Summary: For more than half a century, U.S. intelligence and defense communities have worked to understand the threats to national and international security from a range of environmental factors, including pollution, population, water and energy resources, and the accelerating impacts of climate change. These assessments include both the risk that these factors will increase the potential for violence, conflict, and war, and the impacts of these issues for U.S. military forces and infrastructure. The public documents listed below comprise the unclassified reports available, which highlight ever-increasing levels of concern about these threats, with the recent exception of the administrations of President Donald Trump, which has explicitly demanded that the defense and intelligence communities delete past research, censor specific words or concepts, cancel ongoing analysis efforts to identify these threats, and defund programs to prepare forces and infrastructure for environmental threats. Almost all of the past assessments have, however, been archived by different organizations, and links to these resources are provided where possible.
[Part 2, Documents from 2011 to 2017): https://www.gleick.com/blog/climate-change-water-the-environment-and-national-security-an-annotated-6214fd89-b743-4f28-9d45-66042ad22048]
[Part 3, Documents from 2018 to the present): https://www.gleick.com/blog/climate-change-water-the-environment-and-national-security-an-annotated-1aa7481b-f3af-476b-89ee-1ae82c3341d0]
Part 1: Documents up to 2011
September 17, 1969. Memo to John Ehrlichman, assistant to President Richard Nixon from Daniel P. Moynihan
“As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions, we really don't have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a problem, and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change… I would think this is a subject that the Administration ought to get involved with. It is a natural for NATO.”
October 1970: Rand Corporation. Climate Modification and National Security. R.R. Rapp. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California
“Actions to alter the face of the earth In some major way for some beneficial purpose could alter the climate of the earth In a harmful way. The Important point is, that today we have the technology and the available energy to make vast changes in the face of the globe and the composition of the atmosphere. These changes could very well affect the climate in which we live… The Rand program on climate dynamics for environmental security starts with the concept that the U.S. might be harmed either inadvertently or maliciously by changes in the climate, so that we must find out how to anticipate change in the climate. There is much work to be done to develop a methodology and an estimate as to how the climate might change or be changed.”
December 10, 1974: National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200. Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (the Kissinger Report).
Should the U.S. initiate a major research effort to address the growing problems of fresh water supply, ecological damage, and adverse climate? …Only a concerted and major effort in a number of carefully selected directions can provide the hope of success in reducing population growth and its unwanted dangers to world economic will-being and political stability.
1980: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. State Department. The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-First Century. (Pergamon Press, New York.)
“This report was prepared by the State Department and the Council on Environmental Quality at the request of President Carter. Its purpose is to assess the possible changes in the world’s population, natural resources base and environment through the end of the century.
The conclusions are sobering. If present trends in population growth, resource degradation and environmental pollution continue, the efforts of the international community to achieve higher qualities of life and expanded social opportunities will be overwhelmed. The potential for famine, economic dislocation, social disruption and political instability will increase . . . sparing neither rich nor poor from the collective effects.”
“Vigorous, determined new initiatives are needed if worsening poverty and human suffering, environmental degradation, and international tension and conflicts are to be prevented. There are no quick fixes. The only solutions to the problems of population, resources, and environment are complex and long-term. These problems are inextricably linked to some of the most perplexing and persistent problems in the world — poverty, injustice, and social conflict.”
1986: H.R.3622 - Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. 99th Congress (1985-1986)
The Goldwater-Nichols Act, 50 USC § 404A, imposes a requirement that an Annual National Security Strategy Report be prepared and transmitted to Congress.
(1) The President shall transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States (hereinafter in this section referred to as a “national security strategy report”).
(2) The national security strategy report for any year shall be transmitted on the date on which the President submits to Congress the budget for the next fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31.
(3) Not later than 150 days after the date on which a new President takes office, the President shall transmit to Congress a national security strategy report under this section. That report shall be in addition to the report for that year transmitted at the time specified in paragraph (2).
January 1987: The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, D.C.
“While we remain properly concerned with the Soviet threat, we must not neglect other destabilizing international threats and problems which can seriously damage U.S. interests if not properly addressed. These include non-communist nations with oppressive governments and ideologies opposed to ours; international economic concerns of massive world debt, trade imbalances, and shifts in comparative advantage in our interdependent global economic system; the global population explosion and related food, water, and poverty problems; the proliferation of nuclear weapons; drug trafficking; and human rights violations, to name only a few.”
January 1988: The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, D.C.
“Finally, the prospects for world peace and prosperity - and thus for U.S. interest in a just and progressive international order- will be influenced by other problems in certain parts of the world. Critical shortages of food, a lack of health services, and inabilities to meet other basic needs will keep millions of people, particularly in Africa, in peril. The dangerous depletion or contamination of the natural endowments of some nations-soil, forests, water, air - will add to their environmental and health problems, and increasingly to those of the global community. These problems cannot be resolved simply through outside assistance, for many of them will require policy changes and leadership by governments and elites in the countries themselves. But all create potential threats to the peace and prosperity that are in our national interest, as well as the interests of the affected nations.”
March 1990: The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, D.C.
“In the coming decade, we will have to project American values and protect American interests on issues of growing global importance, such as the battle against narcotics trafficking and the search for solutions to international environmental problems. We must intensify efforts to promote alternative sources of energy (nuclear, natural gas, coal, and renewables), and devote greater attention to reducing fossil fuel emissions in light of growing environmental concerns.”
May 1990: U.S. Navy War College. Global Climate Change: Implications for the United States: Newport, RI (T.P. Kelley).
“Naval operations in the coming half century may be drastically affected by the impact of global climate change. For the Navy to be fully prepared for operations in this future climate environment, resources of both mind and money must be committed to the problem. The Navy’s research and analysis efforts are required to support the sound planning evolution necessary to insure the Navy’s capabilities in this future climate environment.”
1990 - 2001: Central Intelligence Agency. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Review requested of Global Climate Change and the MEDEA Program (Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis). Virginia.
The SSCI requested a review of intelligence community systems to support Global Climate Change assessments (MEDEA). The CIA & NRO provide Senator Gore potential use of IC systems for Global Climate Change assessments. This presentation summarizes those efforts, including the Environmental Task Force (ETF) – circa 1992 – 1993. Provides a review of classified Intelligence and DoD systems, data, and archives for global climate change and other key environmental issues.
July 24, 1991: U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Report 102-117. Authorizing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1992 for the Intelligence Activities of the U.S. Government, the Intelligence Community Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency. Virginia.
“To the extent that we need to reduce resources devoted to the Soviet target, we must focus more of our intelligence capabilities and resources on other security threats such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug smuggling, terrorism, environmental change, low-intensity conflict in the Third World, and the illicit export of high-technology items.”
August 1991: The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, D.C. [The first explicit mention of “climate change” in the National Security Strategy.]
“The environmental depredations of Saddam Hussein have underscored that protecting the global ecology is a top priority on the agenda of international cooperation — from extinguishing oil fires in Kuwait to preserving the rain forests to solving water disputes to assessing climate change. The upheavals of this era are also giving rise to human migrations on an unprecedented scale, raising a host of social, economic, political and moral challenges to the world's nations.
Global environmental concerns include such diverse but interrelated issues as stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, food security, water supply, deforestation, biodiversity and treatment of wastes. A common ingredient in each is that they respect no international boundaries. The stress from these environmental challenges is already contributing to political conflict. Recognizing a shared responsibility for global stewardship is a necessary step for global progress. Our partners will find the United States a ready and active participant in this effort.”
January 1993: The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, D.C.
“Environmental degradation is one of the most pressing global problems. Deforestation, climate change, air and water pollution, and depletion of water supplies have far reaching effects on the capacity of countries to sustain economic growth and ensure a healthy environment for their citizens. Environmental problems transcend national boundaries. Air and water pollution in one country can affect far distant countries as well as those nearby. Some problems, such as ozone depletion and climate change, can have a global impact. In many developing countries, environmental degradation is already causing serious health problems and limiting economic development. “
July 1994: The White House. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. Washington, D.C.
“We have committed the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and we have developed a National Climate Plan to achieve that goal. The more clearly we understand the complex interrelationships between the different parts of our world's environment, the better we can understand the regional and even global effects of local changes to the environment. Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered "free" goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of environmental risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to largescale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, and ultimately climate change. Strategies dealing with environmental issues of this magnitude will require partnerships between governments and nongovernmental organizations, cooperation between nations and regions, and a commitment to a strategically focused, long-term policy for emerging environmental risks.”
February 1995: The White House. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. Washington, D.C.
The key text from the July 1994 National Security Strategy document (above) is repeated in the 1995 Strategy
February 1996: The White House. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. Washington, D.C.
“The President developed a Climate Change Action Plan to help reduce greenhouse emissions at home and launched the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation to help reduce emissions abroad…
The key text from the July 1994 National Security Strategy document (above) is repeated in the 1996 Strategy.
May 1997: The White House. A National Security Strategy for a New Century. Washington, D.C.
“Environmental threats do not heed national borders and can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-being. Natural resource scarcities often trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as climate change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of dangerous chemicals directly threaten the health of U.S. citizens. We must work closely with other countries to respond aggressively to these and other environmental threats.
“Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations; consequently, our national security planning is incorporating environmental analyses as never before. In addition, we have a full diplomatic agenda, working unilaterally, regionally and multilaterally to forge agreements to protect the global environment.”
January 28, 1998: U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing. Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States. S. Hrg. 105-587.
A key goal of US foreign policy is to protect the United States and its citizens from environmental degradation. Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, developed countries committed themselves to legally binding action to lower the threat of global warming through proposed cuts in greenhouse gases, as measured against 1990 levels. In contrast, most developing countries did not commit to any targets. There is broad scientific agreement that, left unchecked, global warming over the next century would have such adverse impacts on the United States as coastal flooding from sea level rise, volatile weather fluctuations with both costly droughts and flash floods, and loss of sensitive habitats, particularly the Everglades.
“Mankind's global activities particularly population growth, resource consumption, pollution, urbanization, industrialization, desertification, and deforestation--will increasingly impact climate and weather patterns, strain fragile ecosystems, and put more pressure on health and social support systems. All of these issues will take on increased national security import.” [Statement of Lieutenant General Patrick M. Hughes, USA, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency.]
October 1998: The White House. A National Security Strategy for a New Century. Washington, D.C.
“Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations. Environmental threats do not heed national borders and can pose long-term dangers to our security and well-being. Natural resource scarcities can trigger and exacerbate conflict. Environmental threats such as climate change, ozone depletion and the transnational movement of hazardous chemicals and waste directly threaten the health of U.S. citizens.”
December 1999: The White House. A National Security Strategy for a New Century, Washington, D.C.
The key text from the July 1998 National Security Strategy document (above) is repeated in the 1999 Strategy.
December 2000: The White House. A National Security Strategy for a Global Age. Washington D.C.
“The President has said, "Our natural security must be seen as part of our national security." Decisions today regarding the environment and natural resources can affect our security for generations. Environmental threats do not heed national borders; environmental perils overseas and environmental crime pose long-term dangers to U.S. security and well being. Natural resource scarcities can trigger and exacerbate conflict, and phenomena such as climate change, toxic pollution, ocean dumping, and ozone depletion directly threaten the health and well-being of Americans and all other individuals on Earth.”
September 2002: The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, D.C.
“Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to:
• Remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international cooperation…
March 2003: U.S. Air War College. Weather Operations in the Transformation Era. J.M. Lanicci, Maxwell Paper No. 29 (Maxwell AFB: Air University Press 2003).
“the term strategic weather is defined as the significant influence of weather and/or climate on a nation’s (or coalition’s) ability to attain its objectives while employing its military and other instruments of national power.
It is important to describe not only weather and climate conditions accurately in the theater but also to understand potential impacts on friendly and enemy systems, people, tactics, operations, and doctrine. Ultimately, we want to be able to predict the effects of the weather and climate just as accurately as the weather itself or, as a minimum, give decision makers some “robust scenarios” to consider.”
October 2003: U.S. Department of Defense. Office of Net Assessment. An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA. P. Schwartz and D. Randall.
“The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:
1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patterns, causing more frequent floods and droughts
3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess.”
October 2003: National Defense University. Global Warming Could Have a Chilling Effect on the Military. Defense Horizons, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Washington, D.C. (R.F. Pittenger and R.B. Gagosian).
“Recent evidence suggests that the oceans already may be experiencing large-scale changes that could affect Earth’s climate. Military planners should begin to consider potential abrupt climate change scenarios and their impacts on national defense.”
May 2006: U.S. Congress. Testimony of Dr. Peter H. Gleick to the U.S. Congress Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations Hearing on Energy as a Weapon: Implications for U.S. Security. “The Implications of Global Climatic Changes for International Security”
“Over the last few decades, there has been growing concern over the international security implications of large-scale environmental problems, including those associated with the production and use of energy resources. Recently, this attention has focused on the possibility of major climatic changes caused by growing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other trace gases that result, primarily from our combustion of fossil fuels.
Given the extent and severity of the likely climatic changes, it is increasingly urgent that we begin to ask how climate changes will affect international relationships, economics, access to resources, and national security. It is widely acknowledged that the dependence of the U.S. on imported energy resources can lead to economic pressures and tensions or as triggers to conflict when other pressures and tensions exist between nations. Less appreciated is the extent to which the environmental impacts of energy use can lead to international security threats, especially when those impacts are as severe and wide-ranging as climate change.
My testimony today discusses the most likely paths for such effects and what responses might be appropriate to minimize the adverse consequences for international stability and tensions. Global climate change is a real and serious problem. Impacts are already evident and are worsening rapidly in many parts of the world and the United States. It is vital to identify our greatest vulnerabilities to climatic stresses and the areas where those stresses will most affect national and international security, behavior, and policy.
Five critical areas stand out as important examples of national vulnerabilities with security implications: agricultural productivity, the availability and quality of freshwater resources, access to strategic minerals, rising sea level, and the deterioration of political relationships with other countries that result from disagreements about international climate policy.”
October 2006: U.S. Naval War College. Global Warming and the Combatant Commander: Engaging the Arctic. M.L. Burd. Joint Military Operations Department, Newport, RI.
“The NMS predicts a future security setting with battle spaces far different than any in which U.S. armed forces currently train. The Arctic region, once viewed for its Cold War strategic significance, fits this NMS description and is reemerging as a potential future theater of operations as a result of global warming. According to scientists, the Arctic’s icepack will continue to melt during the twenty-first century. They agree that increased consumption of oil and carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere will accelerate the effects and magnitude of global warming on the environment. A “low probability, high impact” occurrence of abrupt climate change is not beyond the realm of possibility. The Arctic’s physically changing environment is just one of its many unique characteristics. In addition to the physical challenges and opportunities it presents are the numerous implications associated with its retreating ice coverage. GCCs will undoubtedly be affected by or involved with the theater-strategic implications of increased access, contentious territorial disputes, and expansive oil and natural gas exploration. “
April 18, 2007: U.S. Senate. Testimony to the U.S. Senate of General Gordon Sullivan, chair of the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) Military Advisory Board.
“After listening to leaders of the scientific, business, and governmental communities both I and my colleagues came to agree that Global Climate Change is and will be a significant threat to our National Security and in a larger sense to life on earth as we know it to be.”
July 2007: U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute. Climate Change and Army Sustainability. Army Foresight: Searching for Sustainability.
“Climate change is widely accepted by the world’s scientific community. Numerous aspects of climate change remain under debate, but the basic premise—that the planet is warming due to increases in greenhouse gases in the planet’s atmosphere—is widely supported. A panel of retired General Officers reports that:
“Carbon dioxide [CO2] levels in the atmosphere are greater now than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and average global temperature has continued a steady rise. This rise presents the prospect of significant climate change, and while uncertainty exists and debate continues regarding the science and future extent of projected climate changes, the trends are clear.”
The effects of climate change will present international, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental challenges, many of which are likely to affect the Army, due to its worldwide distribution and the wide-reaching activities of our soldiers. Army strategic planning takes into account most foreseeable events. Strategic planners should also consider the potential impacts of global climate change. As the Army Strategy for the Environment notes, our ability to secure the future depends on environmental stewardship to protect the precious resources needed to train for and carry out our mission.”
“The Army is likely to encounter a strategic paradigm shift as environmental factors become critical. Historically, these factors were considered in isolation, addressed and managed independently. With increased understanding of climate change, individuals and institutions are beginning to grapple with the interconnectedness of the environment and human life. This shift in understanding our role as part of the earth’s system may lead to strategic changes with regard to environmental issues.”
October 2007: U.S. Departments of the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power.
https://www.revolvy.com/topic/A%20Cooperative%20Strategy%20for%2021st%20Century%20Seapower
“Climate change is gradually opening up the waters of the Arctic, not only to new resource development, but also to new shipping routes that may reshape the global transport system. While these developments offer opportunities for growth, they are potential sources of competition and conflict for access and natural resources.
The effects of climate change may also amplify human suffering through catastrophic storms, loss of arable lands, and coastal flooding, could lead to loss of life, involuntary migration, social instability, and regional crises.”
December 2007: U.S. Joint Forces Command. The Joint Operating Environment, Trends and Challenges for the Future Joint Force Through 2030. Norfolk, Virginia.
[Major climate sections]
“…Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. Unlike most conventional security threats characterized by the activities of single entities acting in specific ways, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies.
The U.S. may be drawn more frequently into these situations, either alone or with allies, to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. The U.S. may also be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun, to avert further disaster and reconstitute a stable environment. Effects may spread to the U.S. Homeland in the form of refugee flows, internal weather-related disasters, energy crises, and associated terrorist activities. Potential strategic implications may include the potential opening of new sea lanes and access to new resources as a result of the melting Arctic ice cap and tensions regarding availability or reallocation of energy resources. Climate change may also have impacts on areas of military capability ranging from trafficability, to potential inundation of military ports and other bases to sensor performance…
The effects of climate change, including droughts, floods and, potentially, rising sea levels could also contribute to increased migration. Large scale migration will be one of the major security issues related to climate change, primarily due to changes in food and water availability or proximate physical changes to their former locale, such as sea-level rise, desertification and fires, or forced relocation by security forces. Climate change may force migrations of workers due to economic conditions, and the movement of asylum seekers and refugees. Migrations in themselves do not necessarily have negative effects, although taken in the context of global climate change a net benefit is highly unlikely. Migration patterns may occur within countries, across borders, and across entire regions, and each type of migration brings different stresses relating to additional competition for diminishing available resources, increased demands on systems, infrastructure, racial and religious tensions and increased cultural, political and economic stress...”
2007: CNA Military Advisory Board. National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. Alexandria, Virginia.
• “Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security.
• Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
• Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
• Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.”
May 2008: U.S. Army War College. Global Climate Change National Security Implications. (Ed. Carolyn Pumphrey). Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
“Climate change, as a security problem, needs to be addressed at multiple levels. First, there is the root problem—the changing climate. Second, there is the human misery it will engender—we are talking of such things as poverty, disease, displacement, and social inequality. Third, there is the instability and/or changing strategic picture that will spring from all of the above. Simply put, our response needs to encompass at least three things: slowing down the rate of climate change and preparing to adapt to changes that cannot be avoided; taking steps to alleviate social distress; and preparing to cope with potential conflicts.”
June 25, 2008: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030. Statement for the record by T. Fingar, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
“We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years. Although the United States will be less affected and is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change, and may even see a benefit owing to increases in agriculture productivity, infrastructure repair and replacement will be costly. We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests…”
…Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. We judge that economic migrants will perceive additional reasons to migrate because of harsh climates, both within nations and from disadvantaged to richer countries.”
June 2008: U.S. Department of Defense. National Defense Strategy: Washington, D.C.
“Over the next twenty years physical pressures – population, resource, energy, climatic and environmental – could combine with rapid social, cultural, technological and geopolitical change to create greater uncertainty. This uncertainty is exacerbated by both the unprecedented speed and scale of change, as well as by the unpredictable and complex interaction among the trends themselves. Globalization and growing economic interdependence, while creating new levels of wealth and opportunity, also create a web of interrelated vulnerabilities and spread risks even further, increasing sensitivity to crises and shocks around the globe and generating more uncertainty regarding their speed and effect.
Current defense policy must account for these areas of uncertainty. As we plan, we must take account of the implications of demographic trends, particularly population growth in much of the developing world and the population deficit in much of the developed world. The interaction of these changes with existing and future resource, environmental, and climate pressures may generate new security challenges…
These risks will require managing the divergent needs of massively increasing energy demand to maintain economic development and the need to tackle climate change.”
November 2008: Statement of President Barack Obama.
“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.”
November 2008: U.S. National Intelligence Council. Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. NIC 2008-003.
Climate change is likely to exacerbate resource scarcities, particularly water scarcities. Although the impact of climate change will vary by region, a number of regions will begin to suffer harmful effects, particularly water scarcity and loss of agricultural production. Regional differences in agricultural production are likely to become more pronounced over time with declines disproportionately concentrated in developing countries, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural losses are expected to mount with substantial impacts forecast by most economists by late this century. For many developing countries, decreased agricultural output will be devastating because agriculture accounts for a large share of their economies and many of their citizens live close to subsistence levels.
On newer security issues like climate change, US leadership will be widely perceived as critical to leveraging competing and divisive views to find solutions. At the same time, the multiplicity of influential actors and distrust of vast power means less room for the US to call the shots without the support of strong partnerships. Developments in the rest of the world, including internal developments in a number of key states—particularly China and Russia—are also likely to be crucial determinants of US policy.
The breadth of transnational issues requiring attention also is increasing to include issues connected with resource constraints in energy, food, and water; and worries about climate change. Global institutions that could help the world deal with these transnational issues and, more generally, mitigate the risks of rapid change currently appear incapable of rising to the challenges without concerted efforts by their leaders.
February 12, 2009: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Statement of Dennis C. Blair. Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“The Intelligence Community recently completed a National Intelligence Assessment on the national security impacts of global climate change to 2030. The IC judges global climate change will have important and extensive implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years. Although the United States itself could be less affected and is better equipped than most nations to deal with climate change and may even see a benefit in the near term owing to increases in agriculture productivity, infrastructure repair and replacement will be costly. We judge the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests. We assess climate change alone is unlikely to trigger state failure in any state out to 2030, but the impacts will worsen existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. We judge economic migrants will perceive additional reasons to migrate because of harsh climates, both within nations and from disadvantaged to richer countries.”
August 2009: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The 2009 National Intelligence Strategy of the United States of America.
Climate change and energy competition may produce second-order effects for national security as states anticipate the effects of global warming (e.g., by contesting water resources in regions with limited potable sources) and seek to secure new energy sources, transport routes, and territorial claims.
The issues and trends that will shape the future security environment—economic instability, state failure, the ebb and flow of democratization, emergence of regional powers, changing demographics and social forces, climate change, access to space, pandemic disease, and the spread of disruptive technologies, to name just a few—will test the Intelligence Community’s ability to provide strategic warning and avoid surprise. Most of the IC’s analytic cadre focus on assessing ongoing and near-term events of significance. The IC must improve its ability to anticipate and identify emerging challenges and opportunities.
October 1, 2009: The CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security.
The CIA Center serves as a primary producer of finished intelligence on the national security implications of climate change, including its impact on the political, economic, and social stability of foreign nations. The Center brings together specialists from the DI and the DS&T, enabling greater collaboration on this important national security issue.
November 10, 2009: U.S. Department of the Navy. Arctic Roadmap.
From transmittal memo, Vice Chief of Naval Operations. “Scientific evidence indicates that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the most rapid changes are occurring in the Arctic. Because the Arctic is primarily a maritime environment, the Navy must consider the changing Arctic in developing future policy, strategy, force structure, and investment.”
December 2009: U.S. Department of Defense. Installation Energy Management. DoDI 417011 (with changes August 31, 2018).
“The Department of Defense shall strive to modernize infrastructure, increase utility and energy conservation, enhance demand reduction, and improve energy resilience, thereby saving taxpayer dollars and reducing emissions that contribute to air pollution and global climate change.”
2009: U.S. Army War College. Taking Up the Security Challenge of Climate Change. R.J. Parsons. Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Climate change, in which man-made global warming is a major factor, will likely have dramatic and long lasting consequences with profound security implications, making it a challenge the United States must urgently take up. The security implications will be most pronounced in places where the effects of climate change are greatest, particularly affecting weak states already especially vulnerable to environmental destabilization.
2009: Institute for Defense Analyses. Climate Change Effects: Issues for International and US National Security: IDA-D3906. Alexandria, Virginia.
“Prior to 2006, the security implications of climate change effects received only occasional attention. The level of interest rose exponentially over the following eighteen months. Now climate change is widely recognized as a threat that is tightly interconnected with other 21st century challenges such as energy security, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and organized crime. This paper provides an overview of current views on how the consequences of warming temperatures, rising sea levels, disturbances in precipitation patterns, and increases in extreme weather events might impact global stability. The purpose is to raise awareness of the full scope of climate-related security concerns. It also identifies opportunities to strengthen the U.S. in preparing to respond to the changes in security tensions that could accompany climate impacts.”
2009: U.S. Air Command and Staff College. Two Degrees of Separation: Abrupt Climate Change and the Adverse Impact to US National Security. O.A. Velasco. AU/ACSC/8697/AY09. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
The regional and global security implications of the environmental effects caused by global warming are grave. Inaccessibility to critical natural resources has the potential to create and fuel existing regional instability and also weaken failing and developing states. The potential impacts of global warming span the social, economic, and political spectrums within the international arena. Due to the myriad of concerns which arise, the US should assess the impacts of abrupt climate change and take action to protect vital regional and global humanitarian, sustainable development and security interests.
February 2010: U.S. Department of Defense. Quadrennial Defense Review Report.
“Other powerful trends are likely to add complexity to the security environment. Rising demand for resources, rapid urbanization of littoral regions, the effects of climate change, the emergence of new strains of disease, and profound cultural and demographic tensions in several regions are just some of the trends whose complex interplay may spark or exacerbate future conflicts.
Crafting a strategic approach to climate and energy: Climate change and energy will play significant roles in the future security environment. The Department is developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions, and facilities. The Department already performs environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations throughout the United States, working to meet resource efficiency and sustainability goals. We must continue incorporating geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes.”
February 2, 2010: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Statement for the Record. Dennis C. Blair. Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability. (In my classified statement, I discuss the recent UN-sponsored climate change conference in Copenhagen.) Climate change alone is highly unlikely to trigger failure in any state out to 2030, but it will potentially contribute to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict. Water issues, which have existed before the recent changes in the climate, will continue to be major concern. As climate changes spur more humanitarian emergencies, the demand may significantly tax US military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations. Some recent climate science would indicate that the effects of climate change are accelerating, particularly in the Arctic region and on mountain glaciers that impact critical watersheds.
February 18, 2010: United States Joint Forces Command. The Joint Operating Environment (JOE), Ready for Today, Preparing for Tomorrow, Norfolk, Virginia.
The impact of climate change, specifically global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels, has become a concern… Climate change is included as one of the ten trends most likely to impact the Joint Force.
May 2010: National Security Strategy. The White House, Washington, D.C.
Dozens of climate references, including:
“Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict, and pandemic disease...
A global effort to combat climate change must draw upon national actions to reduce emis-sions and a commitment to mitigate their impact. Efforts to prevent conflicts and keep the peace in their aftermath can stop insecurity from spreading…
Dependence upon fossil fuels constrains our options and pollutes our environment. Climate change and pandemic disease threaten the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people…
The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe. The United States will therefore confront climate change based upon clear guidance from the science, and in cooperation with all nations—for there is no effective solution to climate change that does not depend upon all nations taking responsibility for their own actions and for the planet we will leave behind.”
August 26, 2010: U.S. Department of Defense. Strategic Sustainability and Performance Plan FY2010.
“The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review recognizes that a strategic approach to climate change and energy is a high priority for the Department. Our military’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels creates significant risks and costs at a tactical as well as a strategic level. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) specifically recognizes that DoD must address climate change and energy because of their significance to national security and mission readiness.
Climate change is predicted to impact the Department in myriad ways, not only through direct effects on installations, but also by potentially increasing demands on our men and women in uniform. The impacts of climate change may potentially destabilize regions already prone to conflict and increase the need for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.”
2010: U.S. Department of the Navy. Climate Change Road Map: Task Force Climate Change.
“Climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy. Climate change will lead to increased tensions in nations with weak economies and political institutions. While climate change alone is not likely to lead to future conflict, it may be a contributing factor. Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations and access to natural resources worldwide. It will affect the type, scope, and location of future Navy missions. The Navy Climate Change Roadmap outlines the Navy’s approach to observing, predicting, and adapting to climate change.
A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing. While there has been criticism on the details of the methods and results found in reports published by the IPCC and other entities, the Navy acknowledges that climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy. Climate change may influence the type, scope, and location of future Navy missions through its effects on the distribution and availability of natural resources (e.g., water, agriculture, fisheries, coastal areas, etc.). Economically unstable regions will be more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and climate change will be one of several factors that may increase instability. Climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, U.S. military installations worldwide. Melting permafrost is degrading roads, foundations, and structures on DoD and USCG installations in Alaska. Droughts in the southeast and southwest U.S. are challenging water resource management. Sea level rise and storm surge will lead to an increased likelihood of inundation of coastal infrastructure, and may limit the availability of overseas bases.”
2010: U.S. Army War College. Key Strategic Issues List. Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
A key issue on the strategic issues list (page 5) is to “Assess potential impact of global climate change on U.S. national security.”
March 10, 2011: Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Statement for the Record. James Clapper, Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Armed Services.
More than 260 river basins are shared by two or more countries. The growing pressure generated by growing populations, urbanization, economic development, and climate change on shared water resources may increase competition and exacerbate existing tensions over these resources. Greater cooperation and coordination to manage these shared resources will be critical to meeting human and development needs. Governing institutions in the developing world often fail to understand water challenges or make the necessary difficult political and economic decisions to correct deficiencies in water quality and quantity for human consumption, agriculture, or industry.
Rapidly changing environmental conditions (e.g., large scale shifts or increases in hydrological variability), political shifts, and/or unilateral development increase the likelihood of conflict over shared water within a basin. Sound institutions that provide a means for raising and addressing concerns reduce the likelihood that disagreements/conflicts will become violent. In the absence of mitigating action, fresh water scarcity at local levels will have wide-ranging implications for US national security. This scarcity will aggravate existing problems-such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions-and thereby threaten state or regional stability. A whole-of-government approach using the best modeling expertise from agencies outside the IC-will be needed to assess the impact of water and other resource scarcity on state stability.
Go to Part 2 for additional reports, 2011-2017.
