Climate Change as a National Security Threat

Joshua W. Busby, in his paper Climate Change and National Security: An Agenda for Action,1 argues that climate change should be viewed as a serious threat to the security and prosperity of the United States of America. He offers several recommendations, such as policy options, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and various kinds of intervention in countries like China, India, and Indonesia.

Busby cites Hurricane Katrina and the response as something that the US should keep in mind when considering climate change. Though he says that a direct link cannot be shown between the disaster and climate change, this sort of disaster is more likely to occur in the future of climate change, and the botched response to it should be a lesson to the US.

Moving on from this, Busby states his first conceit: that, though they have heretofore been considered opposing sides of the argument, adaptation (risk reduction and preparedness) and mitigation (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in heavily industrialized nations like the US, China, and India), should be pursued together.2

Due to the likely events of climate change (which Busby lists as warmer temperatures, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, drought, and high sea levels), there is a precedent of and a possibility for costal damage including the damage of Air Force and Naval bases in such areas. This, along with what Busby says is a higher risk of destabilization of nations with separatist populations leading to the possibility of attacks on western soil, make climate change an extreme risk to national security. 3

Busby does not only identify the problems of climate change but also outlines several possible solutions. One of these, he calls the pursuing of “no-regrets” policies. These policies include evacuation and relocation strategies within the US, infrastructure investment inside and outside the US, and, outside the US, military-to-military training on disaster management, emergency response, and scarce water resource initiatives. Another policy he states as “no-regrets” is that of support of research on climate change. This includes precise estimates of adaptation costs and larger interest in satellite weather coverage outside the US. 4

Another important aspect of dealing with climate change, according to Busby, will be diplomacy. There is a possibility for fingers to get pointed at the US and China, two of the leading industrial nations, as “climate villains.” Busby says several things can be done about this. The US can use this position to build relations with China and to build trust and cooperation between industrial nations. The US can also use its position as a leading industrial nation to compensate other countries such as Indonesia to avoid deforestation, a leading cause of climate change. 5

Finally, Busby writes of the need to integrate climate change concerns into top-level decision making. He suggests making several new posts within the government to deal with the issue of climate change, and to reinstate several positions that existed under the Clinton presidency. Busby feels that positions should also be created within the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, as the risk of climate change has been proven by his paper to be one of national security. 6

All in all, Busby's concerns about climate change and his approach seem quite even-handed. As he is not affiliated with any government party or office, it is likely that his solutions will prove much more even-handed than the implementation of them would. One part of his paper that feels particularly resonant is the section in which he describes the potential danger to coastal parts of the United States, especially New York. Written in 2007, the paper precedes the disastrous effects of Superstorm Sandy. Much loss of livelihood and property would have been avoided in Sandy if Busby's plans had been implemented earlier.

Busby's “no-regrets” policies seem, for the most part, to be just that. There can literally be no harm done in spreading knowledge of disaster management to the militaries of other countries, nor in the building of infrastructure. However, the idea of relocation from coastal areas may prove costly and, if climate change does not take the path that it possibly can, somewhat ineffective. However, having secondary plans for evacuation and relocation truly are flawless plans.

However, when Busby writes about the threat Indonesia might pose during climate change, he loses his rational and even-handed tone. "Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population—about 88 percent of its 245.5 million people. Some have been radicalized, but most have not. Indonesia is also a fragile democracy and politically unstable with a history of separatist movements. Meanwhile, as an island archipelago with large forest reserves, the country is both vulnerable to climate change and important for climate mitigation. Climate change, through drought conditions or storms, might further destabilize Indonesia, and if the government provided a weak response to a future weather disaster, this could encourage separatists or radicals to challenge the state or launch attacks on Western interests".

Busby's fears that climate change will radicalize Indonesia seem both alarmist and vaguely Islamophobic. Certainly, the destabilization caused by climate change is cause for alarm both within the US and abroad, but Busby's pointed mention of this Muslim population does not seem in keeping with his even assessments throughout the rest of the paper.

Ultimately, however, as level-headed as Busby's arguments are, his call for both mitigation and adaptation may be impossible. To adapt to be ready for climate change, we must be prepared in an industrial and technological sense. This seems at odds with the notion that we must slow things down and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. How are we to simultaneously prepare and slow down? How does an industrial country become less industrial and more technologically advanced? The two options claim resources that cannot go to both. Though Busby's attempts to marry the two opposing ideas are admirable, they may ultimately be mutually exclusive. While some of Busby's solutions, such as evacuation plans, are low tech, further plans may simply involve resources we cannot spare.

Bibliography

Busby, Joshua W. 2007. “Climate Change and National Security: An Agenda for Action.” Council on Foreign Relations, 2007.