For years, advocates of climate-change legislation have struggled to find a sales pitch that will sway even the most hardened of skeptics. Polar bears, green jobs, urgent pleas to think of the grandkids … none of them have quite done the trick. But recently, a new argument has come to the fore: the national security case for cutting carbon emissions. At a hearing in October, Senate Democrats invited military leaders and strategists to speak about both the dangers of America’s oil dependency and the potential for rising temperatures to create new security threats around the globe. Dennis McGinn, a retired Navy vice admiral, conjured up a not-too-distant future in which increased drought, flooding, and crop failures ravaged areas like sub-Saharan Africa or Bangladesh, fueling violent conflict. Meanwhile, he said, the U.S. military could find itself handcuffed by its over-reliance on oil if prices start spiking. “Continuing the United States’ pattern of energy usage in a business-as-usual manner,” McGinn warned, “creates an unacceptably high threat level.”
It’s a claim that resonates far and wide. In August, a poll by the American Security Project reported that most Americans agreed that global warming could “destabilize developing countries, creating the conditions for war and a breeding ground for terrorism.” A recent survey in Arkansas--hardly a hotbed of green sentiment--found that, when the security case was placed alongside the conservative mantra that capping carbon amounts to a giant tax, people favored cutting emissions 55 percent to 37 percent. The argument has even wooed conservatives who wouldn’t be caught dead at an Earth Day rally. Republican Lindsey Graham recently explained his interest in climate legislation by arguing that global warming could “make the world even a much more dangerous place. It’s not just me saying it. A bunch of generals are saying it.” The message is so effective that Democrats are counting on it to frame the climate debate: John Kerry, who has been working the security angle in private conversations with swing senators, was made lead sponsor of the Senate cap-and-trade bill for just this reason.
But even if climate-bill backers have finally found the potent argument they’ve been searching for, that still leaves the substantive issue: To what extent is global warming a national security concern for the United States? Right now, the Pentagon, the Armed Forces, and other security experts are trying to figure out just what dire consequences a warming planet might bring. And, as it turns out, the answers are more complex than the simple sales pitch might suggest.
The security argument comes in a variety of strains, but perhaps the one most commonly invoked has little to do with climate change per se--it involves oil. Military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, have become increasingly alarmed about their reliance on crude, not least because fuel convoys are ripe targets for attacks. “All the military departments are looking very specifically at how they take advantage of energy efficiency and lighten the burden of what our troops need to take to the front,” says Sherri Goodman, the former deputy under secretary of defense for environmental security during the Clinton administration. Then there’s the interrelated claim that America’s gas-guzzling ways help bankroll extremism in the Middle East. While this is a powerful reason to use less oil, it also only goes partway in making the case for tackling global warming--which, after all, requires an array of additional steps like zeroing out carbon emissions from coal plants and halting deforestation.
The more compelling climate-specific fear is the possibility that severe global-warming impacts could provoke conflicts around the world. In Sudan, there’s already evidence that warmer ocean temperatures have wreaked havoc on rainfall patterns, creating drought that pushed farmers in Darfur into competition for arable land with Arab pastoralists, with bloody results. That wasn’t the primary cause of the genocide there--the Khartoum government deserves the vast share of blame--but it’s an example of how ecological changes can tip tense situations over the brink. And climate science offers ample warning that similar disruptions could unfold across the globe. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius or more (which is precisely what climate campaigners are hoping to avert) would likely lead to more frequent droughts and crop failures across Africa, Asia, and Latin America; batter coastal regions with flooding and stronger storm surges; and aid the spread of infectious diseases. Glaciers in the Himalayas are expected to melt rapidly in the coming decades, shriveling up a key water source that Pakistan relies on for most of its crops, possibly setting the stage for conflict over rivers in Kashmir. And military experts have warned that greater resource scarcity could cause fragile governments to topple, pointing to events like the food shortages that helped lead to the fall of governments in Ethiopia and Niger in the 1970s. As a 2007 CNA report by a panel of retired military leaders describes, such failed states are ripe for terrorist havens and can succumb to the sort of anarchic violence that leads to calls for U.S. military intervention, as occurred in Somalia in the 1990s.
Print
COMMENTS (15)
The average world wide temperature has been stable for 10 years. The true believers are embarassed, to put it mildly.
Face it: "global warming" is not about climate. It's about the last chance of the left to destroy freedom and prosperity on the Third Planet.
The average world wide temperature has been stable for 10 years. The true believers are embarassed, to put it mildly.
Face it: "global warming" is not about climate. It's about the last chance of the left to destroy freedom and prosperity on the Third Planet.
"To what extent is global warming a national security concern for the United States?" um...it ain't the global warming, it is buying and using the thing that causes global warming; oil. Specifically the oil that sits underneath the sands of a nation many of whose people are intent on killing every infidel as a sacred duty. bulbman, of course, is happy to fund the terrorists in the name of freedom and prosperity.
If we get off the burning of fossil fuels, everyone but the jihadists, Hugo Chavez, and rightwing Republicans (another of bulbman's hero since he is so willing to send his money to him) will be happy.
Take the issue of global warming completely off the table as to national security, it ... view full comment
"To what extent is global warming a national security concern for the United States?" um...it ain't the global warming, it is buying and using the thing that causes global warming; oil. Specifically the oil that sits underneath the sands of a nation many of whose people are intent on killing every infidel as a sacred duty. bulbman, of course, is happy to fund the terrorists in the name of freedom and prosperity.
If we get off the burning of fossil fuels, everyone but the jihadists, Hugo Chavez, and rightwing Republicans (another of bulbman's hero since he is so willing to send his money to him) will be happy.
Take the issue of global warming completely off the table as to national security, its the oil stupid.
bulbman, why do you love the oil producing terrorists so?
Actually, blackie, it's non North American oil. The fact that we are using more oil/coal/fossil fuels than ever and, as Bulbman notes, mean global temps haven't gone up in over a decade calls "climate change" or "global warming" into question.
However, the nat'l security aspects are still salient. The more oil we produce, the less we must buy from people who hate us. You apparently understand this, so I expect full-throated support for drilling off US shores wherever possible, incentives for nuke plants, and support for Canadian tar sands development.
Let's get to it.
Actually, blackie, it's non North American oil. The fact that we are using more oil/coal/fossil fuels than ever and, as Bulbman notes, mean global temps haven't gone up in over a decade calls "climate change" or "global warming" into question.
However, the nat'l security aspects are still salient. The more oil we produce, the less we must buy from people who hate us. You apparently understand this, so I expect full-throated support for drilling off US shores wherever possible, incentives for nuke plants, and support for Canadian tar sands development.
Let's get to it.
incentives for nuke plants, and support for Canadian tar sands development.
actually, nuke plants would be a security risk to both accidents and, more likely, terror attackes. Oil means having our income and our allies go to anti-US dictatorships (and Texas). Tar Sands I believe takes 1 barrel of oil to produce 1.5 new barrels and is environmentally hazardous. Off shore oil also a big risk. No reason not to do alternative fuels as other nations are doing and will profit from.
incentives for nuke plants, and support for Canadian tar sands development.
actually, nuke plants would be a security risk to both accidents and, more likely, terror attackes. Oil means having our income and our allies go to anti-US dictatorships (and Texas). Tar Sands I believe takes 1 barrel of oil to produce 1.5 new barrels and is environmentally hazardous. Off shore oil also a big risk. No reason not to do alternative fuels as other nations are doing and will profit from.
"Face it: "global warming" is not about climate. It's about the last chance of the left to destroy freedom and prosperity on the Third Planet."
I guess you didn't read this:
http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/tnr-qa-dr-stephen-schneider
"Face it: "global warming" is not about climate. It's about the last chance of the left to destroy freedom and prosperity on the Third Planet."
I guess you didn't read this:
http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/tnr-qa-dr-stephen-schneider
adolbe, what planet are you on? When was the last significant nuclear accident? Terror attacks? I guess, but attacks on chemical plants would do more damage. What's the risk in off-shore drilling? Where are the massive splills I keep being warned about?
Of course there's no reason not to encourage alternative, and I support that. But it is NOT either/or, it's both/and.
Oh, and when wind and solar combined provide 1% of total overall US energy needs, give me a call.
adolbe, what planet are you on? When was the last significant nuclear accident? Terror attacks? I guess, but attacks on chemical plants would do more damage. What's the risk in off-shore drilling? Where are the massive splills I keep being warned about?
Of course there's no reason not to encourage alternative, and I support that. But it is NOT either/or, it's both/and.
Oh, and when wind and solar combined provide 1% of total overall US energy needs, give me a call.
sorry butchie but as I have said before it ain't as simple as drill baby drill. From the Oil drum (some excerpts)
Let's take a closer look at the prospectivity, geology, economics, technology, reservoirs, hydrocarbons and logistics of the Lower Tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico (henceforth the LTGOM).
Large estimated recoverable reserves (EUR) numbers have been quoted in the business and popular press—anywhere from 3 to 15 billion barrels (Gb). Many of these articles have given the public the misperception that all of these billions of barrels were demonstrated by and will shortly flow from the Jack discovery alone. This report is meant to enlighten TOD readers on the true significan ... view full comment
sorry butchie but as I have said before it ain't as simple as drill baby drill. From the Oil drum (some excerpts)
Let's take a closer look at the prospectivity, geology, economics, technology, reservoirs, hydrocarbons and logistics of the Lower Tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico (henceforth the LTGOM).
Large estimated recoverable reserves (EUR) numbers have been quoted in the business and popular press—anywhere from 3 to 15 billion barrels (Gb). Many of these articles have given the public the misperception that all of these billions of barrels were demonstrated by and will shortly flow from the Jack discovery alone. This report is meant to enlighten TOD readers on the true significance of the Jack discovery, the Lower Tertiary play in general, and what can truly be expected from it.
The LTGOM play consists of a number of fields as shown in Figure 1 below. All of these fields have a EUR in the 350 million to 500 million-barrel range according to Rigzone and other unpublished sources. The production capacity of the various fields and the types of fluid they can deliver vary considerably. Aside from their great depth, the reservoirs and fluids present many challenges. Some of these fields will get produced, others will not. It is important for everyone to understand that the large EUR numbers quoted do not apply to any one field but rather represent the entire Lower Tertiary region.
The Jack-2 well test indicated a flow of 6000 barrels per day. This one data point encourages further appraisal but does not guarantee flow rates that will justify the massive (billions of dollars) investment required to put the LTGOM into full-scale production. Whether the economics of commercial exploitation is favorable for the various fields remains an open question.
# Implementing development plans, where they exist, for these fields pushes the limits of deepwater technology. A myriad of questions exist about completion and production of the wells. Unanswered logistical concerns include securing rigs, transporting produced oil to market and what to do with associated natural gas.
# Realistically, initial production of some fields (eg. Great White and Cascade) may happen by 2009 or 2010 at the earliest. The other fields that do get developed, including Jack, will likely not achieve first production before the 2012 to 2014 period. Delays are likely given that many technical problems are being solved for the first time. Under most forecasted scenarios, production from the LTGOM will likely only offset declines in US production that will have occurred by then.
* The LTGOM play contains oil of highly variable quality. Some of it is high gravity condensate (40+ ° API) Some of the oil is low gravity, highly viscous sour crude with upwards of 4% sulfur content. Generally speaking, the oil in the western fields (Great White etc.) is better than the eastern fields (Chinook, Stones, Cascade).
* Given their great depth, many of these reservoirs are at very high pressure, about 20,000 psi. Thermal cracking of immature oil into lighter fractions is incomplete in some fields, indicating that the oil was formed only a short (geological) time ago and has not migrated far. As for associated gas, the Gas-to-Oil Ration (GOR) is low. However, some gas will be produced.
* Most of the oil-bearing reservoirs are low-permeability very-fine-grained turbidite sandstones. Some are so fine-grained that they are almost siltstones. These reservoirs, due to their deep burial depths, are also well lithified, and will be challenged to flow their oil at the necessary rates to pay out the required investments. That was the main reason for the Jack 2 well test - to prove that oil could be produced at sufficiently-high rates to warrant further development work.
The start-up costs are very high and likely will be subject to inflation down the road, given the rising capital commodity costs of almost everything. Concerning marginal costs, a reasonable guess is that it is likely that unit technical costs will be $20 to $50 per barrel. At $20/bbl these projects will fly economically. At $30 and up, they will struggle to attract investment capital. It will all depend primarily on the well rates, per well EURs, and well costs, including completion & production. The higher the rates and EUR, the fewer wells that will be needed to drain the reservoirs. From Just Dig Deeper (cited at the very top), we learn that
Pioneering isn't cheap. Steel and skilled labor rates are going through the roof, as are rental rates for state-of-the-art offshore rigs. BP (BP), for example, will be paying $520,000 per day starting late next year for the same rig it is now getting for $190,000 per day. That's because these fancy rigs, which house 200 people and rise 415 feet into the air, are in short supply with drilling picking up. Still, energy experts believe that producing oil from ultra-deep wells can be profitable as long as oil, selling for $67 per barrel today, stays at or above $40 to $45.
Obviously, I know we can't get off of all fossil fuels, but who the hell says we can't drill (where it is economical and safe) while at the same time moving aggressively towards alternative energy. Denmark gets 24% of its electricity from Wind power alone, and we all know that France gets 76% of its electricity from Nuclear. The US is way down at 19% for Nuclear and far less for wind.
Every dollar that goes into the hands of the Saudi's, know that a certain percentage of it is going towards jihadists out to kill American soldiers.
I don't buy Arab oil. Not one penny of mine goes there. (ok, this is slightly unfair since 1. I live in Mexico that produces all of its own, and 2. I don't own a car)
I'm not seeing how the average temperatures have been stable since 2005 was the hottest on record and the last decade was the warmest on record (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-1740...).
butchie: If drilling more oil domestically was the answer, why weren't the reserves that aren't off-limits that the oil companies already have leases on (and which are, on balance, cheaper to extract from than those that are off-limits) tapped when oil prices were at an all-time high?
I'm not seeing how the average temperatures have been stable since 2005 was the hottest on record and the last decade was the warmest on record (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-1740...).
butchie: If drilling more oil domestically was the answer, why weren't the reserves that aren't off-limits that the oil companies already have leases on (and which are, on balance, cheaper to extract from than those that are off-limits) tapped when oil prices were at an all-time high?
So blackie, we're agreed. Drill AND develop alternative sources. Now get down off that high horse. We all can't live in Oaxaca.
actually, 1934 was the hottest year on record and no, the global mean temp has not risen since 1998.
So blackie, we're agreed. Drill AND develop alternative sources. Now get down off that high horse. We all can't live in Oaxaca.
actually, 1934 was the hottest year on record and no, the global mean temp has not risen since 1998.
1934 was the hottest year on record only in the United States which is, what, 2% of the surface of the planet? Other places do know how to, and have been recording temperatures for quite some time as well and there doesn't appear to be a well correlated global peak of temperatures in the 30s.
As for the "global mean temp has not risen since 1998", since 1998 was one of the hottest years on record and 2007 should have been significantly cooler due to both the solar and Southern Oscillation cycles being at an overlapping nadir (i.e. it should have been a lot cooler), it would appear that we still have a problem. Much like the glaciers are telling us.
1934 was the hottest year on record only in the United States which is, what, 2% of the surface of the planet? Other places do know how to, and have been recording temperatures for quite some time as well and there doesn't appear to be a well correlated global peak of temperatures in the 30s.
As for the "global mean temp has not risen since 1998", since 1998 was one of the hottest years on record and 2007 should have been significantly cooler due to both the solar and Southern Oscillation cycles being at an overlapping nadir (i.e. it should have been a lot cooler), it would appear that we still have a problem. Much like the glaciers are telling us.
butchie, hah. you know I am an excellent rider, which is why I always get on my high horse. Actually, my whole livelihood depends on LTGOM oil. My University's major major is Petroleum Engineering, and Pemex pretty much funds everything. If you are a Mexican and can get a job at Pemex, your life is set. But even the Mexican gov't. knows they need to diversify and built that wind mill farm in La Ventosa. Spanish energy company Acciona Energia says the 6,180-acre wind farm should generate 250 megawatts of electricity with 167 turbines, 25 of which are already operating. The rest should be on line by the end of the year, making the project the largest of its kind in Latin America.
It will produc ... view full comment
butchie, hah. you know I am an excellent rider, which is why I always get on my high horse. Actually, my whole livelihood depends on LTGOM oil. My University's major major is Petroleum Engineering, and Pemex pretty much funds everything. If you are a Mexican and can get a job at Pemex, your life is set. But even the Mexican gov't. knows they need to diversify and built that wind mill farm in La Ventosa. Spanish energy company Acciona Energia says the 6,180-acre wind farm should generate 250 megawatts of electricity with 167 turbines, 25 of which are already operating. The rest should be on line by the end of the year, making the project the largest of its kind in Latin America.
It will produce enough energy to power a city of 500,000. The whole region gets its electricity from here. I spend next to nothing on electricity.
What really annoys me is I thought this article would address oil and national security. Only Democrats could mess this up as a talking point. As to Climate change, we are doomed, cap and trade won't do squat. I just happened to get a jump start on it by acclimating myself to the hotter temperatures.
Another problem with the national-security argument is that it might inspire a greater focus on a defense-based response rather than on doing anything that might fix the actual problem. Among those who refuse to accept that global warming is caused by human activity, dire warnings of future chaos are more likely to mean "we have to fortify our borders" rather than "let's reduce carbon emissions."
Another problem with the national-security argument is that it might inspire a greater focus on a defense-based response rather than on doing anything that might fix the actual problem. Among those who refuse to accept that global warming is caused by human activity, dire warnings of future chaos are more likely to mean "we have to fortify our borders" rather than "let's reduce carbon emissions."
"Where are the massive splills I keep being warned about?"
I thought tanker spills transporting oil from the platforms is the issue, isn't it? And what massive spills? Um, Exxon Valdez comes to mind. The entire spill hasn't been cleaned up 20 years later.
"Where are the massive splills I keep being warned about?"
I thought tanker spills transporting oil from the platforms is the issue, isn't it? And what massive spills? Um, Exxon Valdez comes to mind. The entire spill hasn't been cleaned up 20 years later.
Bulbman. The NYT said this about the stable temperatures on 9/21/09: "Scientists say the pattern of the last decade — after a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere." Regardless, even if we diminished our foreign gas consumption, China and India and other emerging economies will consume it. Oil producing countries will still hold the cards they need. Al Gore pointed, when we develop technology for clean water, other countries line up to buy it. Cheap alternative energy technology is capitalism.
Bulbman. The NYT said this about the stable temperatures on 9/21/09: "Scientists say the pattern of the last decade — after a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere." Regardless, even if we diminished our foreign gas consumption, China and India and other emerging economies will consume it. Oil producing countries will still hold the cards they need. Al Gore pointed, when we develop technology for clean water, other countries line up to buy it. Cheap alternative energy technology is capitalism.
Well, no tnmats, it's not. The issue here in Florida is spills from the platforms themselves. But even counting the Exxon Valdez and others, we haven't stopped pumping oil from wherever because of that.
What else ya got?
Well, no tnmats, it's not. The issue here in Florida is spills from the platforms themselves. But even counting the Exxon Valdez and others, we haven't stopped pumping oil from wherever because of that.
What else ya got?