So I think it’s very important to bring people together, to get out of simply the framework of what are we going to do in about the intersection of climate John Podesta had a bird’s-eye Copenhagen next year [at the science with national security, view of the U.S. security landUN climate treaty negotiations], an idea that was once dismissed scape as former president Bill and focus on the long-term sein the higher levels of governClinton’s chief of staff, and he curity challenges, the migration ment but that is now taking took an interest then in how a challenges, the issues involving hold. changing climate would affect whether we have the right interWhy hold a climate war game, the country’s interests. Today, national institutional architecand why now? Podesta is president and CEO of ture to deal with these the Center for American questions. And I think Progress (CAP), a Wash[this war game] has been ington think tank, and is a very successful meeting expected by many Washin that regard. ington insiders to head What’s the importance the Democratic transition of bringing in the nateam if Barack Obama is tional security commuelected president. In July, nity on this issue, and Podesta underlined the how much interest in clipriority he places on enmate change are you seevironmental security ing in that community? when he played the role First, that’s where the of UN secretary general money is [laughs], in the first-ever internawhether you’re talking tional “war game” foJohn Podesta (right, with Barack Obama) says that the U.S. about R&D or the assets cused on climate. must consider climate change in its foreign policy and and resources to meet Long the domain of the security strategies. these challenges. But more military and the business importantly, national security has worlds, war games challenge playan outsized influence over the We’ve focused for the last severs to react to future scenarios. overall discussion and the way we eral years on national security The climate war game was held in think about domestic security, challenges, and the global secuWashington, D.C., by the Center and it certainly has a large influrity challenges of climate change, for a New American Security ence over shaping policy in both and I think that most of the dis(CNAS), a national security think parties. cussion is still being largely contank, together with 10 partner orI think there’s beginning to be a fined to what the environmental ganizations. It brought together lot more understanding and interconsequences are and, to some business leaders and climate and est among national security proextent, to what the economic conpolicy experts, who acted as repfessionals in tackling these issues. sequences are from changing over resentatives of the U.S., EU, CAP, along with CNAS, did a from a high-carbon to a low-carChina, and India, to play out clistudy, which has also been pubbon energy base. mate negotiations in the year lished as a book by the Brookings I think that the immense chal2015. Players responded to a sceInstitution, and a good deal of lenges [arising from climate nario based on climate simulathat work was done to inform the change] that the world faces tions developed by the U.S. National Intelligence Assessment with respect to national security Department of Energy’s Oak [an analysis led by the National from migration, infectious disRidge National Laboratory that Intelligence Council], which was eases, from weak and failing included intense weather exjust released on Capitol Hill. At states collapsing under water tremes and tensions brought on the beginning of that [process], stress and food stress, et cetera, by water and food shortages. The you almost had to define your have not really been well underorganizers will produce a report terms when you put climate scistood by our own government on the game’s results as a guide entists in the room with military and certainly not by the public for the next U.S. president in experts or national security exin the U.S. I think that’s true crafting climate policy. perts or even intelligence experts, around the rest of the globe, alOn the floor of the meeting and I think that’s certainly though probably the Europeans room as the climate war game changed over the course of the have done more work on this played out, Podesta talked with last 24 months. than others. ES&T reporter Erika Engelhaupt CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Climate change: a matter of national security
7548 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / October 15, 2008
10.1021/es802320z
2008 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 09/03/2008
When I was chief of staff to President Clinton, there was a fairly deep appreciationsparticularly coming out of the vice president’s office, who had worked a good deal with the intelligence agenciessfor the consequences of global warming, and I commend Vice President Gore for his work back then. That was really the genesis, for example, of the declassification of some of the most important intelligence systems such as overhead satellite photography and undersea sonar, and that was an attempt to ask how the world is changing and how it is going to affect our intelligence and security posture. But back then, it seemed like a project that he [Gore] and a few people in the intelligence community were concerned about; it didn’t really bleed over in a serious way into the Pentagon’s thinking or planning. And I think that’s begun to change. We’ve held a couple of meetings for the guys who are trying to stand up the African Command for the Pentagon [i.e., establish a separate U.S. military command in Africa], and the effects of desertification, water resources, and populationsall linked to climate changesare a very top-of-themind item for them. They know they’re going to have to have resources, whether they’re staged in Africa or back here in the U.S., available and ready. They know they’re facing more security challenges that are, in their roots, environmental. Looking ahead to the next presidential administration, what do you see coming down the pike, and what would you like to see, in terms of how climate is integrated into national security?
First, you have to focus like a laser beam from the White House on using all the resources of the national government to form a public-private partnership to move the country from a high-carbon to a low-carbon base. That’s a massive undertaking. Second, with respect to America’s standing in the world, [we need to] show that we’re going to be good citizens on this issue, take our responsibility seriously, and reduce our carbon footprint. Showing that we’re going to be a leader rather than a laggard in climate negotiations is an important component of the overall foreign policy of restoring America’s standing in the world. Third, I hope there is an emphasis again on the hard security side of Pentagon planning in thinking about what the [climate] effects will be, whether that’s basing [troops] in Diego Garcia [a large atoll in the Indian Ocean], or climate impacts in Africa, or the lack of water resources in the Middle East and what that’s likely to do to the politics there. Today, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are living on about 50% of what the UN thinks is adequate on a per capita basis to survive, and that’s going down. How do you manage those problems, and what kind of thinking goes into the long-term planning? The security community is used to making decisions under uncertainty. However, uncertainty about the scientific understanding of climate change has been one of the stumbling blocks in getting U.S. policy enacted on climate change. How does the security community approach making decisions that involve
Uncertainty is something the Pentagon is quite used to dealing with. uncertainty about climate change? That’s a great question, especially with regard to the intelligence community and the probabilities and scenario planning that they operate with. I think that the climate [change] deniers, if you will, did a pretty good job of confusing uncertainty about the range of consequences with uncertainty about the direction of consequences. And I think that infected governmental thinking and the thinking in the intelligence and national security communities. I think that has retreated; people know we’ve got a huge problem to deal with. And I think uncertainty is something the Pentagon is quite used to dealing with: What are the range of scenarios that we need to hedge against? What are the best and worst possible outcomes? What kinds of assets do we need to deal across a broader range of threats? How do we shape the environment? That’s really what they’re good at planning for. I think that with the right kind of leadership at the commanderin-chief level, the secretary of defense, and the director of national intelligence, the planning function across that range of scenarios will be something we’ll be capable of. And probably no other unit of government does a better job of thinking about long-term potential risk and hedging against some of that risk. —ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
October 15, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 7549
