Estados Unidos

National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
Executive Summary
The CNA Corporation (2007)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the national and international security environment, climate change threatens to add
new hostile and stressing factors. On the simplest level, it has the potential to create
sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today. The
consequences will likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of
governments to cope. Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states.
Unlike most conventional security threats that involve a single entity acting in specific ways
and points in time, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions,
occurring globally within the same time frame. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean
water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources.
Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the
conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism
and radical ideologies. The U.S. may be drawn more frequently into these situations, either alone or with allies, to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. The U.S. may also be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun, to avert further disaster and reconstitute a stable environment.
Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world. The U.S. and Europe may experience mounting pressure to accept large numbers of immigrant and refugee populations as drought increases and food production declines in Latin America and Africa. Extreme weather events and natural disasters, as the U.S. experienced with Hurricane Katrina, may lead to increased missions for a number of U.S. agencies, including state and local governments, the Department of Homeland Security, and our already stretched military,
including our Guard and Reserve forces.
Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges. As President Bush noted in his 2007 State of the Union speech, dependence on foreign oil leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists, and clean domestic energy alternatives help us confront the serious challenge of global climate change. Because the issues are linked, solutions to one affect the other. Technologies that improve energy efficiency also reduce carbon intensity and carbon emissions.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S O F T H E M I L I TA RY A D V I S O RY B O A R D :
1. The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated
into national security and national defense strategies. As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failing to act because a warning isn’t precise enough is unacceptable. The intelligence community should incorporate climate consequences into its National Intelligence
Estimate. The National Security Strategy should directly address the threat of climate change to our national security interests. The National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy should include appropriate guidance to military planners to assess risks to current and future missions caused by projected climate change. The next Quadrennial Defense Review should examine the capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events, pandemic disease events, and other related missions.
2. The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
Managing the security impacts of climate change requires two approaches: mitigating the effects we can control and adapting to those we cannot. The U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects from climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
3. The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts. As President Bush noted in his State of the Union speech, “Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is
given, much is required.” Climate forecasts indicate countries least able to adapt to the
consequences of climate change are those that will be the most affected. The U.S. government
should use its many instruments of national influence, including its regional commanders,
to assist nations at risk build the capacity and resiliency to better cope with the effects of
climate change. Doing so now can help avert humanitarian disasters later.
4. The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency. Numerous Department of Defense studies have found that combat forces would be more capable and less vulnerable by significantly reducing their fuel demand. Unfortunately, many of their recommendations have yet to be implemented. Doing so would have the added benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
5. The Department of Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years. Many critical defense installations are located on the coast, and several strategically important ones are on low-lying Pacific islands. Sea level rise
and storm surges will threaten these facilities. Planning and action can make these installations
more resilient. Lack of planning can compromise them or cause them to be inundated, compromising military readiness and capability.