Originally published on the CGS blog on August 30, 2012.
On August 21, the committee charged with composing the GOP’s platform for the 2012 election season submitted their draft to the party for approval. According to Fox News, the platform was “emphatically” given the nod on August 28th. While the usual news outlets have paid much attention to the sections of the platform concerning the party’s stances on abortion and gay marriage, the mainstream media has failed to address the Republican Party’s troubling take on the nexus between national security and climate change.
The language used by the GOP’s official platform is quite critical of the Obama Administration’s classification of climate change as a serious threat to national security. In fact, the new GOP platform states that the current national security strategy “elevates ‘climate change’ to the level of a ‘severe threat’ equivalent to foreign aggression.” If the GOP had done their homework, they would have encountered an overwhelming body of evidence coming from some impressive sources that outright contradicts their platform before it was approved and widely circulated.
Back in 2007, the CNA Corporation published a study with the purpose of examining the consequences of climate change with respect to national security. The report consists of a number of high ranking retired military officers discussing global warming’s impact on national security issues. First, the report found that climate change will increase the frequency of events that negatively impact geopolitical stability, such as floods, drought, and disease. Second, the report states that global warming will act as a “threat multiplier” for instability in already volatile areas such as the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. With global warming being a propelling factor, the U.S. may be drawn more frequently into “chronic” conflicts in these areas (‘chronic’ meaning that global warming is a propelling factor that is constant and widespread, not temporary and localized). Third, climate shift will result in higher tension for traditionally stable regions of the world, taking the form of higher numbers of refugees as well as more erratic weather patterns. Finally, the CNA report found that climate change, energy dependence, and national security are global issues that are interconnected; they need to be addressed in a serious and focused effort.
A few years after the CNA report, the Department of Defense released its Quadrennial Defense Review in February 2010. In this review, the DOD addressed the issue of climate change and its impact on how the DOD operates. First, the DOD states that climate change shapes the operational environments in which the DOD does its work. The DOD was primarily concerned with the negative geopolitical conditions that are related to climate change, including poverty, decreased environmental quality, already fragile governments that are further weakened by climate change, resource conflict, and disease. The QDR also touches upon the impact global warming will have on the physical environment in which the DOD operates. The report cites an example of previously closed sea lanes and sea lanes that will be open more often in the Arctic as a result of global warming. In response to these new conditions and an expanded need for communication lines and search and rescue capabilities, the government will need to shift more personnel and resources to the region, resulting in spreading resources and people even more thinly.
Along the same vein as the CNA report in 2007, the DOD also found that climate change is a propelling factor in instability and that preventing environmentally exacerbated instability via peaceful (meaning less expensive and invasive than armed intervention) means is in our collective interest. Even if the geopolitical arguments surrounding the aim to address global warming is not convincing enough, the DOD also argues that working with other countries on the issue of climate change can result in lasting relationships based on trust and goodwill.
The second major finding that the DOD’s report poses is that global warming will have a negative impact on military facilities and capabilities. In fact, a 2008 National Intelligence Council report found that over 30 military installations face risk from the complications associated with rising sea levels, 30 very expensive bases that have a direct tie to national security that even the GOP can’t refute. Finally, the DOD analysis states that green policy is a force multiplier (more operational effectiveness and efficiency) as well as a money saver. Utilizing a strategy that makes use of alternative energy sources and places emphasis on a more energy efficient force not only reduces the emission of greenhouse gases, but it also insulates the DOD from the price fluctuation associated with shifting oil prices. Not only does this strategy make environmental sense, but it makes economic sense.
Most recently, Media Matters published a list of 15 civilian and military leaders associated with the DOD that regard climate change as a threat to national security, including superstars such as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and General Anthony Zinni (Ret.).
In the face of these realities, the GOP’s current stance on the connection between climate change and national security seems like the fevered, ill-informed rantings of a fringe element blog, not the official party platform of a presidential candidate that has a fair shot at taking the White House.
On the other side of the equation, it is interesting to consider the Obama campaign’s vantage point and options concerning this issue. While global warming has not been one of the main talking points of this election (it’s the economy, stupid), Obama’s campaign has a definite tactical advantage in this situation. To unpack this point, the Democratic Party’s platform does not blatantly contradict conventional wisdom in the DOD as the GOP’s platform does.
The large divide between the DOD’s stance on the connection between global warming and national security and the GOP’s stance on the same issue is a point of attack that could be used to great effect by Obama’s campaign. It is getting increasingly rare in this day and age when the difference between party platforms does not consist of value judgments or beliefs that are not easily quantifiable in a widely-accepted manner.
If Obama did decide to bring this issue up, convention tells us that Republicans would probably criticize Obama of trying to shift the attention away from economic concerns. However, the established and decisive nature of this issue as well as the intrinsic economic component associated with green DOD policy would pose a small political risk to the Obama campaign, and the potential for political gains is quite large. What it comes down to is whether or not Obama has the political courage to take a small risk and address an ever-growing threat to national security, even in the face of an increasingly polarized political climate.
