A number of recent studies have begun making these kinds of links between climate change and national security. My report for the Council on Foreign Relations goes further, focusing on what should be done in three main areas: risk reduction and adaptation; mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; and institutional changes in the U.S. government.
Risk Reduction and Adaptation. Sadly, some climate change is inevitable. The U.S. needs to "climate proof" its domestic infrastructure including military installations, particularly along its coasts, to ensure it is prepared to withstand and respond to extreme weather events. As Hurricane Katrina showed, investments in risk reduction are likely to be much cheaper than disaster response. I support substantial investment in risk reduction: coastal defenses, building codes, emergency response plans, and evacuation strategies, among other measures. I also recommend enhanced vulnerability assessments to know where the risks are.
These are "no regrets" measures that are warranted in the unlikely event climate change proves to be less of a problem than feared. Internationally, developing countries need tens of billions, yet the U.S. government has done very little to support this agenda. I recommend several activities to help developing countries prepare for climate change, including $100 million (over several years) for military-to-military environmental security workshops. I recommend another $100 million per year to support an African Risk Reduction Pool, a common fund from which Defense, State, and other agencies would draw from to support security in Africa. These expenditures would be part of a broader international risk reduction effort that I argue should be on par with the president's five-year, $15 billion emergency plan for AIDS relief.
Strategic Climate Mitigation. We cannot adapt our way out of this problem. Unless the world significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century, climate change will exceed even many rich countries' adaptive capacities. To that end, we need to reach agreement among the major emitters, most importantly China and India. Whether or not they remain on good terms with the United States will depend, in part, on how we handle their aspirations for respect and needs for energy. Handled badly, U.S. relations with China and India could sour. Handled well, the U.S. can reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost effectively, support clean technology exports, satisfy their energy demand, and solidify a more constructive relationship.
Institutions. Climate and security concerns do not get the attention they deserve in the U.S. government because they have few high-level champions. A new deputy undersecretary of defense position for environmental security should be created to redress the insufficient institutionalization of climate and environmental concerns in the Department of Defense. That said, we should not confuse national defense with what the military can do. As the risk reduction agenda makes clear, other instruments of national power will also be needed. To that end, the U.S. needs several senior positions in the National Security Council dedicated to environmental security, including a Deputy National Security Advisor for Sustainable Development to guide the inter-agency process. The links between climate and security still might not get sufficient attention. A special advisor to the president on climate change with some budgetary authority might also help...