05 May 09 - IISS-US - Conference - The Global Security Implications of Climate Change'

On Tuesday, 5 May, the IISS convened the first conference of the Transatlantic Dialogue on Climate Change and Security at the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC.  The title of the conference was ‘The Global Security Implications of Climate Change.’   

The IISS’ Transatlantic Dialogue on Climate Change and Security presents:

Defining Global Security in the 21st Century:
A Conference on the Global Security Implications of Climate Change

Tuesday, 5 May 2009
8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

The Ritz Carlton, Washington DC
1150 22nd St, NW

 On Tuesday, 5 May, the IISS convened the first conference of the Transatlantic Dialogue on Climate Change and Security at the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC.  The title of the conference was ‘The Global Security Implications of Climate Change.’  It was attended by approximately 100 participants.  Three members of the IISS Directing Staff, Nigel Inkster, Andrew Parasiliti, and Alexander Nicoll, acted as the chairs of three panel discussions exploring how climate change will affect global security in both the short and long terms.  This summary of the conference will follow the chronological order of the panels and presenters, by giving their main themes, and the topics of discussion. 

Panel Discussion 1: Energy Security and Climate Security: Are long-term security from climate change and short-term energy security compatible?

Nigel Inkster, the IISS Director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk, opened the conference with a brief statement of purpose.  This conference, as part of a Transatlantic Dialogue sponsored by a grant from the European Commission, should highlight the short and long-term threats of climate change.  The targeted audience is transatlantic and international security, environmental, and political professionals. Climate Change can no longer be defined as a purely environmental issue; instead it is a cross-disciplinary threat to all levels of human security. 

The first plenary session, chaired by Inkster, was titled ‘Energy Security and Climate Security: Are long-term security from climate change and short-term energy security compatible?’  The three panelists were: retired US Air Force Lieutenant General Larry Farrell, of the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board; Christophe Sammartano, Principal Counselor for Energy Security at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and David Buchan, a Senior Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.  

General Farrell underscored that dependence on imported oil has been a clear national security threat to the United States since 1970.  Citing his experience as the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff responsible for planning, Farrell said that it was critical that oil and gasoline prices are predictable.  Price instability, recently fluctuating from $50 to $147 per barrel and back over only a nine month period, makes long-term budgeting impossible for large institutions like the military.  Moving away from oil will be a major technological undertaking, lasting decades.  The Department of Defense – as the United States’ largest consumer of fossil fuels – can be a leader in this fight.  For Farrell, the goal of US policy should be to ‘Change oil from a ‘strategic commodity’ to a regular commodity, just like wheat.’

Christophe Sammartano, a specialist on Europe’s energy relationship with Central Asia and Russia, spoke about energy security in the EU.  Currently, much of Europe’s electricity supply is dependant upon coal that is carbon intensive but local, or natural gas that is imported but has fewer carbon emissions.  Conflicting priorities of energy security and climate mitigation creates a trap can only be escaped through long term investments in technology, energy efficiency, and new suppliers.  Many years ago, France whose to invest heavily in nuclear power, but other Western European countries do not have such a low-carbon baseload power.  In the short-term, to ensure supply stability for natural gas, Europe must continue a dialogue among natural gas providers and transit countries, particularly Russia and Central Asia.  This must be backed up by increased redundancy within the EU and increased competition from suppliers.  Sammartano identified several significant technological hurdles that must be overcome, including extended battery storage, new nuclear power, and carbon-capture and sequestration.  Only when these are commercially deployed can long-term energy and climate security can be achieved. 

Panelist David Buchan is the author of Energy and Climate Change, Europe at the Crossroads. He spoke about how climate change policy has helped to change energy policy from a national issue into a truly unified European energy policy.  He stated that the US can learn from European policies, stating that energy prices in the US are too low; specifically he suggested that a significant increase in the gas tax would be necessary for a balanced energy policy.

All participants agreed that prices for fossil fuels will need to rise in order to provide economic incentives for renewable energy.  Over the long term, panelists expressed concerns about the ability of Russia to meet its role as an energy supplier citing a lack of investment, problems of transparency, and a politicization of energy supplies.  Sammartano, who was involved in European-Russian dialogue throughout the January 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas crisis, explained that the crisis was the result of two types of Russian pressure: political and economic.  Politically, Gazprom and the Russian government were looking to assert their power with neighboring states.  Economically, Gazprom was facing a collapse of gas prices, and was looking to lock in a long-term contract before prices fell.

Throughout the discussion, it was clear that energy security can have two different definitions: for Europeans, it means a diversity of suppliers and sources; while for Americans it means a reduction in imports. 

Panel Discussion 2:  The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Managing Climate-Induced State-Threatening Crises: What is the role of the military in climate-induced crises?

The second plenary session, chaired by Andrew Parasiliti, IISS-US Executive Director and IISS-Middle East Corresponding Director, was titled: ‘Managing Climate-Induced State-Threatening Crises: What is the role of the military in climate-induced crises?’ The three panelists were: Major General (ret) Muniruzzaman, of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies; Brigadier General (ret) Nigel Hall, a Senior Associate Fellow at the Defence Academy of the UK; and Kent Butts, the Director of the National Security Issues Group at the US Army War College. 

General Muniruzzaman began the panel by stating that Bangladesh is a ‘front line state in the fight against climate change’ because of its dependence on large international rivers, its low elevation, and its poverty.  To his country, climate change is not just a future threat, but something that is happening now – he cited the increased salinity of drinking water and a reduction in land available for farming. 

Of its 155 million people, 30-40 million could become refugees in the next 20-30 years due to climate-induced crises.  The Bangladeshi military has begun to plan for the inevitable disruptions this will cause, but more planning and development needs to take place. 

Kent Butts stated that the American military can and should be involved in planning for the effects of climate change from the start.  The US Military should engage directly with the militaries of countries most likely to be harmed in climate-related natural disasters.  He quoted the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which stated that the Department of Defense’s policy should be to take ‘preventative actions so problems do not become crises.’  He argued that environmental stability is a prerequisite for state stability; therefore climate change can undermine the legitimacy of states.  Because state legitimacy and stability is a clear national security interest of the US, the US Military should engage in actions to prevent drastic climate change . 

The panelists agreed that the role of militaries in addressing climate change is different around the world.  The military’s role depends on the relative size, importance, legitimacy, and stability of a nation’s government, its relationship with its military, and the nature of the other threats that the government faces.  General Hall, for instance referred to Pakistani President Zadari’s obvious lack of concern about climate change, as he struggles to stay in power in the face of an insurgency. European militaries, however, can leave the role of addressing climate change to their civilian governments, which are competent and motivated in their focus on climate change.  To the panelists, however, the United States is exceptional.  It has a large and well-funded security sector that has experience planning and forecasting major events long in advance.  It can use this power to warn the government and society of the real threats of climate change.  All panelists, however, agreed that it was preferable for civilian governments should lead in the fight to mitigate climate change, so that a military leader ‘like Marshall or McArthur’ does not have to respond in a crisis. 

Panel Discussion 3:  The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen

After a brief luncheon, the conference moved into a third plenary session, chaired by Alexander Nicoll, the IISS Director of Editorial. 

This session, titled: ‘The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen: Should we reassess how ‘security’ is defined for a warming world?  Can a UN agreement in Copenhagen guarantee long-term climate security?’  Panelists included: Ambassador Steffen Smidt, the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Representative for Climate Change Issues; Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, the former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs throughout the Bush Administration; and James Lee, a Professor in the School of International Service at American University.

Ambassador Smidt began by saying that ‘an ambitious global climate deal’ at December 2009’s summit of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a top priority for the Danish Government. 

He stated that climate change is more than just an environmental issue to be addressed at UNFCCC conferences.  Instead, climate change must be addressed comprehensively at all levels and branches of government.  In foreign policy, for instance, Smidt said that climate change should be addressed through multilateral forums, development financing, energy policy, and international investment policy. 

Ambassador Dobriansky focused on the necessity of negotiating a truly global emissions-reduction treaty that is environmentally effective, economically sustainable, and truly global.  It must not undermine the ability of poor countries to develop, but it cannot simply allow large developing nations to continue their emissions with no limits.  Unlike Kyoto, any treaty must include real commitments from developing nations that are ‘measurable, reportable, and verifiable.’  A successful Copenhagen summit will also include new efforts to develop clean technology, protect against deforestation, and foster good environmental governance.  Finally, Ambassador Dobriansky concluded that the world will not need a new global institution to protect the environment, as the UN process – though in need of reform – will prove sufficient to handle the task. 

Professor James Lee gave a thought-provoking presentation on the long-term security risks of climate change, based on his new book, Climate Change and Armed Conflict: Hot and Cold Wars.  Using a map of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projections overlaid with a map of the world’s largest security risks, he made the case that – unless the projections are sharply altered – the world faces a range of new and dangerous security threats.  Some specific scenarios that he mentioned included an end to ice caps and glaciers, the creation of an integrated ‘Great World Desert’ that stretches 600 miles from the Kalahari in Namibia to the Gobi in Mongolia, the specter of rising sea levels that could swamp existing islands and low-lying deltas, and the possibility of countries aggressively trying to change local and international weather patterns through cloud seeding or other geo-engineering processes.  Lee’s presentation underscored the long-term necessity of actively addressing climate change before these dire forecasts come to pass. 

This conference addressed some of the most pressing sources of concern for policymakers regarding climate change.  Climate Change is an undeniable long-term security risk, but this conference underscored that there are some real short-term consequences of a changing climate, especially with unstable energy supplies. 

Throughout the reset of the year, the Transatlantic Dialogue on Climate Change and Security will seek to gather further research and encourage discussion into the security risks of climate change.  We will build on the questions raised by this conference with a series of events and workshops throughout 2009.

‐‐ The IISS would like to thank the European Commission for its generous support in financing this project. ‐‐ 

Transatlantic Dialogue on Climate Change and Security Homepage