WTI Crude


Brent Crude


Natural Gas




Heating Oil


Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Addressing Climate Change Could Be More Costly Than Thought

A leading engineering professor and…

Alt Text

Nuclear Energy May Be A Key Tool In The Climate Change Fight

Addressing carbon emissions has become…

Alt Text

Just How Hard Is It To Cut Greenhouse Gases?

A study from Lawrence Berkeley…

Climate Security Pits US Military Against Congress

Climate Security Pits US Military Against Congress

A new study concludes that climate change played a role in sparking the civil war in Syria, adding to the body of research showing a climate link to the unrest in the Middle East.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on March 2, finds that a multi-year drought between 2007 and 2010 led to “widespread crop failure,” forcing rural communities to migrate to urban centers en masse. As a result, Syrian cities became a tinderbox, and the subsequent political instability ignited into violence in 2011 at the onset of the Arab Spring. The Syrian civil war has raged since then.

Syria suffered through the worst drought on record leading up to the outbreak of violence, a drought that was made twice as likely because of climate change, the study says. Rising temperatures and increasingly dry weather will also make such conditions worse and more likely in the future.

The results of this study underscore the security threats that climate change can exacerbate. But climate denying politicians – who often position themselves as the biggest supporters of the military and guardians of America’s national security – are willfully ignoring these threats. Related: Can We Fix Climate Change With Technology?

“Democrats tell us they understand the world, but then they call climate change, not radical Islamic terrorism, the greatest threat to national security,” Republican Chairman Reince Priebus told a friendly audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Look, I think we all care about our planet, but melting icebergs aren't beheading Christians in the Middle East.” While Priebus’ comments won some plaudits, he is at odds with the assertions of the Pentagon.

The U.S. military has been acutely aware of the “climate security” threat for quite some time. Military planners have consistently referred to climate change as a “threat multiplier” – it can make existing problems worse, and can present new conflicts as well.

Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, told the Boston Globe in 2013 that climate change presented the biggest long-term national security threat. That earned him some pushback from Congress’ leading climate denier Senator James Inhofe during a committee hearing.

Jeff Goodell wrote an excellent article for Rolling Stone in February on how climate deniers undermine national security in multiple ways.

As he notes, it isn’t just foreign threats that will affect the military. Major military bases around the world are also at risk because of the effects of climate change. The Naval base in Norfolk, VA is dealing with frequent floods and hurricanes, and its ultimate long-term survival is in question because of rising sea levels. The same is true for the strategically important military base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Goodell reported that military officials are reluctant to discuss how they are dealing with the effects of climate change (even though they must) out in the open for fear that Congress will slash funding for climate-specific activities. Related: Anti-Fossil Fuel Movement Grows

And that fear is not unjustified. The Department of Defense has also prioritized reducing its demand for liquid fuels because of the human costs that stem from such a dependence. The need to refuel tanks, trucks, and planes puts soldiers at risk. When fuel convoys are sent out, soldiers must accompany those trucks to safeguard them, putting lives in danger. A 2009 Deloitte study found that one U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for every 24 fuel resupply convoys sent out. In response, the Pentagon has sought to develop biofuels to reduce its need for petroleum-based fuels, but climate deniers in Congress have repeatedly tried to ban such a pursuit. The fight is ostensibly over dollars, but no doubt the program has come under heightened scrutiny because it also fits neatly under the administration’s climate change agenda.

The threat of climate change will come from a variety of different directions, many of which will only grow worse with time. Droughts, floods, migration, disease, and severe storms will stretch the military’s resources, and strain its ability to deal with new missions.

The Pentagon continues to make the case however. The Navy’s Task Force on Energy posted the Rolling Stone article on its Facebook page, which no doubt irked the climate deniers in Congress.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Lee James on March 05 2015 said:
    First-hand experience often tells the tale for why someone believes something. In the case of the U.S. military, I believe first-hand experience of the cost to deliver fossil fuel that was blown-up throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, was formative. A fossil fuel transport vehicle is an incredibly vulnerable target. I recall thinking, wow -- this is the dark ages.

    Back off from in-country battlefields to look at the next layer of battlefied magnification: "keeping the shipping lanes open." Our military is asked to keep lanes open in hostile multi-national neighborhoods. Iran went graphic recently to illustrate. They came up with a full-scale U.S. aircraft carrier, burned in effigy.

    My point is that while climate change is real and our military feels like they can talk about it, there's stuff that's not politically cool to discuss. Petroleum is perhaps the biggest conflict-multiplier that we have today, next to radical ideology. Petroleum either directly fuels the economies of belligerent countries, like Russia and Iran, or heavily involves our decisions to step in -- because they have so much oil, or are next door to it.

    The reality is, oil drives our military deployments. That's an increasing problem in today's world. U.S. service people die for oil today, already. As our petroleum bon fire continues, more of our military will die as climate change fuels an already hot fire.

    This is the reality that our generals can not easily talk about. We must turn up our effort to transition away from fossil fuels, on the battlefield, and with our fleet of vehicles at home. Add up all the costs of fossil fuel dependency. We need to transition now. Energy business as usual is a disaster.
  • Ron Wagner on March 05 2015 said:
    Utter nonsense due to the Obama administration destroying the military ethos.
    See Climate Change AKA Global Warming: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit
  • Steve Johnson on March 05 2015 said:
    If any non-government funded business was operated like the University of East Anglia's AGW department and their utterly corrupt practices of suppression and manipulation of facts, they would be prosecuted and destroyed. Our government would be at the throats of the execs of ANY oil company with similar practices. It's a remarkable contradiction to have an oil and gas web site advocating the same skewed religious-like fatalism which is totally, anti fossil fuel. Who does oilprice.com think they're preaching to?
  • John on July 16 2015 said:
    Utter non sense, everyone in the know, knows the Syrian war is about regime change and that the climate has always and will always change. No proof that CO2 is pollution. This site is pure deception.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News