Environment and national security: A downward spir

The methods of overcoming environmental threats when posed as a national security issue are aggressive and combative, which counter-intuitively promote global instability, thereby undermining national security.

The Pentagon released a 20-page report last month officially declaring climate change as a national security threat, calling it a “threat multiplier” that has the power to exacerbate many of the challenges the U.S. faces today (Barron-Lopez, 2014). This was concluded on the basis that instability in other regions of the world has been due to a lack of food and water, pandemic diseases, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters…all brought on by an unstable climate. These indicators of climate change, the article suggests, undermine already fragile governments, and create gaps in governance that can create an “avenue for extremist ideologies” and conditions that foster terrorism. This seams like a bit of a stretch. Climate change = terrorism? The pentagon is correlating the potential harm of increased climate threats with increased military operations. This equation seems a bit suspicious, and upon closer look seems like a tool used by congress to combine the nation’s top issues: the environment and terrorism. Americans can now enthusiastically “rally behind the flag” in the name of “environmental security” to combat climate change, while simultaneously justifying military operations to end the War on Terrorism.  

The fact that the pentagon has framed environmental threats as an issue of national security shows that they are aligned with Klare’s thesis in “Resource Wars”. Like Klare, the Pentagon believes that the future of international conflict will be over dwindling resources brought about by a changing climate. There has been a shift in the way global leaders think about resources as directly influencing economic security, which justifies their use of military force to defend areas of “national concern.” Yet, are military operations the only way to respond to resource scarcity and climate change threats? And, what are the implications of doing so?

The United States allocates an enormous amount of funds to its military, far more than any other country. In 2011, the U.S. spent more on its military than the next thirteen dominant military powers combined; the U.S. spent more money on international and national security than on Medicare (Plumer, 2013). Like the cartoon suggests, this giant military force needs oil to fuel its operations. It does not come as a surprise that the U.S. places such a high priority in securing regions that will provide their fuel. Following this ideology, the U.S. had better make sure it has the support of regions that are resource suppliers before being pulled under the quickly growing wave of environmental scarcity leading to conflict. This system of western nations invading resource-rich regions (even in the name of national security) inherently causes regional instability, forming a negative feedback loop and intensifying instability as resource become scarcer. Perhaps, conjuring Mitchell’s critique of the resource curse, it is actually western influence in these regions that is causing instability and terrorism, and not climate change.

I believe that there is a way to diminish this seemingly impending doom, without having to invade resource-rich reasons and undergo geopolitical resource competition. I do believe that environmental problems in and of themselves are concerns of national security, requiring immediate attention at the highest level. Yet, framing it as a “national security threat” implies a combative, “us vs. them” stance, favoring competition over coordination. The methods used to secure this threat are misguided; national efforts and funds should be directed toward research and development of technology rather than toward defending regions that are resource-rich.

Plumer, B. (2013). America’s staggering defense budget, in charts. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

Barron-Lopez, L. (2014). Pentagon: Climate change a national security threat. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220575-pentagon-unveils-plan-to-fight-climate-change