On January 27, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the first Black American to hold this position, made history again by declaring an unprecedented move. He announced that combating climate change would become a major focus for the agency. According to Austin, nearly all aspects of the Department’s operations are impacted by climate change, and addressing it is crucial for national security. This decision marks a commendable initial action.
We outline a variety of immediate effects that a fast changing climate can have on security and war, as well as on the broader dynamics of American leadership of the international order, in an essay due to be published in the American Defense Policy journal.
IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Internal strife is likely to be the first casualty of a warming planet. Climate change, according to careful modeling, might increase conflict by as much as 50% in sub-Saharan Africa. Hundreds of thousands more people would lose their lives in combat, and millions more people would be forced to relocate, if this happened. And war trends warn us that the repercussions won’t be confined to the impacted countries alone, but will spread inside Africa and beyond via transnational terrorist vectors and mass migration.
The security implications of a changing climate are widespread, but sea level rise may have the greatest long-term impact. There will be numerous significant consequences. Significant migration from small island republics is possible, with destabilizing implications on the coasts of Southeast Asia. Bangladesh and Myanmar, two major states with enormous populations and large swaths of agricultural land in low-lying areas particularly exposed to increasing sea levels, are already feeling the economic strain of sea-level rise. As a land bridge between India and China, as well as a possible alternative route for China into the Indian Ocean (skipping the Malacca Straits), Myanmar obviously plays a crucial role in the security politics of Asia.
THE OVERALL IMAGE
The ramifications can be seen on a global scale as well. Russia, a U.S. foe, and Saudi Arabia, a putative U.S. security partner (albeit a troubled one), both have positions that matter greatly to American and international security. The economies and government budgets of both are critically dependent on the export of fossil fuels. However, Saudi Arabia has not yet taken many concrete steps to address the societal implications of the expected shift away from fossil fuel usage over the next two decades. Russia, undoubtedly, has not. How these two countries respond to that shift will certainly have major consequences for the peace and safety of their respective areas and, in the case of Russia, the safety of the international community as a whole. Our exploration of this complex matter has just begun.
India, however, presents an entirely other dilemma; it is a crucial ally to the United States in the administration of the Indo-Pacific. More than 300 million people in India have no or limited access to reliable, modern electricity. They have no choice but to try to industrialize in a democratic society so that the poor can have easier access to energy. If India follows the same carbon-intensive industrialization paths as the West and China, we would almost certainly lock in at least 4 degrees of temperature rise globally, which is an untenable risk.
The Arctic is experiencing a fourth and already significant impact from shifting weather patterns. The melting sea ice and rising temperatures are altering the flow patterns across the formerly frozen northern hemisphere. It is possible that ice-hardened ships and convoys of container ships will soon make year-round access to the Arctic possible. The major container ports on China’s eastern shore will have a new shipping path to the markets of the eastern United States and across the Atlantic to Europe within the next twenty years, thanks to the opening of the Northern Sea Route. The Russian Navy has redirected its attention to the Barents Sea as a gateway to the North Atlantic, and American submarines have resumed their patrols in the Norwegian Sea. There are far-reaching ramifications of this.
WHAT THIS MEAN FOR WASHINGTON
The question of how climate change will affect the United States’ ability to lead is reflected in the aforementioned implications on the economy, development, conflict, and geopolitics.
Several threats now exist to American dominance. Most of the security sector is worried about these, especially the threat posed by China’s growing economic and geopolitical influence. The ramifications of climate change for American leadership, however, have not yet been fully grasped by the security sector. There are two main aspects to this. The first step is a deeper comprehension of the aforementioned effects and preparation for them. Multiple facets of international security will be directly impacted by climate change, including but not limited to: increasing conflict and migration; sea level rise; shifting patterns of stability and instability in interactions between great powers. There is, however, a second, more serious aspect to the problem.
The majority of the international community, including key American allies, views climate change as a pressing problem that necessitates unwavering commitment and widespread international collaboration. American prestige and influence will suffer further if the country does not take the lead in combating climate change and preparing for the implications of the changes already baked into natural systems. This would have far-reaching effects on the dynamics of the American alliance, threatening America’s position as a global leader. Secretary Austin is strongly encouraged to make climate challenges a primary focus of national security planning, and we applaud President Biden’s first actions to shift this trend, which include re-joining the Paris Climate Accord and designating a special envoy for climate change.
Click Here if you want to read more Interesting Blogs.
