point of how many conflicts we can address may be just around the corner.
The question that leaders should be asking now is "Why is this happening?" and "How can we fix it?" The answer is to end our national addiction to oil. The emissions created through the burning of oil contribute mightily to the destabilizing effects of climate change discussed above. Additionally, and more importantly, it puts us in the compromising position of giving large sums of money to governments such as Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, all of which have contrasting ideologies to our own.
Any conflict with these nations would fall on the shoulders of our military who, not so coincidentally, is the largest consumer of oil in the world. Without oil, our tanks don't charge, our jets don't strike, and our ships don't leave port. What's more, the CNA estimates that every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the U.S. military $1.3 billion. On Friday, August 21 crude oil closed at just over $74 per barrel. Goldman Sachs is estimating that oil will break the $100 per barrel barrier by March of 2010. That's an annualized cost increase to our military of just over $4 billion. The variability in these costs is not sustainable.
Finally, exacerbating all of this is the rate at which the BRIC and "next 11" countries are growing. Another Goldman Sachs report this summer titled "21st Century Demographic Trends," estimated that the global middle class population will grow by two billion by 2030. These are two billion more consumers that will only help increase the rate at which fossil fuels are burned. The transfer of wealth will create another destabilizing force which extreme groups could prey on once resources become scarcer. In short, the fight for regional stability will strain our military, economic, and diplomatic capabilities. We cannot afford to have our actions increasing the effects of climate change, thereby adding to our burdens.
The solution involves investing in bio-fuels, fuel cells, and extended life battery technologies. Currently bio-fuels have shown promise in their ability to replicate ethanol-85 and JP-8 fuels, both of which our military is a large consumer of. I don't believe that jets and tanks will be electric in my lifetime, but they could most certainly run on something other than fossil fuels with investment. The solution involves providing the American public incentives to purchase zero-emissions vehicles and bolstering our mass transportation capabilities. The American consumer has shown an incredible capacity to sacrifice for the greater good, when asked and made aware of the power of their participation: goods and supplies during World War II and post-9/11 consumption to rejuvenate the economy are only two examples. Investing now in green energy solutions will not only catalyze economic recovery today, but will also create jobs that will aid in stabilizing national security going forward.
Steve Maddox spent ten years in the United States Marine Corps in the Intelligence, Infantry, and Communications fields. He spent his summer working for Goldman Sachs in their strategy and operations group.
Be the first to comment on this story