Tag Archives: climate change

Transforming thoughts of climate change

WASHINGTON – I remember studying abroad about three years ago on a program called Semester at Sea, during one of my summers as an undergraduate student. I was taking three classes and one of them was marine biology. My roommate on the ship, Maggie, went to school in Ohio as a computer engineer. We got along fine, but I’ll never forget our first day of biology class.

Our professor took us to the deck of the ship and began talking about all of the different creatures we would be able to see while out here in the middle of the ocean traveling from port to port.

He went on to describe the role these creatures play in their own microcosms, but also in the world at large and in our everyday lives, whether we realize it or not. We ended up discussing issues of global warming, the rising seas, glacial melt, energy shift, higher temperatures and droughts – all topics we would come back to many times over the course of the summer.

But when Maggie and I got back to our room after that first day of class she looked at me and said, “You know, when he was talking about all the global warming stuff — I’m sorry but I just don’t believe him. I know that’s a load of hogwash.”

I was completely shocked. While I knew that there were many non-believers out there, I didn’t know any of them. Not to mention, at this point it was 2012 and there was someone my age—albeit very conservative in her political persuasion—who actually thought the idea of global warming was a myth (and especially a computer engineer, no?).

How can a population cause so much destruction to the natural environment and cause extinction for many of its inhabitants and not see any repercussions? Until this day, that still boggles my mind. I didn’t even know how to respond to Maggie other than trying to morph the expression in my face quickly enough to hide my true feeling.

I managed to say, “Oh, really? Yeah….I mean, I definitely believe in that.” I wasn’t exactly trying to start anything, so I quickly changed the subject since I knew there were just clearly some fundamental differences in our beliefs, and we still had a whole summer to live together.

My point is, that even just three years ago and I’m sure still today, there are people who simply ignore the majority of scientists and research, and argued against the concept of climate change. But now, the conversation has changed or at least, it’s beginning to. Today it’s not about if it’s true or false, it’s about how we can best counter the domino effects that have been set into motion.

Across the U.S. our nation’s leaders and commander in chief have taken action, so much so that the United States is actually leading global efforts to address the issue of climate change. That’s because they’ve realized something: the issue of climate change is connected to American interests at home and abroad.

It may be hard to see the connection but at the basest level of analysis you can deduce that for national security, there is a purely logistical concern about the effects of climate change.

Dr. Boudrias, an expert in environmental studies at the University of San Diego, put it this way, “there’s no doubt at this point, having talked to military members at a national level, that they are clearly concerned of the affects of climate change on national security and international conflicts.” Boudrias explained that the issue of climate change comes into play for military installations around the world.

“If you think of Navy bases and understand the problems that come with rising sea levels, the issues begin to change,” said Boudrias, “If climate change effects water resources and you have a drought, then in the logistics of your bases—having enough water for your troops, for your facility, there are going to be major problems.”

Go beyond a military scope and think about natural disasters. Though it’s unclear whether climate change will increase the number of hurricanes, it’s a fact that its effects intensify their impacts.

Take for example, Hurricane Sandy, which caused an estimated $65 billion in damages. The magnitude of power the storm wielded was only increased by the rising sea levels. We saw the destruction of homes, crops, land, depleting the area of human necessities needed to survive and leaving people homeless, jobless, displaced from their own families and impoverished.

Even in more recent years we have seen an increase in the number of North Atlantic tropical storms per year, jumping from 11 annually to 16. The rise in sea surface temperatures, which could be related to global warming, has a direct correlation to that number.

What about at even more basic level? We don’t need a hurricane or an increase in the number of tornadoes to see that something has to change. Just think about something as basic to us in the U.S like water, with global warming comes decreased rainfall, higher temperatures, desertification and energy shifts. According to A Medill student journalism project, Global Warning, “the UN projects climate change will double the number of droughts worldwide and extend their length.”

With potable water level low around the world, that scarcity coupled with increased urbanization, ethnic tension, poverty, etc. and something is going to happen. The National Intelligence Council predicts that fresh water scarcity “could lead to conflict in the Nile, state failure in Pakistan and Yemen and large movement of people along the Rio Grande.”

But bring that even closer to home, what about California right now? Where the drought is so bad, Gov. Jerry Brown introduced mandatory water cuts for the first time in the state’s history.

How is water scarcity going to effect the ~38 million people and 900 miles of wildlife who call that state home?

Even further than that, it’s a state that grows much of the produce shipped across the U.S, so what is that going to mean for everyone who call the U.S. home?

I know that for myself, being from California, it’s something I think of a lot.

When I first heard that climate change was an issue of national security I didn’t make that immediate connection, but climate change has the ability to affect our everyday life and it can happen instantly.

As Boudrias said, “climate change is complicated and the connections are everywhere.”

It changes the whole economic, social and political world, it’s a symbiotic relationship—when one part of that equation falters it creates a butterfly effect to the other.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Extreme weather events on the rise, related to climate change

WASHINGTON – Heavy rainfall events, devastating droughts and intense wildfires are all on the rise. The increased instances of these extreme weather events can be directly related to climate change. If something is not done to slow the climate change process, these extreme events will get worse and could ultimately become not only a national security threat—but an international security threat.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information defines extreme weather events as “weather phenomena that are at the extremes of the historical distribution and are rare for a particular place and/or time, especially severe or unseasonal weather.”

In recent years, it has been recorded that there has been more heavy rainfall that leads to severe flooding in the Northeast region of the United States and more droughts in the West, particularly in California. These events are directly related to a steady change in the global climate.

“We need to be aware that climate change is going to make these extremes even worse,” said Dr. David Easterling, chief of the Scientific Services Division at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, NC. Easterling studies climate change’s effect on extreme weather events.

Easterling warned that an extreme weather event like a drought could lead to international problems.

“If there were simultaneous droughts in the central United States, Russia and China, all areas where a lot of grain is grown…that can effect a lot of people,” said Easterling.

The U.S. government, along with numerous local and state officials, have realized that climate change and its relation to extreme weather events can lead to potential problems and have taken measures to address the issue.

For instance, naval bases have taken into account the need to possibly raise airstrips in preparation for sea level rise. States and cities have been tackling a rise in hot weather days by implementing heat advisory systems and creating cooling stations around in areas experiencing extreme heat.

The White House has also been looking into America’s national security both domestically and abroad. In May 2015, the White House released “The National Security Implications of a Changing Climate,” which compiles findings from numerous federal reports about the effects that climate change is having on people.

“The national security implications of climate change impacts are far reaching, as they may exacerbate existing stressors, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and political instability, providing enabling environments for terrorist activity abroad,” said the report.

Both the White House report and Easterling warned that extreme weather events could cause flooding, which could impact transportation by washing away roads and flooding airports. Floods can also present health risks to humans such as the lack of safe drinking water.

Easterling also noted that climate change is inevitable, but the rate at which it occurs has a lot to do with humans.

“Consider that long term, climate change is happening because we’re putting a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…” said Easterling. “If we can reduce how much carbon dioxide we are putting in the atmosphere, then we can eventually begin reducing the impact that carbon dioxide is having on the climate.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Arctic may melt before U.S. ready for northern ocean defense

WASHINGTON–Arctic melting is leaving new coastline and waterways up to the north, but some Arctic strategy experts are concerned that polar ice is melting faster than U.S. military planners are gearing up for what an open-water arctic will mean for U.S. security.

The once-impenetrable Northwest Passage, along the Alaskan and Canadian coast, and the Northeast Passage, along the Russian coast, were both navigable in the summer of 2008.

“If you think strategy relates somehow to means and investment in means then we don’t have a strategy,” said Robert Laird, a security consultant based in Washington and Paris. “You have five stakeholders in the Arctic,” he said. The U.S., Russia, Denmark, Norway and Canada each have Arctic territory. “The only country that’s not strategic in this is us.”

At best, maritime forces will be stretched to cover more coast, patrolling, providing surveillance and rescuing those imperiled at sea over greater territory.

At worst, the U.S. may be drawn into a resource war in which the five Arctic countries hash out territorial claims to seafloor mining of minerals and energy stores, while an even greater number of states advances claims on fishing territory and transportation routes.

“The general rule for oceans is whoever can get there can develop it,” said U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Robert Watts, the Coast Guard service chair at the National War College. “Unless it’s in someone’s (exclusive economic zone), it’s free turf.” Exclusive economic zones are a fixture of international law that entitles countries to develop resources found within 200 miles of their coast.

The U.S. Department of State has an Arctic policy that articulates national security and defense among its principal objectives in the region. And as early as 2001, the Navy was theorizing what its role would be if the Arctic were to become navigable. As “if” became “when,” Navy leaders intensified their studies, in November releasing an “Arctic Roadmap, followed by a “Climate Change Roadmap” in May.

But a report last March from the Congressional Research Service said the Coast Guard’s proposed 2011 budget contains no funding to acquire, build or improve polar icebreakers, the primary vessel for maintaining a U.S. presence in the Arctic.

“We’re not building any assets,” Laird said. “We have a lot of words. We have one functioning ice breaker.”

The Coast Guard, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for maritime security, search and rescue and law-enforcement functions and owns the three Ice-breaking ships in the U.S. fleet. The Navy, a military branch within the Department of Defense, projects U.S. power abroad. Each have responsibilities for patrolling U.S. coastal waters.

A changing Arctic is likely to influence the future makeup of U.S. Naval forces, said Derek Reveron, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. Submarines will no longer be able to hide under permanent ice and if the U.S. role in the Arctic increases, the dominance of the Navy’s staple aircraft carrier may give way to a different fleet makeup, Reveron said.

“At the end of the day,” Reveron said.  “The Navy is what it buys.”

Tagged , , , , ,

U.S. can't delay signing Law of Sea treaty, officials say

WASHINGTON — Despite the support of dozens of well-placed politicians and a majority of voters, Congress appears intent on keeping the United States out of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the international treaty on seafaring considered crucial to maintaining order in the changing Arctic.

The agreement would give the United States a seat at the negotiating table with the 157 global signatories, and many lawmakers say the international rules are crucial to representing U.S. interests in a melting and increasingly navigable High North.

“I believe we are at a critical time in the Arctic,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowsi (R-Alaska) in an April 28 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies . “It has been identified that there are two paths that we can go down in regards to international relations– one is a path of competition and conflict, and the other is one of cooperation and diplomacy. I believe the decision on which path we ultimately take will require dynamic leadership.”  

As major Arctic nations and stakeholders begin laying claim to the opening sea lanes and newly accessible resources in the region, the Law of the Sea Treaty offers a way to maintain international order in the budding frontier.

The Law of the Sea, established in 1982, “lays down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. It enshrines the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole,” according to the U.N.

The Obama administration is an outspoken supporter of the treaty, as have been the previous two presidents. In fact, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the U.S. ratify the treaty with a 17-4 vote in 2007.

But opponents, beginning with President Ronald Reagan, have blocked its passage, saying it gives the U.N. too much control of the world’s oceans—up to 70 percent— and that it ­threatens U.S. sovereignty on oceans and coastlines.

Today, despite claims by supporters like Murkowski that its passage is urgently needed, the treaty is still waiting for Senate floor time.

The Senate calendar is only one piece of the troubled puzzle. Murkowski said she believes that once the treaty actually receives the floor time, it will take up at least one full week. With only 45 Senate legislative days left this year, and other congressional priorities, there isn’t time for the treaty this year.

“The United States must ratify the treaty but we remain at a stalemate: the White House looks to the Senate to lead and the Senate waits for stronger support from the Administration,” said Murkowski.

The treaty has taken a back seat to immigration and climate change bills and other debates in the House and Senate. To further complicate the political struggle, lawmakers have received hundreds of faxes from grassroots opponents threatening a campaign against anyone who works toward  supporting it, said Arne Fuglvog, a legislative assistant to Murkowski.

­ The Council on Foreign Relations, in a 2009 report, said Washington would be the biggest loser if it fails to ratify the treaty.

“By being the last significant maritime nation in the world to formally join the treaty, the United States is forgoing an opportunity to extend its national jurisdiction over a vast amount of ocean area on its Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts–equal to almost half the size of the Louisiana Purchase–while simultaneously abdicating an opportunity to have a say in deliberations over other nation’s claims elsewhere.”

U.S. ­leaders, including Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg of the continental shelf and related data collection has been cooperative, and that conflict does not seem imminent.

“The Arctic is kind of a test case of the ability of international community to beat the transnational challenges of the 21st century,” Steinberg said at the CSIS event.

However, climate change is heightening the urgency to adopt international protocols on the Arctic seas, Steinberg said.

“If we do not act in common,” he said. “Opportunity will become increasingly scarce for all of us.”

Tagged , , , ,

Climate change got EPA’s attention

CHICAGO — The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland brought more impairment than just flight cancellations. The chemicals released from the eruption may endanger the water quality.

How climate change affects water safety received the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s attention even before last fall when officials in the department initiated a “Climate Ready Water Utility” program.

“We think that climate change is a natural evolution of that all hazards approach because our understanding right now with climate change is that its impacts could have direct effects on water quality and quantity and even the infrastructure of water systems, which all could lead to service disruptions,” David Travers, director of the Water Security Division of the EPA, said.

When climate change causes water temperatures to go up, some consequences follow. “Higher temperatures reduce dissolved oxygen levels, which can have an effect on aquatic life. Where streamflow and lake levels fall, there will be less dilution of pollutants,” according to the EPA.

Travers said that after 9/11 the department focused on potential terrorist attacks on water, but the focus has been broadened as the years went by.

“Our definition of what constitutes as threats to infrastructure has grown from terrorism to natural disasters, and today to include climate change,” he said.

Travers said one example of climate change’s impact on water is that it may affect water availability. Since historical records provides good statistics to predict future water availability, the agency expects that the southwestern part of the country will experience severe drought, and it will worsen under the condition of climate change.

The new program will generate a national working group, provide recommendations to local water utilities on how to prepare for climate change, and develop a risk-assessment tool.

Currently, the water security division is in the process of developing software for the risk-assessment tool to be used on computers. And they expect to see some results as early as later this year.

Travers said recent hurricanes and floods are examples of what the weather could do to water, and it is extremely important to prepare beforehand.

“We have seen incidences where water systems have been knocked off line by natural disasters. Preparedness just makes sense as an approach to protect something as critical as water,” Travers said. “I think it’s important to prepare for these types of events. Just because you haven’t gotten into a car accident doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t put down the seat belt.”

Tagged , , ,