For those who did not tune in last week, this is a new feature to highlight the top tweets of the week to hit my Twitter feed (@wmrogers). The list is completely subjective, of course, but I hope it is helpful to readers interested in following natural security news a little bit closer.
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) published a compilation of polls on the environment and energy, highlighting public opinion on a range of issues, from nuclear energy, the Keystone XL pipeline to global climate change. The findings are instructive, but I don’t necessarily agree with the analysis that AEI makes about some of the issues. For example, the report notes that “Global warming doesn’t rank at or near the top of issues people want the president and Congress to address. In January 2012, 25 percent said global warming should be a top priority, ranking at the bottom in terms of top priorities.” But read another way, a quarter of Americans find that global climate change should be the top priority for U.S. policymakers. Given the litany of challenges the country faces, isn’t it still substantial that 25 percent of Americans want action taken to address climate change and consider it a top priority? Regardless, the report is worth a read and you can make up your own mind about what it all means.
Professor Fravel tweets that India will continue to cooperate with Vietnam to exploit energy resources in Vietnam’s East Sea (also known as the South China Sea), despite objections from China. This has been a huge source of tension recently between India and China. China objects to “outsiders” getting engaged in the South China Sea dispute – an area that China claims is its territorial sea. (To learn more, read this post I wrote in September on India’s South China Sea gambit.)
A new report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) outlines for Congress the key issues around modernizing the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet. According to the author Ronald O’Rourke:
Potential issues for Congress regarding Coast Guard polar icebreaker modernization include the potential impact on U.S. polar missions of the United States currently having no operational heavy polar icebreakers; the numbers and capabilities of polar icebreakers the Coast Guard will need in the future; the disposition of Polar Sea following its decommissioning; whether the new polar icebreaker initiated in the FY23013 [sic] budget should be funded with incremental funding (as proposed in the Coast Guard’s Five Year Capital Investment Plan) or full funding in a single year, as required under the executive branch’s full funding policy; whether new polar icebreakers should be funded entirely in the Coast Guard budget, or partly or entirely in some other part of the federal budget, such as the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget, or both; whether to provide future icebreaking capability through construction of new ships or service life extensions of existing polar icebreakers; and whether future polar icebreakers should be acquired through a traditional acquisition or a leasing arrangement.
The report comes on the heels of a recent request from the Coast Guard for $8 million dollars for Fiscal Year 2013 to begin the acquisitions process for a new polar-class icebreaker that the Coast Guard says it needs to perform its critical missions in the Arctic and to protect U.S. interests broadly across the region. “The $8 million request is less than 1 percent of the $860 million being asked for icebreaker acquisition in the Department of Homeland Security’s five-year budget projection,” according to a recent report from The Navy Times. “Neither of the U.S.’s two heavy-duty Polar-class icebreakers is in service. The Polar Star is awaiting a $57 million upgrade set to be finished in December. Its sister ship, Polar Sea, has been docked in Seattle since 2010 with engine issues. The medium-duty polar icebreaker Healy is designed for research and cannot cut through the thickest ice.”
To read the full CRS report, click here.
A new study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers an important reminder about the climate-energy nexus that has been largely missing from the energy conversation as of late.
There have been a lot of studies done recently on how America’s boon in domestic natural gas and oil production made possible by hydraulic fracturing can improve American energy security – specifically by reducing U.S. reliance on energy imports. Although this does little in the near term to assuage concerns about high oil prices given that oil prices are set by the international market, it does help mollify concerns about assured access to energy if the United States is increasingly relying on domestic production to supply its demand. Moreover, some studies have specifically noted that America’s abundance of natural gas could displace coal as the dominant feedstock in electricity generation, which could dramatically reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since natural gas produces about half as many GHG emissions as coal.
Yet this optimism about natural gas and its climate benefits may be premature, according to a recent study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
This weekend’s news highlighted several ongoing territorial disputes across the Indo-Pacific region, from resource-rich Kashmir to the potentially hydrocarbon-rich South China Sea.
On the far West of the Indo-Pacific, The New York Times published a report on Sunday drawing attention to the Siachen Glacier and the intractable territorial dispute between Indian and Pakistan over Kashmir. The report comes on the heels of an avalanche last week that buried 138 Pakistani soldiers and civilians. “In outposts up to 22,000 feet above sea level, the temperature can plunge to 58 below, and linger there for months,” The New York Times reported. “Patrolling soldiers tumble into yawning crevasses. Frostbite chews through unprotected flesh. Blizzards blow, weapons seize up and even simple body functions become intolerable.” Indeed, what makes the Siachen Glacier noteworthy is not that it is the world’s highest battlefield, per se – it is that the conflict there is more a fight “against the mountain, not the man,” The New York Times reported.
The U.S. Coast Guard gave quiet attention to the Arctic this week. In preparation for its largest-ever deployment to the Arctic region this summer, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut hosted a two-day conference on emerging security challenges in the High North. “The time for shaping and implementing Arctic policy is now,” said Coast Guard Commander Russ Bowman, a co-chair of the Arctic conference.
Photo: In Juneau, Alaska, a U.S. Coast Guard HC-130 Hercules airplane sits on the deck at the Alaska Army National Guard hangar after providing overflight support off the Alaskan coast. Courtesy of Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis and the U.S. Coast Guard.
This is a new feature to highlight the top tweets of the week to hit my Twitter feed (@wmrogers). The list is completely subjective, of course, but I hope it is helpful to readers interested in following natural security news a little bit closer.
This is an interesting story to follow given the potential increase in demand for governments to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions due to climate-related and other natural disasters. Institutions like the U.S. military may be called on to support HA/DR missions in order to help dampen the impact of these natural disasters, which can have knock-on effects for security and stability.
The Hill’s Energy and Environment Blog links to a Wall Street Journal report on a new study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that challenges that assumption the natural gas reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to other fossil fuels. The study notesthat methane (CH4) leakages throughout the lifecycle production process could offset the greenhouse gas benefits. The study is very important given the recent attention to natural gas production in the United States, largely from shale rock.
A magnitude 8.6 earthquake struck off the coast of Indonesia’s Sumatra Island today prompting the governments of India, Indonesia and Thailand to issue tsunami warnings for the region. The earthquake revived memories of the devastating magnitude 9.1 earthquake the struck the Indian Ocean in December 2004, killing an estimated 250,000 across the region.
Early reports suggested that the initial earthquake’s depth and horizontal motion lessened the likelihood of a major tsunami. However, strong aftershocks continue to stir concerns about a tsunami forming in the Indian Ocean. At 11:43 a.m. GMT (7:43 a.m. EST), a magnitude 8.3 aftershock struck the region, prompting NOAA’s Pacific Tsunami Warning Center to issue a tsunami watch for the Indian Ocean. According to the warning, “Sea level readings indicate a tsunami was generated. It may already have been destructive along some coasts.” However, there are no reports of a major wave formation or tsunami event at the time of this writing.
Today’s Indian Ocean earthquake is a reminder of the importance of NOAA’s tsunami early warning systems, which are largely unrecognized national security assets. The constellation of buoys around the Pacific Rim and in the Indian Ocean measure changes in wave height that alert experts in Hawaii and Alaska about potential tsunamis forming in the wake of major earthquakes. The information is critical to predicting the size of tsunamis and forewarning coastal communities about when the waves may strike land. The system may seem unremarkable, but it is a critical capability that bolsters coastal states’ resiliency to potentially devastating tsunamis, giving communities ringing the coast time to evacuate and hopefully dampening the impact of these catastrophic events, which can have destabilizing knock-on effects. Despite the tragic loss of life, the tsunami early warning system proved critical in warning Japanese residents after last March’s magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami disasters, giving some residents time to evacuate. They also warned U.S. West Coast residents to evacuate vulnerable waterfront property.
Saleem Ali of the University of Vermont and author of Treasures of the Earth: Need, Greed and a Sustainable Future had a terrific piece in National Geographic Magazine on April 7 exploring the opportunities to transform the Siachen Glacier – the world’s highest battlefield – into an environmental peace park that could pay significant dividends for stability between Pakistan and India. Here is an excerpt of his article:
The New York Times reported yesterday that China is increasing its economic ties with the Caribbean, raising concerns among some U.S. diplomats and others that Beijing may be encroaching in a region of the world where Washington’s influence has waned in recent years. “Most analysts do not see a security threat, noting that the Chinese are not building bases or forging any military ties that could invoke fears of another Cuban missile crisis,” the report stated. “But they do see an emerging superpower securing economic inroads and political support from a bloc of developing countries with anemic budgets that once counted almost exclusively on the United States, Canada and Europe.”
Unlike in Africa and South America where Beijing’s activities have focused largely on securing access to raw materials like fisheries and minerals needed to sustain China’s strong economic growth, Beijing’s “presence in the Caribbean derives mainly from long-term economic ventures, like tourism and loans, and potential new allies that are inexpensive to win over, analysts say.” China has also taken steps to position itself as a credible international partner in support of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions in a region of the world prone to catastrophic hurricanes and other destabilizing events. In the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, for example, China deployed search-and-rescue personnel, medical teams, seismological experts and tons of emergency supplies.
President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met earlier this week at the White House and held a joint press conference in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2012. The three leaders discussed new avenues for multilateral cooperation, including advancing clean energy technology and combating climate change.
Photo: Courtesy of Chuck Kennedy and the White House.
A new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) finds that the build-up of Arctic military capabilities is limited, with few indications that conflict is looming. According to the study, all five Arctic states – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States – have increased their military capabilities in the Arctic in recent years in response to growing accessibly to the region owed largely to climate change.
Some of the increased military activity is likely a response to the changing geostrategic environment that will make military capabilities increasingly important for power projection that states need to maintain in order to secure access to lucrative natural resources and other national interests. According to the SIPRI study, for example, “Russia’s Arctic policy underlines the importance of the Arctic as a principal source of natural resources by 2020,” and “Denmark’s defence policy underlines the changing geostrategic significance of the Arctic.”
Despite the increased deployment of military assets, Arctic states are continuing to pursue new avenues of cooperation, mollifying concerns – at least for the time being – that tensions will worsen as the region becomes more accessible. Last year, the Arctic Council – an intergovernmental forum for Arctic states to address challenges in the High North – hosted a high-level forum that led to an agreement for countries in the region to increase search-and-rescue cooperation given the growing concerns surrounding increased eco-tourism and commercial shipping that could portend future law enforcement challenges. Some states’ newly deployed military assets are intended for search-and-rescue purposes, according to the SIPRI study. Canada, for example, will replace older C-130s and other aging aircraft with 17 new search-and-rescue aircraft in the next several years.
Debate over ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is ramping up in Washington. There has been a lot of attention given to how the treaty can help the United States secure its interests in places like the Arctic and the South China Sea – and rightly so given that challenges to U.S. maritime interests in these regions have serious implications for American security and its global leadership role. Yet other regions also exemplify the central role that UNCLOS ratification will play in securing U.S. interests at sea, including just off the U.S. coast.
As the U.S. Gulf Coast continues to reel from the devastating months-long oil spill that plagued the region in 2010, the United States is likely to be hamstrung in managing future disasters unless it ratifies UNCLOS. Offshore oil drilling in non-U.S. waters is a particular worry for U.S. officials – including the Coast Guard. Recent activities along Cuba’s continental shelf have exacerbated concerns that an oil spill akin to the Deepwater Horizon incident could impact an area of the U.S. coastline that stretches from eastern Florida to North Carolina’s outer banks. Reports suggest that Cuba’s capacity to respond to a major oil spill is minuscule, with only five percent of the assets needed to respond to an accident. Given that Washington does not maintain official diplomatic ties with Havana, it is unclear how the United States and Cuba would cooperate around an oil spill that could have economic and environmental implications for U.S. coastal communities.
A perennial dispute between Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government over how to manage Kurdistan’s oil resources is exacerbating tensions between the Iraqi central government and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.
Baghdad and Erbil brokered an oil revenue sharing agreement in 2011. The deal allowed the Kurdish Regional Government to export oil to Baghdad, which would then export oil to the international market through Iraq’s main oil exporting body, the State Oil Marketing Organization. Baghdad agreed to share half of the oil revenues with Erbil. However, Baghdad has reportedly failed to make payments for the oil since May 2011. According to one report, “The Kurdish region's Ministry of Natural Resources said Sunday that Baghdad had not made any payments to Kurdistan since May 2011. A ministry statement said that Kurdistan has ‘reluctantly decided to halt oil exports until further notice,’ due to the lack of payment. The region has been shipping about 50,000 barrels a day to Baghdad.” The Wall Street Journal added that “The Kurds say that Baghdad owes them some $1.5 billion,” in back payments.
The Indonesian government retreated from a planned increase in government-subsidized fuel prices on Saturday due to widespread protests that caused the government coalition that initially backed the plan to fracture. Indonesians have long enjoyed subsidized fuel prices, with gasoline prices at about US$2 a gallon. More than 10,000 demonstrators gathered around parliament to protest the legislation during parliamentary debate, with police reportedly firing tear gas and using water cannons to disperse the crowd.
Failing to increase fuel prices could potentially have a wide political reach as the Indonesian government struggles to rein in a ballooning budget that could stall the country’s economic growth. “The subsidies accounted for 20 per cent of government total spending last year, and analysts have said that cutting is needed if the government wants to limit its deficit and make room for investing in long-term growth projects,” The Financial Times reported on Saturday. “The country's fuel-subsidy bill has ballooned to more than $15 billion a year and could climb to close to $30 billion as global oil prices have been rising this year,” The Wall Street Journal added on Sunday. “The amount of money Indonesia spends to keep petroleum prices low is more than 15% of the country's budget and more than it spends on its military or its infrastructure.” What is more, the failure to pass the legislation could portend a difficult political future for Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. According to The Wall Street Journal, “His inability to control his coalition and get the original plan passed could not only trigger a bigger budget deficit for Indonesia, analysts said, but it could also signal a political deadlock that could hurt future policy making.”
As I mentioned last week on World Water Day, the intelligence community released its assessment on Global Water Security, timed very well I thought with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's launch of the new U.S. Water Program. Special thanks to our friends (and my former colleagues) across the way at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program for writing this thoughtful piece on the new intelligence community assessment that originally appeared on the New Security Beat blog.
By Schuyler Null, Managing Editor of the New Security Beat
Alongside and in support of Secretary Clinton’s announcement of a new State Department-led water security initiative last week was the release of a global water security assessment by the National Intelligence Council and Director of National Intelligence. The aim of the report? Answer the question: “How will water problems (shortages, poor water quality, or floods) impact U.S. national security interests over the next 30 years?”
1) Over the next 10 years, water problems will contribute to instability in states important to U.S. national security interests. Water shortages, poor water quality, and floods by themselves are unlikely to result in state failure. However, water problems – when combined with poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions – contribute to social disruptions that can result in state failure.
U.S. policymakers and military officials are giving the Arctic some more attention.
On Saturday, The Navy Times reported on the Coast Guard’s request to Congress to purchase a new heavy-icebreaker to bolster the U.S. presence in the Arctic. “Rising global temperatures and melting sea ice are opening the Arctic as a new frontier for research, travel and oil drilling — and creating more area for the Coast Guard to patrol,” the report said. “To keep up, the Coast Guard is asking for $8 million in the fiscal 2013 budget to begin procurement of a new large icebreaker.” The total cost of the icebreaker is projected around $860 million. The initial $8 million is to, as the report notes, get the procurement process started.
The U.S. Coast Guard currently lacks the icebreaking capability it needs to secure U.S. interests in the Arctic. “Neither of the U.S.’s two heavy-duty Polar-class icebreakers is in service. The Polar Star is awaiting a $57 million upgrade set to be finished in December. Its sister ship, Polar Sea, has been docked in Seattle since 2010 with engine issues,” The Navy Times said. “The medium-duty polar icebreaker Healy is designed for research and cannot cut through the thickest ice.”
Water is “an essential ingredient of global peace, stability, and security,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday in honor of World Water Day. “We think it actually is our duty and responsibility to make sure that this water issue stays at the very top of America’s foreign policy and national security agenda.”
Secretary Clinton’s remarks also coincided with the release of the intelligence community’s Global Water Security report, a study commissioned by the State Department to analyze the effect of water on U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. “This assessment is a landmark document that puts water security in its rightful place as part of national security,” Secretary Clinton said of the report.
Photo: Secretary Clinton delivers remarks honoring the 2012 World Water Day. Courtesy of Michael Gross and the U.S. State Department.
Today is World Water Day, a day to promote awareness of the acute water and food shortages plaguing the estimated 1 out of 8 persons that lack reliable access to clean drinking water.
This morning at 10:30 AM, tune into the State Department's website where you can watch Secretary of State Clinton deliver her remarks on World Water Day. According to a State Department release, Secretary Clinton will also launch the new U.S. Water Partnership (USWP) today. The statement says that “The USWP is a public-private partnership formed to share U.S. knowledge, leverage and mobilize resources, and facilitate cross-sector partnerships to find solutions to global water accessibility challenges, especially in the developing world.”
The Director of National Intelligence will also release the Global Water Security Intelligence Community Assessment, a long-awaited report from the intelligence community that describes the security challenges associated with increased water scarcity.
Hopefully the rollout of the IC report timed with a major speech by Secretary Clinton will generate some greater awareness within the security community about the importance of water security to U.S. national security and foreign policy. As Secretary Clinton said in a speech in 2010, “water represents one of the great diplomatic and development opportunities of our time.” As the United States rebalances in the Asia Pacific, perhaps water can serve as a touchstone for building strategic partnerships with countries already beset by water insecurity, a challenge likely to be exacerbated in the future. It is something that security practitioners should consider.
On March 25-26, 2012, the second Nuclear Security Summit (NSS), an international conference on global nuclear issues, will take place in Seoul, South Korea. The guest list has been finalized at 58, which includes representatives from 53 countries, and five representatives from four international organizations. In a post-Fukushima era and one in which the threat of terrorists obtaining and employing a nuclear device is viable, the 2012 summit will explore the issues of nuclear safety, security and terrorism. The summit is an avenue for the international community to collectively consider and learn from the mistakes of Fukushima in order to develop measures to prevent future nuclear disasters, the event of nuclear terrorism and restore public confidence in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Enhancing Nuclear Security and Safety
There will be various meetings preceding the March 25-26 event. The two most significant are the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Industry Summit, on March 23-24, when roughly 150 nuclear industry CEOs will discuss the role of the nuclear industry in enhancing nuclear security and safety, and the Nuclear Security Experts Symposium, on March 23, when over 250 representatives from NGOs, nuclear research institutions and nuclear security experts will convene for discussions on innovating nuclear security governance.
U.S. President Barack Obama inaugurated the NSS in Washington on April 12-13, 2010. The first summit addressed preventing nuclear terrorism, or the event of terrorist organizations using a nuclear weapon or one comprised of radioactive materials – “a dirty bomb” – on civilian populations. In the summit communiqué, a document that participating nations signed at the summit’s conclusion, leaders succeeded in defining the current parameters of nuclear security and particular nations, for example Ukraine, agreed to relinquish their stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. However, while the first summit did bring high-level attention to the issue of nuclear terrorism, it neglected to produce collective agreements requiring nations to secure their own domestic nuclear weapons material and facilities. As nations were largely responsible for setting their own goals, naturally these states set the bar low as to ensure positive results. Accordingly, the second summit has the opportunity to set a more ambitious agenda and introduce higher standards for participants.
Last Tuesday, President Obama announced that the United States, the European Union and Japan filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization against China for its export restrictions on rare earth metals – materials used in a wide range of high-end technologies, including smart phones, clean energy technologies and even some weapons systems.
On Friday, President Obama followed up the announcement with an Executive Order (EO) on National Defense Resources Preparedness with the broad purpose of identifying the resources and services critical to U.S. national security. Production of non-Chinese rare earth metals is expected to increase over the next several years as mines in Australia, the United States, Malaysia and elsewhere come online. However, one of the greatest hurdles for U.S. defense planners and others in the U.S. government trying to address resource-related challenges is a lack of fidelity in the supply chains for defense systems, energy technologies and other products that undergird the national defense and economy.
President Obama’s EO is a first step in helping provide better clarity into supply chain issues. Specifically, the EO states that:
Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee has been holding hearings with the U.S. combatant commanders over the last several weeks. The combatant commanders have been briefing their posture statements for their individual geographic Areas of Responsibility (AOR). Here are what the combatant commanders had to say about climate change in their prepared remarks.
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM)
General Carter Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, March 1, 2012
General Ham’s posture statement did not initially mention climate change, which seems strange considering the findings of a 2011 Defense Science Board (DSB) report on national security and climate change that gave “special attention to the African continent due to the vulnerability of African nations with high potential to intersect with United States national interests."
However, in follow up Q/A, Senator Mark Udall asked General Ham to comment on the DSB report and whether “resource scarcity and the impacts of climate change have the potential to cause or aggravate conflicts in your AOR?” General Ham replied:
Senator, there's no question but that environmental security can have a dramatic effect on overall security, both in individual states and more regionally. I would tell you my frank assessment is that we're having better success in response to environmental security challenges than we are finding traction for preventative or predictive actions that could be taken.
On the good side, we have incorporated in a number of regional exercises, which we conduct over the course of this fiscal year, 16 exercises involving as many as 30 different African states that will have as a component of that exercise response to an environmental disaster of some sort, mostly water-related, either flood or drought. We are finding that the African nations are very accepting and understanding of the security impacts of such issues.
As I indicated, though, we're finding -- and perhaps because it's more difficult -- we're finding less traction on the preventive steps than we are on response.
Continue reading the full exchange here.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
General James N. Mattis, Commander U.S. Central Command, March 6, 2012
General Mattis’s posture statement did not include any mention of climate change, which is expected given that CENTCOM is charged with managing the war in Afghanistan and addressing emergent issues in the Persian Gulf. Of course, General Mattis may have many thoughts about climate change within his AOR; I have no reason to suspect otherwise. Nevertheless, climate change is a challenge that should be integrated into CENTCOM’s strategic planning given the range of resources issues in the region that could be exacerbated by climate change, from water scarcity to food shortages.
The rise in gasoline prices topped the headlines this weekend. The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that gas prices rose an average of 6 percent in February and are expected to climb higher as refineries in the U.S. Northeast go idle or offline due to rising global oil prices that are making it too expensive for refiners to produce gasoline. “Gasoline production in the Northeast is expected to decline to 350,000 barrels a day in 2013, from 580,000 barrels a day in 2011, according to government estimates,” according to The Wall Street Journal. “By 2013, the government estimates, motorists in the Northeast will be using 240,000 barrels more each day than refineries and imports are providing right now.” What is more, the rise in global oil prices is having a ripple effect on other consumer goods, with overall consumer prices rising 0.4 percent in February.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported that gasoline prices have come front and center in presidential politics ahead of the Illinois primary on Tuesday. However, according to The New York Times, gasoline prices may not significantly influence the election in November.
Regardless of the influence on presidential politics, the rise in gasoline prices seems to have renewed the domestic debate of how the U.S. government can help manage consumer pain at the pump, including through the sale of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. The Obama administration ratcheted down expectations last week that the United States will release oil from the strategic petroleum reserves in order to mitigate supply and demand issues. The White House announcement came after false reports that the United States and Great Britain would coordinate a sale of their respective strategic reserves. (To have the most strategic effect, the United States would need to coordinate the sale of strategic petroleum reserves with other members of the International Energy Agency, adding a large volume of supply to the global oil market that can quench global demand and effectively manage the global price of oil.)
On Tuesday, President Obama announced a World Trade Organization (WTO) complaint against China for its export restrictions on rare earth metals, which are used in high-end electronic equipment, including smartphones, green technologies and even some weapons systems. The United States joined with the European Union and Japan in bringing the case before the WTO. Experts suggest the case will be ruled on near the end of 2012.
China currently produces about 95 percent of the world's supply of rare earth metals, but holds only 50 percent of global reserves. Several mining projects are expected to come online in the next several years to help diversify the global supply away from Chinese dominance. However, experts say many companies that rely on these materials have and are continuing to move manufacturing to China in order to take advantage of its domestic supply, which could have implications for domestic growth in clean tech and other high-end technology manufacturing.
Photo: A screen grab of the president’s announcement of the WTO complaint. Courtesy of the White House.
Global climate change has doubled the risk of coastal flooding for many American communities. “Global warming has raised sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating,” a new report from Climate Central found. “Scientists expect 20 to 80 more inches this century, a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky.” While the projected range of sea level rise may leave a lot to be desired with respect to certainty, the implications of even the low- to medium-range projections (between 36-48 inches) over the next century could have dramatic consequences for the estimated 5 million Americans living at less than 4 feet above high tide, and more so for the 3.7 million living at less than 3 feet above the tide.
U.S. military planners and others in the national security community should pay attention to the study’s mid-range projections. Depending on the location, mid-range projections are estimated at 1-8 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 4-19 inches by 2050, with some projections much higher in areas currently home to U.S. military installations. The study’s authors give projected ranges and best estimate predictions. For example, in Virginia, Sewells Point – Hampton Roads (home to Norfolk Naval Base) is projected to experience between 3-10 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 7-24 inches by 2050, with best estimates projected at 6 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 14 inches by 2050. In La Jolla, California (the greater San Diego region, home to Camp Pendleton to the north near Oceanside and Coronado to the south), the study projects 2-9 inches in sea level rise by 2030, and 4-22 inches rise by 2050, with best estimates projected at 5 inches by 2030 and 11 inches by 2050. The study provides a list of other communities and the projected sea level rise with 90 percent confidence intervals that are worth reviewing at length.
Although the ranges for projected sea level rise (given in inches, not feet) may seem insignificant, the risks and concerns are quite legitimate. Communities like Hampton Roads are already plagued by sea level rise and have given serious attention to adapting to the increased risk. One concern for these coastal installations is the increased risk of storm surge and the subsequent damage. Indeed, even modest sea level rise measured in single inches portends serious risks with respect to flooding. “Cities such as Norfolk have already experienced the effects of sea-level rise as powerful storms pushed water inland, leading to flooding in places where it once was rare,” The Washington Post reported last year. What is more, climate scientists project an increase in the severity and frequency of storms which may exacerbate the effects of sea level rise and the damages incurred for coastal communities, including U.S. Naval installations. The implications for military readiness cannot be overstated, and military planners need to adapt to these changes, or be prepared to reconstitute their capabilities and facilities in the wake of these events.
Yesterday, the United States, the European Union and Japan filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenging China’s export restrictions on rare earth metals. Rare earth metals are critical components to advanced technologies like solar voltaic cells, hybrid electric batteries, smartphones as well as some defense systems. “We want our companies building those products right here in America. But to do that, American manufacturers need to have access to rare earth materials – which China supplies,” President Obama said of the formal complaint. “Now, if China would simply let the market work on its own, we’d have no objections. But their policies currently are preventing that from happening. And they go against the very rules that China agreed to follow.” Beijing fired back against the WTO complaint. According to The Wall Street Journal, China’s Ministry of Commerce said that the export restrictions are intended “‘to protect resources and the environment,’ not distort industry.”
The WTO complaint comes on the heels of several years of angst with respect to China’s monopoly on rare earth metals. China currently produces about 95 percent of the world’s rare earths supply, but holds only about 50 percent of global reserves. In 2010, China suspended exports of rare earth metals to Japan following a months-long diplomatic row over a territorial dispute in the East China Sea. Meanwhile, Europe is dependent on Chinese supplies. According to Reuters, “The EU directly imports 350 million euros worth of rare earths from China each year…The damage done to European manufacturing runs into billions of euros, the official said, because it was nearly impossible to diversify away from Chinese supply.”