To date, we have chosen to rely primarily on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs, but these fuels have tremendous short-term and long-term consequences, from oil spills to mining disasters to global warming. Yet even beyond environmental and health impacts the national security implications of our energy choices are among the most controversial and political.
Time magazine says:
for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will need offshore oil — certainly from the Gulf of Mexico, which is responsible for about a third of U.S. production, but perhaps eventually from other regions as well. If we don't take that oil from our own waters, we will be buying it from abroad — potentially from countries that have much more lax environmental standards.
The author is correct, if we fail to change course we will either draw more oil from our own waters, risking devastating environmental and economic consequences (As Business Insider notes, average Americans will foot the bill for any damages of the spill beyond 75 million) or we will obtain our oil from other countries. Most of our oil comes from foreign countries now (about 57% in 2008).
Drilling at home versus abroad is a false choice echoed this morning by Senator Landrieu:
“Our choice is to increase our reliance on friends like Venezuela or Cuba and other places, or we learn how to drill it safely here.”
That response is no longer enough. True security requires a new clean energy path.
The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil. (Thomas Friedman May 4, 2010)
The United States has the opportunity to turn away from dirty and dangerous energy sources and embrace a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that adds ‘2 million clean energy jobs, cuts pollution by 2 billion tons, and saves 2 trillion dollars worth of oil imports.’ Our security depends on it.
The Defense Department knows that oil and other fossil fuels are contributing to the destabilizing force of climate change, and the CIA has established a new program to consider the threat of climate change. But the threat to our national security of dirty and dangerous oil is probably best summarized in this recent article by Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton.
One essential national security imperative has gone unaddressed too long, its risks unmet: the combined challenge of energy security and global climate change.
We can no longer afford to ignore the consequences of inaction or pass the buck to future generations. It is our responsibility to act now.
It's time for the United States to put in place a coherent national energy policy that limits the severe economic and national security risks of our over-dependence on oil. The American economy today is hostage to volatile oil prices. Four out of the last five U.S. recessions were preceded by an oil price spike. A geopolitical conflict that disrupts the global supply of oil could quickly escalate into a military confrontation and would leave us with few options to alleviate the impact on the U.S. economy. This strategic vulnerability draws us into intractable conflicts in the most volatile regions of the world.
Now is the moment to pass comprehensive climate legislation and protect America from the immediate and growing threats to our health, environment and security from the dirty fuels of the past.
]]>
As the media has reported, the results of talks here are mixed, but there is hope in the conversation about adaptation. As NRDC noted here efforts to build resilience to climate change impacts in developing nations is critical because climate change is affecting vulnerable people around the world now. And there is a growing recognition that this will create global instability that will impact the US national security (as discussed here). So not only is it the right thing to do, but it is also in the US domestic interest.
Today's typhoon ripped through the Philippines, Samoa, Tonga, Vietnam, Cambodia and other nations before it arrived here in Bangkok but the good news is that the storm has become part of the debate, a terrible tangible impact of climate change.
The threat of worsening storms was reiterated last night at a World Bank event about their new report, Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC).
The report indicates that the costs of adaptation to a world 2°C warmer would cost between $75 - $100 billion a year between 2010 and 2050. $100 billion is a big number and delegates from the most vulnerable countries are rightfully concerned that monies must be committed now, at sustainable and sufficient levels to help build resiliency.
And if we don't address global warming the price tag would become even larger so we need invest in solving this challenge. It is always cheaper and easier to avoid the mess in the first place than to clean up after the fact.
It is critical that the US and other countries increase their financial contribution towards helping developing countries address this financial gap. There are some efforts to provide a down payment towards this end (as my colleague discussed here) and the US Administration as begun to more clearly signal that it wants this support in the climate bill working its way through the US Senate (as my colleague discussed here). But more needs to be done to support adaptation in developing countries.
But the report from the World Bank approaches adaptation through a traditional development lens. How much will it cost to replace the dams, seawalls and power plants which may suffer from climate impacts?
These adaptation needs are important. We must make our investments more resilient to global warming and we need to ensure that we are simultaneously pulling millions out of poverty.
But it is no longer appropriate to view adaptation through a 'hard' model which largely does not factor in policy shifts and social responses. Soft tools like capacity building, communication, education, research and planning are perhaps the most critical in our efforts to adapt to climate change. Adaption, even in its very name suggests new innovative approaches, flexible tools and models supple enough to respond to the variety of new scenarios the world will experience. Without major shifts in thinking, the World Bank and other groups are likely to continue with adaptation by ribbon cutting, favoring large concrete infrastructure solutions over flexible sustainable mechanisms which can take many forms.
In 2050 the least developed nations should have cutting edge energy sectors which incorporate the best renewable technologies and social and economic models which promote efficiency. In this ideal world, coastal communities will be protected through participatory costal management which capitalizes on the natural world's resilience through investment in wetland and mangrove rehabilitation, rather than seawalls and other 'hard' tools which often shift vulnerabilities and may not withstand the intensified weather events of a +2°C warmer world. A mix of soft tools (enabling communities to adapt and progress) and hard tools (providing the energy, water and food) are both essential to sustainable development.
Here in Bangkok, once the clouds begin to part, lets hope that leaders of both the industrialized and developing world will use the projected costs of adaptation to shape a climate agreement which supports resiliency with flexible tools.
]]>