Defense planning, climate change, and US federal budget

[nerdgirl 0]

While most climate change attention this week has been focused on the Bali discussions, back in DC the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill – in addition to $8B in Congressional additions – also directs the DoD to consider climate change in all strategic planning, e.g., National Security Strategy [which is actually a White House not a DoD document], National Defense Strategy, next Quadrennial Defense Review … but interestingly not the FY10-15 POM Process, which really drives funding priorities and budgets.

I would not argue against the consideration of the geopolitical impact of climate change (particularly long term cooling) on international/intranational stability (e.g., disputes over scarce resources) nor argue against the evidence suggesting anthropogenic climate change is exceeding the rate of natural climate change. Specific prescription as part of strategic defense planning, however, strikes as unsettling/disconcerting/problematic.

Where’s the prioritization? There's less in the bill on stability, security, transition, and reconstruction, which is a much larger strategic issue, im-ever-ho. And which part of DoD does climate change? There is no OSD Office of Climate Change or Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy, although institutional limitations can be dealt with: there'll be a newly created "Special Assistant."

At the same time, to quote Steve Forbes from this past week’s Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: “technology is the critical piece,” w/r/t dealing with energy and climate change. The 2008 President’s Budget Request (PBR), based on DoD input, requested less $ for basic research; the latest versions of the Appropriations Bill had small (~3%) increases.

The Intelligence Authorization Act originally contained language, which would have required the Director of National Intelligence to submit a National Intelligence Estimate on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change on the national security of the United States, which I support completely. (Actually the DNI has indicated that a climate change NIE is already being worked).

VR/Marg

----- ----- ----- ------


HR 110-1585
SEC. 931. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONSIDERATION OF EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON DEPARTMENT FACILITIES, CAPABILITIES, AND MISSIONS.
Section 118 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(g) Consideration of Effect of Climate Change on Department Facilities, Capabilities, and Missions-
(1) The first national security strategy and national defense strategy prepared after the date of the enactment of this subsection shall include guidance for military planners--
(A) to assess the risks of projected climate change to current and future missions of the armed forces;
(B) to update defense plans based on these assessments, including working with allies and partners to incorporate climate mitigation strategies, capacity building, and relevant research and development; and
(C) to develop the capabilities needed to reduce future impacts.

(2) The first quadrennial defense review prepared after the date of the enactment of this subsection shall also examine the capabilities of the armed forces to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events and other missions the armed forces may be asked to support inside the United States and overseas.

(3) For planning purposes to comply with the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary of Defense shall use--
(A) the mid-range projections of the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(B) subsequent mid-range consensus climate projections if more recent information is available when the next national security strategy, national defense strategy, or quadrennial defense review, as the case may be, is conducted; and
(C) findings of appropriate and available estimations or studies of the anticipated strategic, social, political, and economic effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States.

(4) The Secretary shall ensure that this subsection is implemented in a manner that does not have a negative impact on national security.

(5) In this subsection, the term `national security strategy' means the annual national security strategy report of the President under section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a).'.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,150]

The US Department of Defense is the world's largest consumer of oil.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

You can now proudly say you are a recipient of a famous kallend one liner
edited to add a second line

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The US Department of Defense is the world's largest consumer of oil.

Yes, the DoD requires a tremendous amount of energy to execute its mission. You raise a completely valid regarding need for non-foreign energy sources and alternative energy. The military is critically dependent on sources of energy to move things and people. Fuel is a huge logistics burden. For every $10 / barrel increase in the cost of fuel, DoD operating costs increase roughly $1.3B in the year of execution – that’s the “so what, who cares?” for the taxpayer.

While it is sometimes difficult to deconflict strategic energy resource issues (read: Middle East, Venezuela, Russia issues) that are driving from those directly related to responding to climate change (whether anthropogenic, natural, or combination), the former, however, is being addressed by the DoD.

-- The strategic importance of energy resources was in the 2006 QDR. See page 28.

-- The DoD Energy Task Force, chaired by the SecDef, “is charged with defining an investment roadmap for lowering DoD's fossil fuel requirements and for identifying alternate energy sources. The Task Force will integrate findings from ongoing studies to quantify and define a DoD investment roadmap that considers all aspects of the energy problem.”

This covers:
+ Demand Reduction
+ Demand Reduction for Installations
+ Demand Reduction for Systems and Platforms
+ Supply Security
+ Supply Security for Installations
+ Supply Security for Systems and Platforms

Army Energy Website
Navy Energy Website
Air Force Energy Website

The Secretary of the Air Force has been an especially outspoken proponent publicly for the need to develop alternative energy sources.

-- DoD S&T (through DDR&E/services and DARPA) funding for alternative energy from basic research through the acquisition process … I don’t have a good source for summary data, as DDR&E doesn’t break funding down in that manner.

There’s DARPA’s Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHESC) program.

Companies of which I am aware that have been funded applied research through procurement for alternative energy, include:
+ Iowa’s Power Film, Inc who have been funded by the Army for rechargeable “solar field shelter” materials;
+ Konarka who do nanoparticle-based flexible photovoltaics, which were deployed with SF teams in Afghanistan; and
+ Emcore,

Could they do more? I strongly suspect YES!
Is there a strong champion w/in DDR&E and the services for investing in alternative energy? I don’t know.

-- Last year, there was the well-publicized, DoD-funded study (that may have been Congressionally-mandated) on “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” by the Military Advisory Board and the Center for Naval Analysis (CAN) that was vetted through a panel of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals.

“The eight-month study examines how potential climate change may impact our military and recommends steps the Pentagon and national security community should take to prepare for any changes and to help mitigate damage.”

-- Since at least January 2005, Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) has had an on-going program Energy: A Conversation About Our National Addiction on “the central role energy plays in achieving national and program goals.”

Old website (via NPS): http://www.nps.edu/cebrowski/conversation.html (RIP Adm Cebrowski)
New website (contractor maintained): http://www.energyconversation.org/cms/ (Click "About Us" tab for mention of sponsors).

"Why is the DoD hosting this series? Just as the Defense Department played a critical role in forging the information revolution [e.g., ARPANET] in past decades, so can the Department play a similar critical role in fueling the energy revolution in coming decades? Why are you invited? Because there are positive and negative outcomes of decisions you make dependent upon your understanding of energy. We are all stakeholders in addressing the efficiency, conservation, secure sourcing, and cost reduction of energy. It is complicated with no easy answers. There are NO SILVER BULLETS. Come learn with us."

Ken Kreig (formerly the Under Secretary) regularly participated in these, as did the head of PA&E. This is not just some nerdy, tree-huggers from northern California, the Pacific Northwest, or the People’s Republic of Cambridge/Boulder.

I attended a little less than half of the discussions - fascinating meetings in a context that one might not expect.

-- Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) – which can have a huge impact on funding allocations – looked at costs related to energy needs in OIF & OEF.

Those are just the ones of which I am aware … & climate change/alternative energy is not my main interest area.

One could actually make a fairly strong case that the DoD is acting as the strongest driver to address issues related to climate change and alternative energy (!) ...

Even in consideration of all that, which I completely suppport, it still does not convince me that addressing climate change in strategic defense planning across the DOTMLF should take precedence over SSTR or other defense issues.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The US Department of Defense is the world's largest consumer of oil.

Yes, the DoD requires a tremendous amount of energy to execute its mission. You raise a completely valid regarding need for non-foreign energy sources and alternative energy. The military is critically dependent on sources of energy to move things and people. Fuel is a huge logistics burden. For every $10 / barrel increase in the cost of fuel, DoD operating costs increase roughly $1.3B in the year of execution – that’s the “so what, who cares?” for the taxpayer.

Well, one thing to be pondered is if the mission is appropriate.

Our DoD burns about as much oil as the entire NATION of Greece. After combustion, that's also a whole lot of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

WHY do we, with around 5% of the world's population, need a military that costs about 45% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Why do we need to outspend the entire EU, Russia and China combined? What good does it do us?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

WHY do we, with around 5% of the world's population, need a military that costs about 45% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Why do we need to outspend the entire EU, Russia and China combined? What good does it do us?

Do you need to be reminded of what happened the last three times we reduced military readiness?

This nation has been a target of "insert whatever here" since its inception over 200 years ago. The reasons have changed, but that simple reality, by itself, has not.

Over the years, there is an easy linear track to follow. The USSR/Russians are no different either in how their doctrine developed over the past 100 years.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

WHY do we, with around 5% of the world's population, need a military that costs about 45% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Why do we need to outspend the entire EU, Russia and China combined? What good does it do us?

Do you need to be reminded of what happened the last three times we reduced military readiness?

This nation has been a target of "insert whatever here" since its inception over 200 years ago. The reasons have changed, but that simple reality, by itself, has not.

Over the years, there is an easy linear track to follow. The USSR/Russians are no different either in how their doctrine developed over the past 100 years.

A war of aggression based on falsehoods is hardly justification for profligate waste of a finite resource combined with more greenhouse gas productioin than any other single source.

From the DoD itself (www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16915

"The U.S. military is using between 10 million and 11 million barrels of fuel each month to sustain operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Most of that fuel is dedicated to transportation needs to power military aircraft, ground vehicles and ships"

That's 350,000 barrels every day, at 42 gallons per barrel!

All so Bush can satisfy his desire to be a war president.

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." - George W. Bush

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHY do we, with around 5% of the world's population, need a military that costs about 45% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Why do we need to outspend the entire EU, Russia and China combined? What good does it do us?

Do you need to be reminded of what happened the last three times we reduced military readiness?

This nation has been a target of "insert whatever here" since its inception over 200 years ago. The reasons have changed, but that simple reality, by itself, has not.

Over the years, there is an easy linear track to follow. The USSR/Russians are no different either in how their doctrine developed over the past 100 years.

A war of aggression based on falsehoods is hardly justification for profligate waste of a finite resource combined with more greenhouse gas productioin than any other single source.

I was simply trying to answer your question. Follow your own tangent...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>Yes, the DoD requires a tremendous amount of energy to execute its mission.

This is why I think it is both critical to develop alternative energy sources, and to NOT drill ANWR. Right now, a coalition of countries allied against the US could cripple us militarily and economically by simply cutting off oil exports to us. If we have already exploited our last large reserve, the situation gets even worse, because we have no alternatives at that point.

Oil runs our economy, and it is a strong economy that lets us dabble in hydrogen, synfuels, solar power, wind power, biofuels etc. If we wait until the oil supply dwindles - and our economy follows it - we will have no money to spend on alternatives. They have to be up and running by that point.

If they are not, then our choices will devolve to a war of conquest to control the world's oil, or a slow slide into oblivion.

>it still does not convince me that addressing climate change in
>strategic defense planning across the DOTMLF should take precedence
>over SSTR or other defense issues.

I agree. It is important, but is more part of the landscape than a real "direction" to plan for. It's like Naval planning for the effects of hurricanes and typhoons on miliary readiness. They will happen, and thus while they need to be planned for, they shouldn't dominate strategy discussions,

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHY do we, with around 5% of the world's population, need a military that costs about 45% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Why do we need to outspend the entire EU, Russia and China combined? What good does it do us?

Do you need to be reminded of what happened the last three times we reduced military readiness?

This nation has been a target of "insert whatever here" since its inception over 200 years ago. The reasons have changed, but that simple reality, by itself, has not.

Over the years, there is an easy linear track to follow. The USSR/Russians are no different either in how their doctrine developed over the past 100 years.

A war of aggression based on falsehoods is hardly justification for profligate waste of a finite resource combined with more greenhouse gas productioin than any other single source.

I was simply trying to answer your question. Follow your own tangent...

Tangent? Did you actually read the title of this thread?

The use of oil, unsustainable in the long run, by the oversized US DoD on unnecessary foreign wars is central to the issue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Well, one thing to be pondered is if the mission is appropriate.

Conur, & that is one of the issues I'm having with the Authorization Bill langauge, i.e., does climate change represent appropriate mission space for DoD.

Quote

WHY do we, with around 5% of the world's population, need a military that costs about 45% of
the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Why do we need to outspend the entire EU, Russia and China combined? What good does it do us?

You bring up a legitimate interesting question/issue ... although both tangential to and larger than the original post, which is fine by me.
What good does a strong civilian-controlled military serve?

I think there's too often a knee jerk reaction/response on both sides.

Just because something is a tradition is fine for families and dz's but not enough reason for investing ~4% of nation's GDP.
And it's not just about the $ either; the Soviet Union was spending upwards of 30-40% of its GDP on defense in the 1980s.

At the same time, the role of a strong, civilian-controlled military in insuring, securing, and enabling a society that fosters/enables all the wonderful liberal rights and civil rights that I cherish should not be underestimated.

Interesting question to compare/contrast with Norway (as one of the first states to suggest as exceeding the US on civil and social well-being indicators but w/less emphasis/$$$ on defense, although they do require mandatory service for men). Our 'nuclear umbrella' extends over them ...

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

[reply"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." - George W. Bush

[vortexring 0]

Quote

>Yes, the DoD requires a tremendous amount of energy to execute its mission.

This is why I think it is both critical to develop alternative energy sources, and to NOT drill ANWR. Right now, a coalition of countries allied against the US could cripple us militarily and economically by simply cutting off oil exports to us. If we have already exploited our last large reserve, the situation gets even worse, because we have no alternatives at that point.

Oil runs our economy, and it is a strong economy that lets us dabble in hydrogen, synfuels, solar power, wind power, biofuels etc. If we wait until the oil supply dwindles - and our economy follows it - we will have no money to spend on alternatives. They have to be up and running by that point.

If they are not, then our choices will devolve to a war of conquest to control the world's oil, or a slow slide into oblivion.




Firstly, certain countries are busy trying to achieve such an aim by trading oil in Euro's. If you'd written the second statement I've highlighted around the year 2000 I could now commend you on your foresight.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

• Quote

[Zipp0 1]

Places this thread went wrong:

1. Suggesting that the US government would consider climate change in national security policy decisions.

2. The US military is under civilian control.

3. One day, the US will be fighting a war of conquest for control of the world's oil. (it started some time ago)

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHY do we, with around 5% of the world's population, need a military that costs about 45% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S military budget. Why do we need to outspend the entire EU, Russia and China combined? What good does it do us?

Do you need to be reminded of what happened the last three times we reduced military readiness?

This nation has been a target of "insert whatever here" since its inception over 200 years ago. The reasons have changed, but that simple reality, by itself, has not.

Over the years, there is an easy linear track to follow. The USSR/Russians are no different either in how their doctrine developed over the past 100 years.

A war of aggression based on falsehoods is hardly justification for profligate waste of a finite resource combined with more greenhouse gas productioin than any other single source.

I was simply trying to answer your question. Follow your own tangent...

Tangent? Did you actually read the title of this thread?

The use of oil, unsustainable in the long run, by the oversized US DoD on unnecessary foreign wars is central to the issue.

Dude, I quoted you above, you asked a question. I answered it. I was not posting an opinion to the original post, I was directly answering your question. You responded to me about war of falsehoods. I was addressing the last 100 years, you were attempting to address the past 4 (albeit inaccurately, imo). That's your tangent.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!