The Effect Climate Has on National Security

Bill Nye, also known as the Science Guy stated that “It’s not the world hasn’t had more carbon dioxide, it’s not the world hasn’t been warmer. The problem is the speed at which things are changing. We are inducing a sixth mass extinction event kind of by accident we don’t want to be the ‘extinctee,’ if I may coin this noun.”

I asked myself whether climate change is it real or fake? I am not here to debate the long-standing question because the internet, publications, social media, politicians, scientists, and television have done an excellent job.

This paper will focus on climate change and its effects on the US national security. Second, out of the three international relations (IR): realism, liberalism and constructivism, it will identify which IR perspective is best fit to address the security concerns with climate change. Third, it will detail the appropriate instruments of power (IOP): informational, military, economic and/or, diplomatic to employ to manage national security risks.

Climate change is a national security issue facing the United States because it can impact both human and the environment. It can lead to poverty, the massive migration of people and species, the rise in sea level, and increase utilization of the military and its resources. Climate change is a universal problem and needs to be taken seriously whether some agree or disagree due to the security implication on the US and the world. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration defines climate change as “a change in the usual weather found in a place.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified

Proficient in: Natural Disasters

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

” While, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration defines climate change as “the altering of aquatic ecosystems via changes in precipitation patterns, stream flow, temperatures, sea level, and water chemistry, and these changes are accelerating rapidly.” Some might think climate change is inevitable while others believe human activities cause climate change. As noted by the National Geographic, “as scientific knowledge has grown, this debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions of how best to respond.”

In 1977, the environmentalist Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute wrote a seminal paper, “Redefining National Security,” that “threats to security may now arise less from the relationship of nation to a nation and more from the relationship of man to nature. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina shows the world the ramification of a severe storm that demonstrated all too well the possibility that an extreme weather event could kill and endanger large numbers of people, cause civil disorder, and damage critical infrastructure in other parts of the country as published by Joshua Busby.

Busby’s publication noted that “Katrina could not be linked to climate change, but the storm gave Americans a visual image of what climate change—which scientists predict will exacerbate the severity and the number of extreme weather events—might mean for the future.” Hurricane Katrina displaced a few of my friends, which was a devastating experience for them. I recalled the number of military personnel that deployed to conduct search and rescue effort and the money spent to rebuild New Orleans that is still not 100 percent complete. When I met people that were displaced far north as Boston, MA, I realized it was not just the financial burden placed on the US, but the long-term emotional effect that the victims still bare today.

The National Geographic noted around the world, the Earth’s average temperature has risen over 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic. This comment reminded me of my visit to Thailand in 2014 when the tour guy stated that the sea level in Bangkok has been rising one inch every year for the past several years and if nothing is done, the city will be underwater in 15 years. I asked him, “Where will the people go?” He responded, “Other parts of Thailand or other countries.” The world has seen the effect of massive migration of people from the war in Syria where Syrians are scattered throughout the world. If nothing is done to control this risk, can the US imagine an influx of Americans moving inward due to coastline erosion and rising sea levels? In 2007, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) report warns that “coastal populations of the US are vulnerable to climate change because nearly 50 percent of Americans live within fifty miles of the coast.”

The IR perspective that is best suited to address climate change is constructivism because they believe in shared and social norms and will focus on the epistemological view. Dr. Ackerman noted that “while both realism and neoliberal institutionalism emphasize material factors in the formation and maintenance of regimes, constructivists believe international relations are governed by shared ideas.” I think constructivist can use the social norms paired with scientific knowledge to articulate the importance of climate change and the security threat it can pose. Some might disagree and state that realists are concerned with the effect of climate change because it can impact national security, I agree, but Vanderheiden argues that “realist may show concern with increasing global poverty due to the perception that this may increase security threats rather than any injustice endemic to global poverty itself.” In order to deal with climate change, my views are similar to Ackerman that “one must deal with the root cause.”

Dr. Ackerman also noted that “constructivists’ emphasis on social factors can generate new understandings regarding the formation of interests and the pursuit of security, which involves reducing vulnerability and threats, which may be military, political, economic, societal, or environmental.” I think constructivist will concur with the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Climate agreement because they believe international relations is needed and important because it helps shape the ideology of societies, so change can occur. As seen during Hurricane Katrina, Japan Tsunami, and East Africa drought, the international community came together and provided support through humanitarian responses and disaster assistance.

Obama 2015 National Security Strategy (NSS) noted climate change was one of the top strategic risks to the US and attempted to build on energy security, establish a ground-breaking commitment with China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and cemented an international consensus on arresting climate change. These goals illustrated to the world that the US is committed to combating climate change. During Obama’s administration, one of my job responsibilities was to assist the Air Force in obtaining funding to install renewable pumps (bio-diesel or E-85) on their installations to meet the new executive order (EO) requirements. Due to the EO, the Air Force decrease their petroleum usage and increase their alternative fuel consumption.

However; in 2017, the Trump Administration focused on unleashing abundant energy resources—coal, natural gas, petroleum, renewables, and nuclear—stimulates the economy and builds a foundation for future growth. All of my hard work went out the door and I have noticed a decrease in alternative fuel consumption and an increase in petroleum fuel usage. If policies are not put in place, people are not held accountable. While Obama felt that climate change was an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water. Trump believes given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, and other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty. His campaign promised to revitalize the coal industry, and during an internship at PSE&G, a gas and electric company, I know first-hand how harmful coal is to humans and the environment.

Climate change is that elephant in the room that cannot be dismissed. The Department of Defense recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to US interest. However, to manage the security risk associated with climate change all four instruments of power (IOP) should be used in this order: (1) economic, (2) informational, (3) diplomatic, and (4) military.

Economic IOP has spread and gained importance in recent years. Globalization has made it possible for governments, corporations, and people to develop new technologies for all function of life. Ulrich envisioned that “economic IOP will provide direct support through a variety of programs that provides money or services, or distributes foreign aid to support national policy objectives with key allies.” This will be executed by making funding available for development of clean energy technologies and programs to help understand the root cause of climate change and its effect on national security. The goal is to develop technologies and programs to recognize climate threats, strategize how to effectively respond, can combat climate-related issue to limited casualties that could go hand and hand with Chun.

The informational IOP is the next phase, which will help to broadcast the US objectives and to influence the masses on the importance of climate change and the effect it has on national security. It will also show the world that the US is making steps toward combating climate change through funding of energy programs and technologies. As noted in the International Security course, “think tanks, interest group, internet and social media are used to shape the preferences of others, and their decisions, in directions that support US objectives.”

The next phase is diplomacy IOP, which is used to mobilize dynamic partnerships and confront the new interconnected challenges, from climate change and the impact to national security. It would revitalize the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) areas: (1) Increase partnerships and engage beyond the nation-state. (2) Focus on improving governance; (3) Manage and mitigate physical risk and (4) Enhance the use of data, diagnostics, and technology. It will show the world that the US is serious about climate change and is making efforts to battle it. The diplomacy IOP power will strengthen the understanding of climate change and cultivate partnerships through corporations and other countries to combat this matter.

The final phase is military IOP; according to Hans Morgenthau, “armed strength as a threat or a potentiality is the most important material factor making for the political power of a nation.” The Department of Defense (DOD) recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests and has developed strategies that emphasizes three pillars: protect the homeland, build security globally and project power and wind decisively. The military power would build on the current Geographic Combatant Commands (GCCs) platforms through domestic and international partnerships, case studies, response exercises, technologies, and relief plans/efforts in executing the US initiatives to address climate change.

Even though, some might not agree with the terminology “climate change”, the bigger picture is the effect climate has on national security, and how do the world prepare and response. Climate change can effect changes in weather patterns, rise in sea levels, floods and droughts, which can lead to poverty, massive migration of people, damaging infrastructures, death, injuries, and contaminated environments. However, it is not only the US responsibilities, but the world to continue funding clean energy programs to counterattack this problem. Whether or not Katrina was linked to global warming, climate change will likely yield more of these kinds of episodes, which are characterized by the concentrated cost to particular places and people, leading to severe local impacts and cascading consequences for others. In order to effectively and efficiently manage the effect of climate change, all four IOPs must be utilized to fully be equipped to respond. Whether some call it “climate change”, “climate threat”, or “weather extremes”, the problem exists, it will not magically disappear. However, one thing we can all agree on is that weather does impact national security both domestically and internationally.