• 4 mins Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 6 hours Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 11 hours British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 15 hours Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 17 hours Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 18 hours Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 19 hours OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 20 hours London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 21 hours Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 24 hours Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 1 day India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 1 day Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 2 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 2 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 2 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 2 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 3 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 3 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 3 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 3 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 3 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 3 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 3 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 3 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 3 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 4 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 4 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 4 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 4 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 4 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 4 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
  • 6 days Trump Passes Iran Nuclear Deal Back to Congress
  • 7 days Texas Shutters More Coal-Fired Plants
  • 7 days Oil Trading Firm Expects Unprecedented U.S. Crude Exports
  • 7 days UK’s FCA Met With Aramco Prior To Proposing Listing Rule Change
  • 7 days Chevron Quits Australian Deepwater Oil Exploration
  • 7 days Europe Braces For End Of Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 7 days Renewable Energy Startup Powering Native American Protest Camp
  • 8 days Husky Energy Set To Restart Pipeline
  • 8 days Russia, Morocco Sign String Of Energy And Military Deals
Alt Text

Trump Set To Pull U.S. Out Of Paris Climate Deal

President Donald Trump has reportedly…

Alt Text

Did This Startup Solve The Carbon Capture Challenge?

Costs have long prohibited carbon…

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham is a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate change, energy policy and geopolitics. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.

More Info

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