Global Climate Change and Landpower
Global Climate Change and Landpower
Geoffrey Demarest
Pardon me for wondering out loud here. Looking through the blog I note that not too much has been said here regarding landpower and global climate change. The subject doesn’t fall into my wheelhouse, and I hesitate to bring it up at all except that I noticed and could not help but be puzzled by the Center for Naval Analysis (CAN) May, 2014 report titled ‘National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change’. As their title suggests, the CAN researchers assert a link between our national security and accelerating risks associated with climate change. I don’t know if the Army has done or contracted any study more-or-less equivalent – please let me know if you are aware of something. The subject of climate change causes me some ambivalence because I think it is always a good idea to advocate improved readiness to operate under extreme climate conditions, whether that supposes cold, hot, wet, dry or whatever. As a land force we do find ourselves in the most miserable places on earth; that’s pretty much an Army cliché. There are awful climates for us to not enjoy regardless of any global changes, however, I now think the general argument warning of the dangers of global climate change (and that we all should attend and assign resources to the problem at an institutional level) is empty. I ask the blog readers to consider what I think I’m seeing in the global climate change arguments and let me know where I’m right or wrong as you see it.
Many people claim there is an urgent need to address global climate change. Their argument goes about as follows: 1. The world is warming, 2. it has been doing so at a dangerously high pace, 3. the change is bad for the US, humans and the world; 4. the chemical culprit of warming is increased CO2 in the atmosphere, 5. the main source of the CO2 increase is emissions from human hydrocarbon energy production, 6. we in the United States are especially responsible, 7. there are solutions available, 8. and there exists a group of people knowledgeable and politically situated who can effect the solution (self-identified as such and often the same people who are ringing the alarm). Toward the beginning of the list, the pieces of the logic string are mostly, supposedly, scientific matters. As the logic unfolds, it seems to take on more political weight. We are very hesitant in my office to enter into anything predominantly political by nature, so I restrain my comments here to the science part and draw a position on the basis of following a small set of blogs (not even doing that thoroughly). They are: Anthony Watts’ wattsupwiththat.com/; Roy Spencer’s drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/, Robert Way, et al’s skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html; Warren Meyer’s climate-skeptic.com/; and Tony Heller’s stevengoddard.wordpress.com/. This may be an unfairly ‘skeptic-prone’ list, so if you have sources you consider more enlightening, don’t hesitate to educate. I want to be transparent about what I really don’t know, which is a lot to be sure. It is hard work to dig into the data itself. Following, however, is the opinion I have formed, in four parts:
1. – Is the world warming? Maybe, probably, as it seems we have been in a post-ice age melt for thousands of years. At what rate and what rhythm are the more important questions. It does not appear (at least according to what I can understand) that the temperature has gone up appreciably in the last fifteen or so years, and it may even be that it has gone down in the last ten or so. Weather is not climate, but there exists an embedded debate about how many years a weather trend might continue before one suspects an issue of climate. I can’t form a worthy opinion on that. Note, however, that the vast majority of the many models should have but did not predict the recent decade or two of weather stability. The reasons for the models’ failure I cannot ascertain, but there may be a suite of logical reasons. Perhaps the model builders assumed a greater environmental sensitivity to increases in CO2 than actually exists; modelers really don’t understand how clouds form (clouds perhaps being a greater influence on atmospheric temperature than CO2); and they may have underestimated other sources of CO2 production, such as volcanic activity.
2. Is climate change happening at a pace and rhythm dangerous to humans and the world, and more particularly to US national security? There is little evidence that global warming is necessarily bad for the world or humans, and especially there is little evidence that it will cause a militarily more dangerous or less stable world, or cause more work or misery for the US Army. At any rate, since recent data do not support the argument of a high rate of change, the lack of data regarding the effect of change is moot. A number of writings (not scientific reports) assert or at least intimate that global warming causes and has caused a greater number and greater intensity of severe weather events like cyclones, tornadoes, tsunamis, fires and the like. Those assertions are not borne out by the data.
3. Is the principle culprit of global climate change carbon dioxide? It seems almost certain that increased carbon dioxide would have some warming effect, but the relative, net degree of that effect is not known. One clear, curious and as yet unexplained trend is the well-measured increase in atmospheric CO2 while atmospheric temperatures have remained steady. One has to ask what overcomes the effect of the CO2 increase. Climate change scientists have not apparently figured that out, and whatever it is, it does not appear to have been adequately included in the models. Again, while the CO2 has lately increased, temperature has not. Anyway, there seem to be many other producers of the stuff besides us. There is little evidence that the predictable level of increase of CO2 is directly harmful. There seems to be as much evidence that it might be a good thing. Increases in carbon dioxide might be a reason for increased global plant growth, for instance.
4. Is global climate change having an appreciable or predictable effect on US national security and is there something special we should and could do about it? This question is the punch line and reason for this tiresome blog post. My answer is no, not from a landpower standpoint. There does not appear to be enough substance to the global climate change warning to, at this time, move any part of our DOTMLPF. Independent of the global climate change argument, it is probably a good idea to get better gas mileage, have uniforms appropriate to difficult climates, vehicles that start and go in the snow or jungle etcetera. However, as far as the direct effect of global climate change on national security, and the wisdom of assigning resources to solving climate change – I am thinking we should hesitate to buy in, that is, should resist any expression of enthusiasm or agreement with the notion that there is a link between global climate change and anything the military institution should do about it. The future of US landpower is not linked to global warming, or at least not according to the current state of the science. Global warming is also not a significant ‘driver’ of pertinent changes in the foreseeable operating environment. Of course there may be exceptions. Maybe we will need a few more snow cats to tromp around in. What do you say?
Meh. Pitiful, I again comment on one of my own posts. My little feelings were hurt that nobody took up the call to consider what we should do about the threat of anthropogenic global warming, when, as if to my rescue, the 2015 National Security Strategy and the 2015 Army Posture Statements arrived in my inbox.
Our strategic leadership considers global climate change to be one of the “top strategic risks” to our interests. Climate change is mentioned more than fifteen times and earns its own section in the NSS document. Among other measures, our government is committed to cementing an international consensus on “arresting climate change.”
I guess I understand why SWJ readers might prefer to steer clear of commenting on our military’s appropriate role in this matter. Thankfully, the 2015 Army Posture Statement may be answering for us, revealing as it seems a less than complete acknowledgement of the threat. So maybe there is hope. The APS mentions “deleterious effects of climate change” but makes only a by-the-way note about actions that will enhance the Army’s ability to “mitigate and adapt” to those effects.
We can safely suppose deleterious effects of climate change will happen somewhere irrespective of how much the climate warms or doesn’t or how fast. It is much different, however, to accept a role in the mitigation and adaptation to something certain, than it is to commit to arresting something fabulous.
Found this article that has two graphs depicting the challenge and cost to the U.S.:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-31/obama-s-new-climate-change-plan-in-two-charts
The large graph at the very bottom illustrates that power plants are the biggest culprit with our cars being second. So be prepared to see your power bills in the winter and summer climb tremendously as EPA regulations (if not halted by current Supreme Court case) create new restrictions on coal powered plants that power much of the U.S.
Next expect to have cars that get 54.5 mpg by 2025…just 10 years from now. Does your current car get half that on the highway? Congrats. Now shrink that car substantially and put in a smaller turbo engine and probably a hybrid-electric that costs a small fortune. If it is all electric it will be costly and create more emissions from those power plants.
Finally, I did a numbers drill since I owned a small business for 13 years and took 3 semesters of Calculus all of which I’ve forgotten. No worries, as it isn’t that complicated. Attributing the reductions required to get the U.S. CO2 down by 26% by 2025 while China simultaneously increases emissions 1% a year leaves the world at almost exactly the current CO2 levels. Both countries combined are currently 44% of the world total (China 29% + U.S. 15%) so if the other 3rd world nations continue to increase their emissions as is likely, we probably will see the U.S. and China with about the same quantity of CO2 in 2025, but the other nations actually increasing their quantities. That does not achieve the 6% annual worldwide reductions claimed necessary to keep global warming levels at reasonably low levels.
So the realist in me notes that we can chase our tails and spend enormously very early to make little dent in the problem, or dedicate the same funds to adjusting to an inevitably warmer world. The President just announced a plan to get Veterans into the solar industry. Great, my son is already there, although not a veteran. In a warmer, sunnier world, perhaps solar-powered homes providing some of the energy total will mean less work for the power plants that are the largest offenders. But of course hotter summers will mean higher energy bills offset perhaps by warmer winters with lower bills.
Maybe the Midwest, rust belt, and northeast will be warmer in the winter. Maybe more Silicon Valley businesses and worker will move to Colorado and Austin. Humans adjust well and if there is not enough water in California thanks to Chinese pollution, there are other places to live and the rest of the nation could use the jobs.
To some degree the private sector is fully capable of solving some of these problems without necessarily getting the government involved to drive up all our costs prematurely. Meanwhile, perhaps we should not be flying Air Force One all over the U.S. or playing golf on courses that require lots of water. At least Al Gore and Hollywood global warming advocates use private jets they pay for.
@ thedrosophil,
Laying my cards on the table, I am still working on a definition for strategy, but I can tell already we have differences. In my view, this is a positive because working on resolving those tensions in our differences about strategy will result in a better understanding of the concept of strategy. I am grumpy, I snap, but unlike many who work in this field I’m far from arrogant and don’t claim to have the answers. The arrogant and self-identified strategy experts do not sway me, because frankly none of them have offered a functional solution to the problems we face today. I prefer to work with those willing to engage in heated debates to get to a tentative strategic approach that may work, and yet not fear changing it if it doesn’t.
Key points where I think we disagree. IMO strategy should not be limited to war, why not put the same level of thinking into creating conditions for an enduring peace? We also need strategy for strengthening our nation as a whole (economically, socially, and militarily). There are also national strategies related to economics, education, and for security issues not related to war. These are all important and deserving of strategy. The military doesn’t own the concept of strategy; however, a strategy for winning a war is clearly different from a strategy for improving our national education system, yet improving our national education is an investment in human capital that clearly ties into improving our national security. I can draw that line to a number of issues logically, so while the National Security Strategy has its warts, overall I think it serves its purpose as a grand strategy that addresses a multitude of related topics.
We both have concerns with our war strategies (actual, deterrence, or prevention strategies) concerning the mess in the Middle East, Russia in Ukraine, and China’s disregard of international norms in the East Philippine Sea. I’m not convinced that the traditional view of military strategy would help us resolve any of these problems, unless we think we can use military power as the lead agency in any of these situations to achieve our desired ends. Clausewitz provides insights if we choose to use the military as the principle tool to defeat another country’s conventional military, but that option is increasingly irrelevant in today’s world for a lot reasons beyond the scope of this post.
I think the focus on aligning ends, ways, means and risks are a bit simplistic, and results in thinking that differs little from developing plans. If strategy is going to have a purpose above planning and plans, then it requires thinking on a different pane. That does not mean one is superior intellect compared to a good tactician, but the strategic thinking should be different. We integrate whole of government approaches in plans, it is dysfunctional, but that is a separate issue. We identify ends, ways, means, and risks in plans. In the end, none of these points are unique to strategy, so what differentiates it from planning?
I agree with your point here, “The conflation of “strategy” with large scale plans, even in military circles, has divorced so-called “strategists” working within the Pentagon from the very objectives that true strategy was meant to be a framework for planning toward.” I’m not convinced we’re entirely broke here, instead I think the academics that teach strategy adhere too closely to old concepts of strategy that don’t conform to the modern world. I also think we have a lexicon crisis, where we try to make 18th century concepts of war and peace fit into the 21st century. In short, we don’t have the vocabulary to describe today’s issues in a useful manner.
I’ll provide a rough draft of my definition for strategy at a later date, but soon. I will reserve the right to change it if doesn’t work. Climate change relates to all of this, because it is a strategic driver. I can’t imagine a strategist ignoring it, because strategists must consider potential future scenarios. This is why we disagree on the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. That is true strategic thinking, focusing on long term national objectives tied to our economy, instead of confusing the various current crises as ends. They’re events that happen in a strategic context, and based on our understanding of that context, and our ends, we can develop appropriate responses (to include the option of ignoring them).
I believe the President gave a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy today in which he reasserted his opinion, and by extension US Government policy, that global climate change presents a serious risk to US national security. According to the President’s view, global climate change [warming I think we are to assume] causes severe weather events to worsen and occur more frequently. Also, military bases will be challenged by rising sea levels. Can anyone steer me to data indicating that the rise in global atmospheric CO2 during the past couple of decades is correlated to temperature, weather or climate change? I can’t find any data to that effect, in fact, only the opposite — that there has been no correlation. Also, can anyone steer me to data showing that severe weather events have be more frequent or of a larger scale? I can’t find that either. Finally, has anyone seen any data indicating a rate of the rise of sea levels likely to cause us to have to make expensive overhauls to our naval facilities in next twenty or thirty years (the President referenced the careers of the new graduates)? I think he also suggested that the new ensigns would face increased refugee flows, which are to worsen as a result of man-made climate change. Is anyone out there aware of any geographically-specific theory suggesting where that might happen?