In October 2003, the Pentagon issued a report on climate change and national security (PDF). Suppressed by the White House, it was leaked to the press in February 2004. I know this because Bill Maher covered it on his show. So did a number of environmental organizations. The mainstream media didn’t give it much attention. They were busy with continuing coverage of Nipplegate and avoidance of covering the fact that the end of combat operations in Iraq wasn’t exactly happening. After all, we were being made safe from the terrorists, and why would the press want to jeopardize that? Interestingly enough, the same money spent to “secure us” from the “terrorists” in Iraq (remind me again of when Al Qaeda became active in Iraq? Oh that’s right, after we invaded) if spent on solving the threat of the climate crisis would not have had the consequence of creating a bigger problem. In fact, it would have likely stimulated the economy, created a whole new job sector and made us safer. For real. Instead, well, today it’s five years since the invasion of Iraq, thousands of U.S. troops are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, possibly more like hundreds of thousands, billions of dollars have been spent with little to show and there are war refugees in the millions. And climate change? More threatening to national and global security than ever.
### Iraq War Cost
It occurs to me that when a country sits on its hands for say 20 plus years while a known threat grows and expands its ability to do harm, we have names for that. Appeasement, cowardice, collaboration. And yet, in the case of climate change and the global security threat it represents, we have historically treated it differently, as if it either isn’t that big a deal or isn’t something we should address in the present. Not any longer. A recent report, Climate Change and International Security (PDF), put out by former NATO Secretary General and current EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Secretary General of the Council of the European Union and the Western European Union, Javier Solana Madraiaga, takes the issue head on. With that many security titles, perhaps people will take heed. NATO plans to also look at the climate change and security issue at its 20th biennial summit in April. Will we pay more attention to the Commanders than we did to the scientists?
The EU report is grim in terms of the potential threat that climate change poses to Europe’s security -- examining the potential for growing numbers of environmental refugees, energy wars, political radicalization and instability, border disputes and competition over shrinking resources. The report also cites climate change as a “threat multiplier”, something that makes other security problems even worse. The report, acknowledging the recent IPCC findings that some global temperature change is inevitable at this point, recommends both adaptation and prevention in order to maintain Europe’s security. The report is also very clear; the risks are not just humanitarian, i.e. climate refugees, but represent political and security risks that threaten Europe’s interests. In particular the report expresses concerns over the depletion of natural resources and increased instability from climate change in regions in which they are found, including fossil fuel reserves, water (which may be reduced by up to 30% in some regions), arable land and food. It also points out that the issues will not just be North versus South (as in developed world versus developing world) but also create new tensions as countries like China and India continue to increase their emissions while countries sharing the Asian continent pay the price. The report also looks at regional insecurities that climate change may stimulate or exacerbate. It is fairly well documented that Africa is particularly vulnerable, but water pressures will also have potentially devastating results for the middle east with two-thirds of the population dependant on water sources outside of their borders. Israel, a strong western ally in the region may see its water supply cut in half by the end of the century. Important European economic partners like South Asia, are threatened with resource conflicts, mass migration and reduced coastal production, shipping and distribution capabilities due to climate crises. 
Further, with the opening of the Northwest Passage and the Arctic due to melting ice caps, new territorial claims threaten relationships between allies, as well as current trade and power balances. Russia has already staked a number of claims and is arguing with Norway over water claims. Canada and the U.S. are already having disagreement over the Northwest Passage. And what is worse, part of the scramble is for the untapped hydrocarbon resources of the arctic which promise to exacerbate climate change should they be exploited to maintain our global dependence on fossil fuels. Talk about a threat multiplier!
