The Military's Salute to Climate Change

The case for climate action has gone through several incarnations. First was the environmental: The greenhouse effect would destabilize the planet's climate, melt the polar ice caps, wipe out coast lands disrupt ecosystems and cause mass extinctions.

The second gave the issue a human face: Climate change would hit the world's most vulnerable people the hardest, eroding development gains and deepening their misery. This pitch never really made inroads in the U.S. But as the economy tanked, and climate change finally entered the political agenda, the economic narrative has drowned out all others — green growth, clean energy jobs, global competitiveness are the buzzwords of the day.

2009 brought yet another twist: climate change as a national security threat. Senate Democrats began using this pitch last fall in an attempt to marshal support for Kerry-Graham-Lieberman climate bill. The public cares about national security, so this new tack could yield results were others have failed. Were Democrats just trying to find a message - any message - that would resonate? Or are the any merits to the security argument besides smart politics?

The security threat from climate change, while diffuse and long-term, is actually very real. Vicious storms, floods, droughts, and food shortages will displace millions and trigger massive humanitarian crises in the world's most volatile regions - Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

These climate impacts will undoubtedly incite social unrest, which could spill over into armed conflict. Just look at the global food riots of 2008. Under enough pressure, weak states collapse altogether. Failed states are often consumed by anarchic violence and can become breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. For evidence, look no further than Somalia.

Competition between states over dwindling resources could turn to war. For example, China and India, with their exploding populations, depend on the same Himalayan glaciers for much of their water. And when things get bad, you better believe that the United States, the world's largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, will bear most of the blame and the backlash.

Conflicts never have a single cause, they unfold according to the interplay of many factors. Climate change won't single-handedly spark civil wars or international conflicts, but it could absolutely push simmering situations over the edge.

Surprisingly, perhaps, it wasn't the politicians that first made the security argument. It was the defense establishment itself. In 2007, a group of 11 retired admirals and generals released a landmark report on the links between climate and security. Both the Pentagon and the CIA are weaving climate change into their long-term planning. And when the brass speaks, Washington listens: multiple Congressional committees have already held hearings on the topic.

Kerry-Graham-Lieberman may be stuck in the Senate, but climate security advocates aren't letting up. The Pew Environmental Group is betting that more uniforms and flag waving will do the trick:

And it just might. With its ringing appeals to patriotism, a safer homeland, and American interests, the national security pitch has a fair shot at wooing independents and maybe swaying a Republican vote or two. If that narrative succeed where others have failed, terrific. There are any number of reasons why we should want to stop climate change, and this one is just as good as any other.

Photo credit: U.S. Army Africa