Recently I joined 10 of my colleagues on a military advisory board to the CNA Corporation in releasing a report that determined climate change presents a national security threat to the United States. One of the key findings in our report was that “climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.”
I’ve been aware of the relationship between national security and energy for some time as a result of my military experience. The new element for me was the added stress brought about when climate change is added to this mix.
Energy is a key determinant of the success of American forces on the battlefield. If you can move your men and material more quickly, if you have less tonnage but the same level of protection and firepower, you’re more efficient on the battlefield. Seventy-plus percent of the tonnage we move on the battlefield is water and fuel.
That is not only a pressing logistics challenge, it represents a security and operational limitation because of the big logistics tail and movement considerations involved in its distribution.
Also, the places in the world where we have to go to obtain our present form of energy presents a serious national security challenge.
These are tough neighborhoods, and we expend considerable resources to stabilize the conditions for reasonable business relationships that underwrite this access. Climate change is likely to add instability to a number of these places making our access all the more demanding.
Developing new, more efficient energy innovations and sources that are more efficient on the battlefield not only improves our battlefield operational and logistical performance, it also has the potential to reduce our dependence on difficult foreign sources of energy while simultaneously reducing the potential for our involvement in conflict in those places. This can only enhance the security of our country and the security of our fighting men and women. We must ever keep in mind that logistics performance on the battlefield is a life and death issue.
Our report was careful to note that climate change is underway, but at the same time to stay out of the scientific debate on the cause of recently documented temperature rise. The beauty of viewing military energy innovation with a focus on more renewable and more efficient forms avoids the difficult scientific debate. It also has the advantage of uniting advocates on both sides of the debate. It addresses, from a more neutral point of view, the carbon issue while offering solutions that advocates on both sides can agree on.
I believe this report adds a new and important perspective to the current debate. The report is tight and concise, well-balanced and objective, and offers some unique observations, facts and relationships. It is well worth a read. The full report is available at http://securityandclimate.cna.org/.
Lt. Gen. Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (ret) is former deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 30th, 2007 at 9:54 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Climate Change, National Security . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I would point to by plans to reduce US oil consumption by -10% in Ten to Twelve years with overlooked, mature technology.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
We can trade 20 BTUs of oil for one BTU of electricity by shifting frieght from truck to electrified rail. Comparable savings from building Urban Rail (see DC Metro). The Russians electrified the Trans-Siberian RR in 2002 and to the Artic Ocean in 2005.
Another article on Urban Rail that we can start building in 12 to 36 months.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm
What is the strategic value of a non-oil transportation system alternative ?
And a laundry list of other policy options that deal with US oil & NG consumption in a long term crisis reaction mode (all good for Global Warming as well BTW).
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2473
Best Hopes,
Alan Drake
Alan_Drake at Juno dott co m
July 31st, 2008 at 10:47 am
[...] on fossil fuels isn’t a new concern. Last year Lt. Gen. Larry Farrell (Ret.) contributed a guest post discussing the relationship between force security and the military’s energy requirements, and how [...]