Title: Preparing for the Inevitable: Climate Change and the Military

Vulnerabilities

Sea level rise, extreme storms, extreme drought and heat, and Arctic ice melt all degrade security and military readiness. These are not future challenges; each threat has already had identifiable impacts to military installations within the last five years.

Sea level rise is already apparent in coastal cities worldwide, having risen by over half a foot since 1880 and projected to rise another one to four feet by 2100. The slow creep of rising oceans threatens some of the United States’ most valuable infrastructure. Military coastal installations, such as the world’s largest naval base at Norfolk, suffer from frequent flooding during normal tidal events, while higher tides inhibit movement around the base.

The impact of extreme storms is one of the most tangible effects of climate change. Storms are becoming more frequent and extreme as climate patterns shift. Current models project an almost two-fold increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes along the East Coast by 2100. The damage caused by Hurricanes Florence and Michael in North Carolina and Florida are examples of what is to come. Hurricane Florence caused over $3.6 billion of damage to three Marine Corps bases, requiring renovations to seventy buildings and the replacement of 130 more. A month later, Hurricane Michael caused about $5 billion of damage to Tyndall Air Force Base alone. The financial burden of such destruction is unsustainable for the future. In 2019, the Air Force faced a whopping $4 billion budget deficit due in part to hurricane damage at Tyndall and extreme flooding at Offutt Air Force Base.

Warming conditions increase the frequency of extreme temperatures, drought, and wildfires. “Black flag” days are becoming more common on military installations as extreme temperatures and dry conditions force bases to limit or halt training. Wildfires can also threaten the installation itself. A 2016 wildfire near Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County, California forced the closure of a portion of the installation, delayed a satellite launch, and cost over $200 million. 

In addition to disrupting training, extreme heat and drought deplete water supplies at military bases. Idaho’s Mountain Home Air Force Base relies on a declining groundwater supply, prompting it to divert water from the Snake River nearby, a plan that could impact downstream communities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that over one hundred military installations are at risk of not having enough water. This will mean that bases such as Mountain Home and Camp Pendleton in southern California may need to ship in water at a significant financial and operational cost that is typically reserved for overseas operations.

Finally, the Arctic is degrading rapidly as ice and permafrost melts. The region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, with models predicting that the Arctic could be ice-free by 2030. Melting permafrost is already destabilizing runways and buildings across Alaska. As the Arctic becomes increasingly navigable, Russia is leveraging the changing conditions to rebuild Soviet-era installations and expand Arctic operations, with China expected to follow suit in expanding its footprint. 

Existing Policies and Next Steps

As climate change destabilizes crucial military infrastructure and disrupts military readiness, DoD needs clear policies to address the threat. The fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (FY2020 NDAA) includes important provisions to assess, plan, and invest in responses to climate change.

The NDAA requires the creation of a Climate Security Advisory Council within the intelligence community to conduct continual risk analysis and mandates the development of an adaptation plan to assess how climate affects the DoD and next steps to address the vulnerabilities. This includes codifying Assistant Secretaries for Environment, Installations, and Energy within each service and updating the building standards for the DoD to plan for future threats from climate change, energy security, and cyber vulnerabilities. Finally, the NDAA removes barriers that discourage investment in resilient infrastructure and creates a dedicated budget line for adaptation to and mitigation of extreme weather impacts. It also invests over $280 million in improving energy resilience and conservation on military bases.

Though the FY2020 NDAA addresses key climate concerns, it does not take the necessary step of directing the DoD to include climate change into every level of planning. The DoD should both create long-term plans for rebuilding after extreme weather events and incorporate climate change into all strategic planning to prepare for the future.

While many assume that the military has endless sources of funding, recovering from extreme climate events is often postponed in favor of supporting active operations. The DoD needs consistent funding for rebuilding after storms and extreme weather. Relying on year-to-year funding will not be sustainable in the era of climate change.

There must be policies to bolster resilience both inside and outside the fence-line. Most bases rely on the local community for energy, services, and housing for troops. If the power grid fails or a storm decimates the surrounding civilian population, the base will suffer consequences as well. This makes supporting the resilience of surrounding communities equally important. Additionally, bases can increase their self-sufficiency by implementing alternative energy microgrids. Alternative energy options diversify fuel supply, lowering fuel costs and limiting reliance on the local grid. Multiple bases, such as Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, have implemented solar installations, and more have significant potential if provided policy support.

Finally, there should be department-wide backing for thoroughly addressing the risk that climate change poses to military capabilities. National security planning documents, such as the National Security Strategy, should prioritize responses to climate change and add longevity to solutions. Long-term financial and operational support for the newly codified Assistant Secretaries for Environment, Installations, and Energy and newly created Climate Security Advisory Council would significantly improve a comprehensive understanding of these threats. Adding required classes at each of the military academies on the additional “fog” created by climate change would enhance future officers’ ability to address the challenges of climate change. Leadership on this issue is critical, and educating the next generation is key to achieving that leadership. Leaders within the DoD must make this a priority if they hope to stave off the worst of the impacts.

As the consequences of climate change intensify, it will become increasingly important for the military to prepare accordingly. The military is not responsible for solving climate change, but all of its services will need to adapt. Implementing policies to bolster resilience and plan for the inevitable is critical. In a world of growing threats, the US military cannot afford to ignore this looming vulnerability.

. . .

Esther Sperling is an Adjunct Fellow and the former Program Manager of Climate Security at the American Security Project. She has a Masters in Global Security Studies from Johns Hopkins University with a focus on the impact of climate change on national and international security. She received her Bachelors of Arts in Environmental Studies from Dickinson College. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of her employer.