Research of the current state of climate change to The United States

Navy

Abstract
Long-term changes in the environment due to anthropogenic climate
change presents a national security threat to the United States. The threat
of climate change is not an esoteric future threat; it is a threat
experienced by the world today. As a consequence, climate change is
reducing global stability, military readiness, increasing humanitarian
crises, and ultimately the risk of war. The United States Navy will find
itself operating in ever-increasing extreme environments. The goal of the
research proposal is to synthesize peer-reviewed research on the
consequences of climate change, secondary research from government
statistics, and military planning and reporting. The research will identify
areas of concern and environmental consequences that the United States
Navy needs to investigate thoroughly in order to be prepared for the
inevitable negative impacts of climate change in warfighting
environments.

Joseph Baba
SSGS500 - Research Design and Methods
December 24, 2020
 Introduction

The intersection of anthropogenic climate change and national security

will pose a direct threat to the United States Navy’s ability to conduct

operations and strain infrastructure (VanDervort 2020). The relationship

between climate change and the potential impact on future warfighting is

not well understood due to the second-order weather effects that vary by

geographic regions (Kirk et al. 2015). However, anthropogenic climate

change is an accepted scientific explanation for the long-term alterations

of climate patterns (Oreskes 2004). Climate change is not one sudden

shift from one equilibrium to a sudden hotter or more weather extreme

one but a continuous, accelerating process (Bierbaum et al. 2013).

Additionally, increased stressors on the environment from climate change

will increase the likelihood of conflict (Hsiang and Burke 2014). The long

term impacts present a future with an increasing likelihood for instability

and in more extreme military operating environments.

With climate change identified as a threat to national security;

understanding repercussions on the Navy capabilities and operations is of

vital importance to national security. The Navy is expected to operate in a

wide theatre of environments with finite assets of personal and

equipment. A changing climate will alter the Navy and capabilities used to

execute future missions. In addition to combat operations, the Navy will

find itself called upon more often to support civil authorities in natural

disasters by providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in a

future with more frequent and more intense natural disasters. The military

also maintains coastal installations throughout the world potentially

1
vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased flooding, extreme heat.

Climate change will ultimately force change on naval missions execution

while degrading the current resilience of naval infrastructure (Forest L.

Reinhardt and Michael W. Toffel 2017). Near peer competitors and close

NATO Allies have also identified climate change as a strategic concern to

military readiness (Brzoska 2012).

With the continued pace of climate change, then the Navy must

understand the implications of a more extreme environment.

Understanding operations within the Arctic Ocean, extreme environmental

conditions, and increased danger to coastal military facilities provide a

wide range of demands that are not well documented. If climate change

impacts are better understood and researched, then the Navy will be able

to adapt itself when it comes to operating in new environments.

Literature review

In the process of the literature review; three independent environmental

variables that will likely have the largest impact on naval operations

revealed themselves. The literature review focuses on the high impact

variables due to available research and lack of mitigation available.

Temperature Increases:

Averaged out, the global land and ocean surface temperature for April

2020 was 1.06°C (1.91°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C

(56.7°F) and the second-highest April temperature in the 141-year record

(NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information 2020). High

persistent temperatures extend droughts and increase the severity of

heatwaves, which creates a positive feedback loop of heat as the sun’s

2
energy is turned to heating air temperate and land surface instead of

evaporating surface water (Schär 2015). Increases in both hotter

temperatures and extreme storm events are associated across worldwide

regions and increase conflict between resource-starved communities

(Hsiang, Burke, and Miguel 2013). Responding to persistent hot

environments for the Navy represents a challenge. The cost and logistics

of providing adequate water and supplies will increase in hotter

environments (La Shier and Stanish 2019). Additionally, there will be a

physical toll on servicemembers due to sustained physical operations in

heat (Hosokawa et al. 2019). Increased persistent heat and drought could

also affect sustained military operations and training by lowering the

performance of military forces by reducing the number of days safe for

training and executing operations (Kirk et al. 2015). The annual average

number of record-breaking hot days is predicted to increase globally

(Schär 2015). The US Army must incorporate regional extreme heat into

regional combatant battleplans (Kirk et al. 2015). The US Navy should

also mandate that battleplans incorporate heat stress into future

operations.

Arctic Sea Ice Melt

The tempo of temperature increase is accelerating faster in the Arctic

than anywhere documented in the world (La Shier and Stanish 2019).

Arctic sea-ice melting will force new changes in the operating

environment: increased maritime access and increased economic activity

as resources become available for exploitation and extraction (Forest L.

Reinhardt and Michael W. Toffel 2017). A persistent ice-free Arctic Zone is

3
a new climate change consequence and the most significant opening of a

largely untapped resource area or territory. The evolving policy must take

into account climate evolution in the Arctic (“Report to Congress on

Strategy to Protect United States National Security Interests in the Arctic

Region” 2016). All near-peer competitors including Russia and China have

a functional Arctic policy (Brzoska 2012). Operating in an Arctic

environment would require investment in infrastructure in new outposts

with protecting existing facilities. However, current Arctic shorelines and

littoral environments are also subject to sea level rises (“Report to

Congress on Strategy to Protect United States National Security Interests

in the Arctic Region” 2016). The Navy does not possess the logistics or

capability to operate effectively and persistently in the Arctic (VanDervort

2020) however it is well established that the US Navy and US Coast

Guard will need to respond to Arctic ice-free zones (National Research

Council (U.S.) 2011).

Storm Surges along the Coast

The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) mandates that the

Department of Defense submit a report to Congress incorporating the

impact of climate change on all Department of Defense missions.

Specifically, the NDAA requires that the report include vulnerabilities to

military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting

from climate change over the next twenty years (Government

Accountability Office 2019). The increasing sea levels and combined with

the increase in frequency and severity of extreme storms threaten low-

elevation coastal zones for civilian populations and military forces

4
(VanDervort 2020). A recent Congressional Survey of 292 United States

Navy sites is within 2km of the coastline and 45% of the sites indicated

some sort of effect from storm surge and non-storm surge flooding in the

past (Hall, John S., et al. 2016). Future coastal storm surge damages and

increased frequency of storms will also increase the strain on military

infrastructure in low coastal areas. Open-source information reported that

in 2017, Hurricane Irma severely impacted operations at Naval Air Station

Key West. In 2018, Hurricane Florence caused over $3.6 billion in damage

at Camp Lejeune and degraded the Navy and Marine Corps expeditionary

response capabilities (Cronger, John 2020). At the largest navy facilities in

Norfolk and Little Creek, Virginia, recurrent flooding from storm surges

and hurricanes have submerged piers, flooded dry docks, and hampered

logistics exposing personnel to safety risks and increasing the risk of

catastrophic damage to nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers

(VanDervort 2020). The recurring costs and impacts of flooding are not

specifically examined in any government documents or peer-reviewed

research.

The literature suggests that the Navy will continue to have sustained

impacts annually. However, no quantitative study was available to

examine the impact of severe weather events on coastal infrastructure.

The Navy faces challenges in new operating environments and

simultaneous threats to coastal infrastructure. Each environmental factor

increases the strain on finite naval resources and personnel. Additionally,

each environmental impact compounds on the other. For example, if a

severe storm damages base infrastructure and the Navy cannot perform

5
needed maintenance then mission readiness will be reduced or reach an

unacceptable degradation. Especially if it is critical maintenance to

improve operations in a harsher environment like the Arctic Ocean.

Research Design and Methods

Anticipating future threats to naval mission readiness from climate change

relies upon quantitative projections of climate patterns and predictive

modeling conducted and qualitative understanding of desired mission

outcomes and policy from military communities to explore the relationship

between climate change and naval readiness. Examining previous severe

storm damage costs attributed to climate will also provide a quantitative

price tag in both operational loss of facilities and mission degradation. By

examining each potential climate change impact as unique independent

variables; then the negative impacts will be better quantified. When

combined together, the research will accurate predictors of climate

change on naval missions.

Limitations of the study are the scope of environment variables that could

impact the Navy but are not included. The research will inevitably focus

on well established and documented climate impacts on naval operations.

However, if a potential environmental variable is not included in the

research then the impacts of the variable will not be readily understood.

Additionally, the navy shut down the Climate Task Force that was

investigating climate change adaptation (J.D. Simkins 2019). The lack of

centralized resources investigating climate will prevent the publication of

navy centric climate research.

6
 Conclusions

Given the widespread consequences of climate change on naval

operational readiness, policymakers and Navy leaders must build the

capacity not only to assess climate change impacts on the readiness but

to fully integrate climate change into decision making across both

combatant and tactical commands. The current literature analysis

anticipates that extreme operating environments will increase overall and

become part routine to warfighting. Additionally, research is unable to

predict the exact locations, frequency, and magnitude of severe events

and how they might cascade into regional and global conflicts. The Navy

would expect to deploy in any location and be ready to adapt to any

environment. Additionally, the Navy would have to support logistical

efforts to the Marine Corps. Without understanding the environmental

conditions projected from climate change; the Navy and Marine Corps

would be at a strategic disadvantage. By understanding the future

environmental operating conditions anticipated from climate change, the

navy will be in a better position to come with multiple solutions to

mitigate. The current literature provides strong indicators that climate

change will fundamentally alter both how not only US Navy forces but all

military forces are deployed and the installations from which they operate.

Climate change is likely going to strain military activities around the

world. There will be additional burdens on vulnerable nations abroad and

putting pressure on domestic readiness. Climate change will modify the

operational strength of U.S. Navy missions by demanding more resources

to sustaining operations in the Arctic or and new infrastructure in areas

7
vulnerable to rising sea levels and storms or extreme persistent heat.

Understanding the impacts requires a joint military and civil response to

the changes that climate change science is predicted to bring. The

challenges to understand are vast; the exact impacts of naval operations

are not well studied. Researching and preparing strong resilience

measures will address and mitigate some of the risks of climate change

dynamics. Ultimately, the research will make the United States safer and

strengthening Navy and military missions abroad. The naval readiness

consequences and the interconnection to national security more broadly

of the widely-documented climate change-related consequences explored

in this proposal demand further research.

Reference List

8
Bierbaum, Rosina, Joel B. Smith, Arthur Lee, Maria Blair, Lynne Carter, F.

Stuart Chapin, Paul Fleming, et al. 2013. “A Comprehensive Review

of Climate Adaptation in the United States: More than before, but

Less than Needed.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change 18, no. 3: 361–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-

9423-1.

Brzoska, Michael. 2012. “Climate Change and the Military in China, Russia,

the United Kingdom, and the United States.” Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists 68, no. 2: 43–54.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340212438384.

Cronger, John. 2020. “What Would a Climate-Focused DoD Budget Look

Like?” Defense One, November 10, 2020.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/11/what-would-climate-

focused-dod-budget-look/169966/.

Forest L. Reinhardt and Michael W. Toffel. 2017. “Managing Climate

Change: Lessons from the U.S. Navy.”

https://hbr.org/2017/07/managing-climate-change.

Government Accountability Office. 2019. “DOD Needs to Assess Risk and

Provide Guidance on Use of Climate Projections in Installation

Master Plans and Facilities Designs.” GAO-19-453. Washington D.C:

United States Government Accountability Office.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699679.pdf.

Hall, John S., Gill, Stephen, Obeysekera, Jayantha, Knuuti, Kevin, and

Marburger, J. 2016. “Regional Sea Level Scenarios for Coastal Risk

9
 Management: Managing the Uncertainty of Future Sea Level Change

and Extreme Water Levels for Department of Defense Coastal Sites

Worldwide.” U.S. Department of Defense, Strategic Environmental

Research and Development Program.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1013613.pdf.

Hosokawa, Yuri, Douglas J. Casa, Juli M. Trtanj, Luke N. Belval, Patricia A.

Deuster, Sarah M. Giltz, Andrew J. Grundstein, et al. 2019. “Activity

Modification in Heat: Critical Assessment of Guidelines across

Athletic, Occupational, and Military Settings in the USA.”

International Journal of Biometeorology 63, no. 3: 405–27.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-019-01673-6.

Hsiang, Solomon M., and Marshall Burke. 2014. “Climate, Conflict, and

Social Stability: What Does the Evidence Say?” Climatic Change 123,

no. 1: 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0868-3.

Hsiang, Solomon M., Marshall Burke, and Edward Miguel. 2013.

“Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict.” Science

341, no. 6151: 1235367. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235367.

Kirk, Jason A, Carol Horning, Peacekeeping and Stability Operations

Institute, Army War College (U.S.), and Press. 2015. Climate

Change: Considerations for Geographic Combatant Commands.

https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo130002.

La Shier, Brian, and James Stanish. 2019. “The National Security Impacts

of Climate Change †.” Journal of National Security Law & Policy 10,

no. 1: 27–43.

Messera, Heather, Ronald Keys, John Castellaw, Robert Parker, Ann C.

10
 Phillips, and Jonathan White, and Gerald Galloway. n.d. “Military

Expert Panel Report: Sea Level Rise and the U.S. Military’s Mission,

2nd Ed.” Washington D.C: Center for Climate & Security.

https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/military-

expert-panel-report_sea-level-rise-and-the-us-militarys-mission_2nd-

edition_02_2018.pdf.

National Research Council (U.S.). 2011. National Security Implications of

Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2020. “State of the

Climate: Global Climate Report for April 2020.”

https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00672.

Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.”

Science 306, no. 5702: 1686–1686.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618.

“Report to Congress on Strategy to Protect United States National Security

Interests in the Arctic Region.” 2016. A-CE2489B. Department of

Defense. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/ pubs/2016-

Arctic-Strategy-UNCLAS-cleared-for-release.pdf.

Schär, Christoph. 2015. “Climate Extremes: The Worst Heat Waves to

Come.” Nature Climate Change 6, no. October.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2864.

VanDervort, Joan. 2020. “Sea Level Rise and beyond: Is the US Military

Prepared for Climate Change?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 76,

no. 3: 145–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2020.1751971.

11