Andrew Nagorski of the EastWest Institute, recently stated:
“What often does not come across in the discussions of climate change…is that the militaries of the U.S., the U.K., and other countries have for a long time operated on the assumption that climate change is something that you have to deal with. Whatever the causes, the consequences [of climate change], you have to factor it into your planning.”
Dennis V. McGinn, retired Vice Admiral of the U.S. Navy and member of the Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board, does a good job of summing up how climate change poses a national security threat, and how it could destabilize societies around the world:
“From a military and national security expertise perspective we question ourselves, what are we doing taking about climate science, we’re collectively 400 years of time in uniform at peace and at war. Our chairman of the military advisory board General Gordon Sullivan, former Chief of Staff of the Army put it best. He said we never have 100 % certainty. If you wait for 100% certainty on the battlefield, something bad is going to happen. We never have it. So, from that conclusion about how we should approach this from a risk management proposition, what can we do to prevent, to mitigate what we can’t prevent and to adapt what we can neither prevent or mitigate, the effects of climate change. That is the challenge for us across the globe. Certainly, as a global leader that the US is we bear a special responsibility for rising to meet that challenge and to turn it into the opportunity that can make us more secure nationally and internationally and more prosperous in the future.”
Here is a video from Operation Free Bus Tour. On the tour are U.S. veterans traveling across America making the case for energy independence for national security reasons:
More links:
Operation Free’s YouTube channel
Climate Change and Global Security
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
American Military on Climate Change: If we wait for 100% certainty, something bad is going to happen
Claiming Joy & Healing Amidst the Climate Emergency 
6 responses to “Climate Change and National Security: Climate Change Makes the World a More Dangerous Place”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paul Tran, Progressive Bloggers. Progressive Bloggers said: #cdnprog Climate Change and National Security: Climate Change Makes the World a More Dangerous Place… http://dlvr.it/8RVJx #cdnpoli […]
What is likely to happen if climate change makes the world a lot more unstable?
It’s possible that the effect could be one of rallying – the world suddenly realizing the seriousness of the issue and thus taking immediate action. States previously obsessed with exactly who should pay how much and exactly what timeline should be followed might just buckle down and do what needs to be done. A fair number of people seem to think that only a pretty substantial disaster will make the threat of climate change sufficiently concrete for enough people for the hard work of stabilization to begin.
The other possibility is that the world will pass from hesitation and avoidance of the issue directly into conflict, accusation, and counter-productive action. Severe climatic impacts could drive states and individuals to focus on their own short term internal and external security, rather than making serious efforts to address the root of the problem. This is a classical prisoner’s dilemma scenario and, unless it flips to a state of desperate cooperation once things got really bad, it could push the world across the physical thresholds that are so worrisome.
Hopefully, humanity will show the wisdom to choose the first path rather than the second.
Milan – it’s a great question “What is likely to happen if climate change makes the world a lot more unstable?” Thanks for that.
We obviously want rallying and action, people, communities and governments acting to address a globalised threat locally. The fulcrum is which way do people go under stress. And there is some evidence that this is unfortunately regressive. For example a study that was measuring the conciousness level of people in New York, by chance before and after September 11, found that people (very uncharacteristically by most of the literature) went backwards approximately half a stage of development post Sept 11.
In plain English we went back towards valuing community and family over the modern technical world or, modern society over a post modern culturally creative view of human interactions.
So what do we do about it? There’s got to be some very good writing and answers out there about supporting people in transition and resilience. Except it’s more than these two concepts – calling for responses that transcend the default behaviour. Which in turn means building opportunity and alternatives into our present day communities.
All of which may sound like a big ask but I think that’s actually what we are doing now. Building the future and our ability to respond quickly to future step dystopia-like causing impacts
Yes, we do live in interesting times, don’t we? I agree with your two scenarios, Milan. It does stick in my craw that the HarperCons are portraying themselves as right-wing hawks who are “tough on crime” and who are spending our taxpayer dollars building bigger prisons as Canada’s crime rate drops. Yet what is more hawkish than national security, and they are totally ignoring the issue of climate change and global climate instability, whistling in the dark hoping it will go away. Yikes!
Climate does connect to safety and our ability to dialogue about solutions will ultimately mean we are safe or are not. If our elected officials don’t have the ecological wisdom to make decisions for all life… be that the life forms that provide us food or the life forms that could provide creative solutions they will keep sending the youth of their county off to fight a war that they justify based on their own current projections and unresolved shadow.
What if there was no one to blame? What if the strategy was to clarify and prioritize needs of the citizen group? and then what if we put economics to the side….. (check out Economics of Happiness) Follow economist Mark Anielseki’s input that what we measure form an economic perspective is just a best guess anyway… why don’t we stop being so alarmed about our economy and start be concerned about our genuine wellbeing?
Once we let go of our fears and start being curious about what we really need to support each other in wellness… it gets a lot more sane.
TR – you make reasonable assertions, but there isn’t much reasonable about the politics in Washington or Ottawa these days. In particular, your statement “why don’t we stop being so alarmed about our economy and start to be concerned about our genuine wellbeing” resonates with me. Our hope to “get sane” is that more and more people make this same statement, loud and clear, and join forces until these sane voices must be heeded. It can be done, but we all need to get committed and creative in getting this message out.