nat'l security cncl NSC

===

note several related agencies nodes eg nsc dni

NB coal export and trump tariffs under nat sec BS scam/ploy

see energy security BS

dni coats 180

NSC announces departure of top official as White House denies rumors she wrote ‘A Warning’

Alex Henderson February 20, 2020

There has been speculation in right-wing media that Deputy National Security Adviser Victoria Coates was the anonymous Trump Administration official who, in 2018, wrote a New York Times op-ed that…

===

https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/fake-science-the-white-house-reportedly-wants-a-new-dodgy-panel-of-scientists-to-challenge-the-governments-climate-change-findings/

White House intends to create a new panel of scientists with the intention of attacking the scientific consensus, both within and outside the federal government, that climate change poses a clear and severe threat to the world, a new report from Washington Post revealed Sunday.

According to the report, officials in the National Security Council want to arrange the group so that it would be outside the normal scrutiny such advisory panels typically require.When formal advisory committees are usually set up, they are subject to stringent regulations that require public meetings, accommodation of records requests, and membership standards.

Apparently, the White House doesn’t want the public to have clear insight into a committee designed to spread propaganda and disinformation about clearly established science.

The report said that President Donald Trump was unhappy with the fact that the law requires it to the publication of the National Climate Assessment. This review, compiled and rigorously reviewed by career scientists across the administration, stressed the serious threat posed to the United States and abroad by climate change and CO2 emissions. Since this contradicts GOP orthodoxy and conflicts with its anti-regulation agenda and the interests of corporate donors, Trump and his party are eager to combat these findings.

The Post noted that even within the military — the branch of government that Republicans most revere — the science of climate change has long been accepted as fact, even under GOP administrations.

“In 2003, the Pentagon commissioned a report to examine how an abrupt change in climate would affect America’s defense capabilities: Its authors concluded that it ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern,'” the Post said.

===

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18233378/william-happer-trump-climate-change-panel

Pentagon and several federal agencies have repeatedly warned over the years that climate change is a threat to national security. Yet the White House is reportedly convening a panel to question it anew.

The Washington Post, citing a National Security Council (NSC) discussion paper it obtained, reports that White House staff are preparing an executive order for President Donald Trump’s signature that would establish a Presidential Committee on Climate Security to be chaired by a notorious climate change denier.

That man, NSC senior director William Happer, argued on CNBC in 2014 that “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

John Whitehouse of Media Matters dredged up the video:

[vid twit?]

Happer’s views have gotten no less extreme since then. When he was under consideration for the role of Trump’s science adviser in early 2017, Happer sent an email to a Jezebel reader asserting that the “demonization of CO2” “really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels.”

Media Matters has previously detailed how Happer, a retired Princeton professor who is not trained as a climate scientist, has tried — unsuccessfully — to conceal the fact that oil interests have directly funded his “research.” And as a recent paper in Nature Climate Change noted, the fossil fuel industry has long been involved in campaigns in US politics “aiming to refute, confuse and obstruct acceptance of the reality of climate change,” using scientists just like Happer to spread misinformation.

The Trump administration keeps trying to muddy the waters about climate science

The Post’s report about the White House’s new panel is the latest indication that the Trump administration is trying to actively mislead the public on the well-established science of climate change.

As Vox’s Umair Irfan and Alex Ward have reported, many agencies in the executive branch of Trump’s own government have been warning the president and the American people of the severe threats of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

“The impacts and costs of climate change are already being felt in the United States, and changes in the likelihood or severity of some recent extreme weather events can now be attributed with increasingly higher confidence to human-caused warming,” according to the National Climate Assessment, released in November.

Asked about the National Climate Assessment by a reporter in November, Trump flatly said, “I don’t believe it.”

Last month, the Pentagon released a report detailing the national security threat posed by climate change. Weeks later, the intelligence community released its annual consensus World Threat Assessment. The document echoes the Pentagon’s finding that climate change is a major threat:

Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.

The NSC discussion paper obtained by the Post about the new panel suggests it would be created with an eye toward muddying the waters about the Pentagon and intelligence community’s findings. Though the paper acknowledges that a number of federal government reports have concluded climate change is a major threat, it goes on to claim “these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.”

Given Happer’s views, there’s little doubt that he’ll indulge Trump if he wants to use the panel to deny the well-established science of climate change. In doing so, the consequences are grave: He’d further imperil the United States and future generations everywhere.

Pentagon: Climate Change Is Real and a 'National Security Issue' 1/19.

Pentagon released a Congressionally mandated report (pdf) that warns flooding, drought and wildfires and other effects of climate change puts U.S. military bases at risk.

The 22-page analysis states plainly: "The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations."

The DoD said it is working with other nations "to understand and plan for future potential mission impacts," adding that this is a "global issue."

The report, titled Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense, reveals that two-thirds of the 79 mission-essential military installations that were reviewed are vulnerable to current or future recurrent flooding, more than half are vulnerable to current or future drought, and about half are exposed to wildfires. Six sites are also facing desertification and one is vulnerable to thawing permafrost.

omfg

Will Happer

Will Happer, emeritus professor from Princeton University, was once in the running as Trump’s science advisor but has now been appointed to the National Security Council, specializing in emerging technologies.

After news of Happer’s appointment became public, Science, republishing E&E News, characterized the 79-year-old physicist as a “vocal critic of mainstream climate science.”

But Happer is more than a mere critic — he has acted as an enabler and activist against action on climate change for well over a decade.

For years, Happer was chairman at the George Marshall Institute and then, when that was shuttered, he founded the CO2Coalition with former Exxon director, the late Roger Cohen. Both groups took fringe positions on the science of climate change, with Happer claiming that adding more fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere will be good for humans.

In 2015, Happer was caught in a sting by Greenpeace when he offered to write a report on the “benefits” of CO2 for a fake oil client and then hide the funding, which would be directed to the CO2 Coalition. Since then, that group has received funding from the foundation of Trump backer and hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.

In December 2016, Happer attended a conference organized by conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin. Now he’s on the National Security Council.

Late in 2017, the Trump administration nixed climate change from a list of global threats to the U.S. in theNational Security Strategy.

It's safe to say Happer won't be leading any pushes to add it back in.

Bill Wehrum

omg

Will Happer has been chosen by President Trump to join the National Security Council as senior director for emerging technologies, an odd role for a man who denies basic climate science, claiming "warming will be very beneficial," and “A coal power plant and a person are emitting essentially the same thing. Mostly water vapor and CO2. […] So CO2 is not a pollutant.”

Happer once offered to produce denier-for-hire "research" promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour (not realizing he was talking to undercover Greenpeace journalists). He's received funding from the scandalous Heartland Institute, and thousands of dollars from coal giant Peabody Energy which was disclosed and verified in a court of law, although that didn't stop Happer from angrily yelling at a Greenpeace investigator, “you son of a b*tch, I haven’t taken a dime.” Awkward!

Read the full profileand browse other individuals and organizations in our research database.

===

see greening the mil

DOD pentagon warned about AGW as destabilizatuion, same true of nat security? see elder statemen, shultz, jim baker apostate on GW

mcmaster waffled on Paris?

===

see storming the wall on DOD refugee plans

6/18 perry new BS nat security subsidy coal and nuke

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/trump-said-to-grant-lifeline-to-money-losing-coal-power-plants-jhv94ghl

trump administration officials are making plans to order grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear plants in an effort to extend their life, a move that could represent an unprecedented intervention into U.S. energy markets.

The Energy Department would exercise emergency authority under a pair of federal laws to direct the operators to purchase electricity or electric generation capacity from at-risk facilities, according to a memo obtained by Bloomberg News. The agency also is making plans to establish a "Strategic Electric Generation Reserve" with the aim of promoting the national defense and maximizing domestic energy supplies.

:{[Read the memo here]:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit"):}:

“Federal action is necessary to stop the further premature retirements of fuel-secure generation capacity,” says a 41-page draft memo circulated before aNational Security Council meeting on the subject Friday.

The plan cuts to the heart of a debate over the reliability and resiliency of a rapidly evolving U.S. electricity grid. Nuclear and coal-fired power plants are struggling to compete against cheap natural gas and renewable electricity. As nuclear and coal plants are decommissioned, regulators have been grappling with how to ensure that the nation’s power system can withstand extreme weather events and cyber-attacks.

Although the memo describes a planned Energy Department directive, there was no indication President Donald Trump had signed off on the action nor when any order might be issued. The document, dated May 29 and distributed Thursday, is marked as a "draft," which is "not for further distribution," and could be used by administration officials to justify the intervention.

While administration officials are still deciding on their final strategy -- and may yet decide against aggressive action -- the memo represents the Energy Department’s latest, most fully developed plan to intervene on behalf of coal and nuclear power plants, pitched to the president’s top security advisers.

Energy Department representatives did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Always-On

Trump administration officials who advocate taking action say they want to preserve nuclear and coal-fired plants that have fuel on site and provide reliable, always-on power capable of snapping back after intense storms and emergencies.

"Too many of these fuel-secure plants have retired prematurely and many more have recently announced retirement," only to be replaced by less-secure, less-resilient natural gas and renewable power sources, the memo said.

Over dozens of pages, the memo makes the case for action, arguing that the decommissioning of power plants must be managed for national security reasons and that federal intervention is necessary before the U.S. reaches a tipping point in the loss of essential, secure electric generation resources. U.S. Defense Department installations are 99 percent dependent on the commercial power grid, one reason that electric system reliability is vitally important to national defense and homeland security, the memo asserts.

For two years, the Energy Department would direct the purchase of power or electric generation capacity from a designated list of facilities “to forestall any future actions toward retirement, decommissioning or deactivation,” according to the memo. The proposed Energy Department directive also would tell some of those facilities to continue generating and delivering electric power according to their existing or recent contracts with utilities.

The department’s intervention is meant to buy time for a two-year study of vulnerabilities in the American energy delivery system -- from power plants that provide electricity to the natural gas pipelines that supply them. According to the memo, the planned action is a "prudent stop-gap measure" while the department addresses the nation’s "grid security challenges."

The Trump administration is moving to embrace two rarely used authorities under federal law to take the action, after weighing a broad array of strategies for preserving coal and nuclear power plants.

Cold War-Era Authority

The Energy Department would be relying partly on the Federal Power Act -- the so-called Section 202 authority -- that lets the administration order guaranteed profits for power plants that can store large amounts of fuel on site. And the Energy Department would be tapping the 68-year-old Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era statute once invoked by President Harry Truman to help the steel industry.

American power generators are expected to retire -- or announce the retirements of -- 16,200 megawatts of coal-fired and 550 megawatts of nuclear plant capacity this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Nationwide, BNEF said, two dozen nuclear plants -- representing nearly 33 gigawatts -- are either scheduled to close or probably won’t make money through 2021.

The issue is a priority for some of the president’s top supporters, including coal moguls Robert E. Murray and Joseph Craft of Alliance Resource Partners, who donated a million dollars to the president’s inauguration. The move would be one of the most direct efforts by Trump to make good on campaign promises to revive the nation’s shrinking coal industry.

“This action is essential in order to protect the resiliency and reliability of our nation’s electric power grids,” Murray said Friday in an email.

Trump administration officials have contemplated action for more than a year. After the Energy Department conducted a reliability study last year, Energy Secretary Rick Perry proposed a rule that would have compensated coal and nuclear plants for their ability to store months’ worth of fuel on site. Federal regulators shot down the ideain January.

That didn’t quell requests for help. A FirstEnergy Corp. subsidiary requested immediate intervention from Perry’s agency in late March. That plea followed the Akron, Ohio-based company’s announcement to shut three nuclear power plants that feed the grid operated by PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest in the country. FirstEnergy Solutions filed for bankruptcy within days of its emergency request.

Opponents of the new plan contend bailouts are a solution in search of a problem. They argue there are many ways to back up the grid that won’t cost ratepayers billions of dollars. A coalition of natural gas and renewable power advocates told Perry that “power plant retirements are a normal, healthy feature of electricity markets,” and therefore there is no emergency that would justify Energy Department action.

Representatives of FirstEnergy did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

Invoking national security concerns could bolster the Trump administration’s case in any legal challenges over the intervention, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University.

"It’s going to be tough to get a court to question DOE’s factual finding -- particularly if it relates to national defense," Peskoe said in an interview. Tapping two statutes simultaneously also could give the administration more "legal room," Peskoe said.

The Energy Department can invoke its Section 202 authority under the Federal Power Act after determining a grid emergency exists because of spiking demand, electric shortages or other issues. That authority has generally been reserved for potentially widespread blackouts and disruptions.

The government last invoked the Defense Production Act to address the California energy crisis in early 2001, ordering natural gas sellers to prioritize contracts to sell supplies to utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

===

PEW had nat sec pjt

https://psmag.com/environment/our-government-is-in-two-minds-over-climate-change

TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.

SEAN MOWBRAYJAN 18, 2018

The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a rapidly warming world is bringing with it alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.

(Photo: Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

Indeed, Trump's own secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, was hailed before taking office as the "lone green hope," due to his recognition of global warming's clear and present danger.

However, the U.S. military is far from being environmentally friendly. It has a horrifically destructive record as one of the planet's worst polluters, and it also can lay claim to a heavy, and largely unreported, carbon footprint (it is the single largest institutional user of fossil fuels in the world).

A year into Trump's term, it remains to be seen whether the president's climate-unfriendly policies will curtail the DOD's global warming response. Complicating this question are efforts by the White House and Congress to wildly expand the size of the military, which could exponentially increase its fossil fuel footprint, something critics argue is the opposite of what is environmentally needed.

A BOOMING U.S. MILITARY BUDGET

Trump has been a notably unorthodox Republican president, with a frequently tenuous attachment to his party's agenda. But when it comes to military spending, he is in tune with long time GOP policy. Trump is currently seeking an $18 billion military bump for 2018, compared to 2017 levels, to be made at the expense of domestic spending, including the budget of the EPA.

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona).

Arizona Senator John McCain, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declared this figure as "inadequate" and laid out his plans for a much larger increase of $85 billion. The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president this past December, goes much further than Trump's own figure.

The NDAA allots $700 billion, sailing past the $619 billion Congress agreed to in last year's bill, and includes a budget-cap-busting wish list that revamps the military and includes new navy ships, fighter jets, more troops, and a pay increase for all current officers.

Of course, that behemoth budget boost may never happen as it is Congress that has the final say on the military budget and it has yet to vote. NDAA spending for 2018 also exceeds caps set by the 2011 Budget Control Act, and it is uncertain where the increased spending will come from.

However, the NDAA does something Trump probably doesn't want it to do: it clearly designates climate change as a "direct threat" to the national security of the U.S. and orders the military to submit a "report on vulnerabilities to military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting from climate change over the next 30 years."

"A THREAT MULTIPLIER"

While the NDAA mandate is important, it is not entirely new. Climate change has been on the military's radar for well over a decade, but not due to the threat it presents to the planet's environment.

First and foremost in the military mind is the Pentagon's mission: to defend the U.S. and its national interest. Seen within this framework, climate change is viewed as a "threat multiplier," rather than a distinct, standalone issue.

"Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration," potentially leading to civil strife and war, reads the grim forecast outlined by the 2010 DOD Quadrennial Defense Review. The Pentagon isn't alone in its predictions; a report from the American Security Project says that 70 percent of the world's nations have assessed climate change as a threat to their national security.

However, the U.S. Armed Forces response isn't to immediately cut its carbon emissions in order to curb climate change. Rather, it is to determine how best to defend against the instability and chaos that climate change may bring to the international community, as well as the threat it poses to U.S. military bases and operations around the globe.

THE WORLD'S OCEANS VS. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

At home, the threat to U.S. military installations is evident. A 2011 U.S. Navy report found that a three-foot rise in sea level would endanger 128 DOD installations, valued collectively at around $100 billion. A further study by the Union of Concerned Scientists delved deeper into the future of 18 bases which already face flooding: "By the end of this century, most installations can expect a large increase in the frequency of tidal flooding, storm surges that cover greater areas at increased depth, and loss of utilized land area to the sea."

In short, said the UCS, U.S. coastal military bases face a "flooded future."

A three-foot sea level rise is already considered by scientists to be "locked in." But many researchers believe the world could be looking at rises of eight feet, and even up to 11 feet by century's end, which would swamp pretty much all current DOD base adaptation efforts.

Curt Storlazzi, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has been carrying out research on the Marshall Islands with funding from the DOD, to look at how climate models threaten U.S installations there. He says that, in the past, the islands were over-washed by storms roughly once every 20 to 30 years. Now, it's more like once, or even twice, per decade.

"All I can say is we're talking decades, not centuries," before the islands are over-washed so frequently that they become almost uninhabitable, he adds. The recent Congress Armed Forces Appropriations bill states quite clearly: "In the Marshall Islands an Air Force radar installation built on an atoll at a cost of [$1 billion] is projected to be underwater within two decades."

This is a looming reality U.S. coastal military installations face around the globe—many will be overrun by the sea and lost forever soon, without the firing of a single shot by a hostile power.

"UNLEASH US FROM THE TETHER OF FUEL"

As already mentioned, the DOD is the world's oil-hungriest institution; it consumed 87.4 million barrels in 2014, with nearly half used by the Air Force, and a third burned by the Navy. A 2008 report entitled A Climate of War, and produced by Oil Change International, found that the second Iraq war emitted at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The DOD also owns a mammoth amount of real estate, with several thousands of facilities and structures scattered globally, covering nearly 25 million acres—all with energy demands.

That said, the U.S. military has been working over recent decades to reduce fossil fuel dependency. But this isn't meant to turn the military into "Prius-driving tree-huggers," explains Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project. The No. 1 Pentagon priority is improving mission effectiveness—the ability to defend and promote U.S interests via military muscle.

Secretary of Defense Mattis' own concerns with the need to increase mission effectiveness by decreasing fossil fuel consumption can be traced back to the second Iraq war. In 2005, he penned a document, "Future Fuels," in which he called on the Pentagon to "unleash us from the tether of fuel." Reliance on oil left mobile units exposed in the Iraqi desert during refueling, and made the armed forces less nimble in their response to threats scattered across the vast desert battlefield.

Soon after, President George W. Bush signed into force a bill that mandated the DOD reduce its fossil fuel dependency and ordered each branch to produce 25 percent of its facility energy from renewables by 2025. Since then, the Pentagon has increased energy efficiency at bases, reduced fuel use, and produced around 12.6 percent of its facility energy from renewables as of 2016.

However, the vast majority, around 75 percent, of the DOD's energy consumption occurs not at facilities but in operations—think hundreds of globetrotting aircraft, ships, and vehicles. This very big slice of the military's energy pie is not subject to the DOD's renewable goals.

Still, renewable initiatives are now common-place across the services. Between 2011 and 2015, the DoD nearly tripled the number of renewable energy projects on its bases.

This, however, doesn't mean that preparing for climate change is now the No. 1 priority. Mattis "is not saying it's the most important issue on his plate, he's just saying it is an issue," explains John Conger, former DOD comptroller and senior advisor for the Center for Climate and Security. War, and preparedness for it, is still where the action is.

A BIG, GREEN FIGHTING MACHINE?

Most experts don't believe that the White House's views on climate change will significantly redirect the Pentagon from its current course regarding climate change. Even as Trump came to power last January, the U.S. Navy was publishing its Climate Change Installation Adaption and Resilience Planning Handbook. And the navy base at Norfolk continues working to adapt to rising sea levels.

"The Department of the Navy needs to be prepared to mitigate all adverse impacts to its mission from a variety of risk sources, including but not limited to climate change," Kenneth Huss, a U.S. Navy spokesperson told Mongabay, indirectly affirming that the Navy is still committed to climate change adaptation: We "will continue to assess and respond to all issues that have a potential to impact the readiness of our national security missions, planning, and installations."

Likewise, Richard Spencer, Trump's pick for Navy secretary, has declared that he is "totally aware of the rising water issue" and he has pledged to prepare his military branch for global warming.

Analysts are less certain, however, whether DOD adaptation efforts will continue at the same rate under Trump as under President Barack Obama. Holland and Conger say they don't expect dramatic changes due to the White House's denialist position. "It's not helpful, but I don't think it's fatal," agrees David Titley, a Penn State University meteorologist and former head of the Navy's climate change program. Still, no one is sure exactly how this will all play out over the next three years of Trump's term.

A SHIFT IN CONGRESS

As mentioned earlier, Congress is pressing ahead with its plans to enhance military readiness for climate change. Titley relates how the House of Representatives and Senate have gone from being a headwind on the climate issue to a tailwind, propelling the military forward rather than marooning it in place.

This year's NDAA makes that clear, as does House Appropriations Committee language in the 2018 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill, which "urges the Secretary of Defense to plan infrastructure and other projects using the best available data and science on climate to mitigate risks to our armed forces."

While not "Earth-shattering legislation," Titley says that these bills are proof of how Congress has quietly and significantly shifted its view. Until recently, Congress tried to muzzle the military, telling it to not look at or talk about climate change. Now U.S. legislators are requiring the Pentagon to understand, and respond to, climate consequences. That's a momentous change, he says.

THE STATE OF PERMANENT EMERGENCY

But just as significantly, if the NDAA is enacted as written, the military will see a huge increase in size. That fact comes with big concerns. More ships, planes, and troops means much more fossil fuel burned, leading to more carbon emissions that help destabilize the global climate, leading to more war and civil disturbances, and to what journalist Ross Gelbspan described as long ago as 1995 as a state of permanent emergency in which nation-states stagger from one catastrophic extreme weather event to the next.

Perhaps with that scenario in mind, a Congressional Budget Office report released in December outlined a decade-long military build-up. The report says that, by 2027, the military's base budget should top $688 billion, 20 percent higher than peak spending back in the 1980s. This would include 237,000 more Americans in uniform and a 30 percent increase in naval capacity, achieving a 355-ship U.S. Navy. The final 2027 ship numbers would be 12 percent higher than plans under the Obama administration, according to a CBO estimate.

Casting a glance around the globe, it appears that many other nations are rushing to enlarge their armed forces. According to research by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military spending soared to $1,686 billion in 2016, but planet-wide spending to curb climate change stood at just $359 billion in 2013.

ANOTHER PATH

Increasing the size of the military in the face of escalating climate chaos is not a strategy everyone supports. A 2016 report, Combat vs. Climate, notes that the U.S. spends 28 times as much on military security as on climate security. This Institute for Policy Studies (IFPS) report says that the increase from 1 to 4 percent in spending on climate security by the Obama administration is not remotely commensurate with the serious threat climate change poses to national security as outlined in numerous studies by the U.S. military. Nor is that expenditure sufficient to bring the military's carbon emissions under control.

Miriam Pemberton, an IFPS research fellow and author of the 2016 report, agrees that the DOD's climate change efforts are heading down the right road, but she argues that, at the current rate, they aren't nearly enough: "If climate change is a driver of instability as the military says it is ... the only way to deal with that is to cut emissions within the civilian sector as well as in the military sector."

"I think the answer isn't to green what [the armed services] are already doing, it's to reduce their spending, their infrastructure, and their huge carbon footprint," says Nick Buxton, a communications consultant with the Transnational Institute. But despite the Pentagon's efforts to green itself, analysts say, the U.S. military remains a fossil fuel-addicted enterprise.

Buxton also sees a problem in the military serving as the sole federal bastion against climate change, even as Trump guts the capacity of other agencies to deal with the crisis. Buxton is especially concerned over the military tendency to see every issue through the myopic lens of security. Rather than dealing with root causes and playing a serious role in curbing emissions, the Pentagon, instead, is flexing its military muscle to deal with a world destabilized by climate change.

Tank

(Photo: Staff Sgt. Deam M. Fox/DoD Public Domain)

Military proponents claim that eliminating DOD emissions would cut a mere 1 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, a figure arrived at through publicly available data. A decrease of this size hardly seems significant, they say. But many experts doubt the figure, and see it as low-balling. That's because the true size of the military's emissions is unknown to the general public because the DOD is exempt from reporting its carbon emissions from overseas bases and operations, according to Tamara Lorincz, a Ph.D. student at the Balsillie School for International Affairs.

Buxton and other analysts argue that, instead of pumping more dollars into military expansion, the U.S. should do the opposite: bump up renewable energy domestically and globally and offer vulnerable communities around the world adaptation assistance. Such a strategy would help ease global tensions, he says. Instead, Trump's proposed 2018 Department of State budget would slash USAID climate programs the world over, denying vital climate change adaptation aid.

To his credit, Mattis has acknowledged that tackling global warming requires a "whole of government" approach. That's something with which Conger agrees, noting that it's not the military's job alone to count and cut emissions: "The DOD's mission is to protect the national security of the United States," he reiterates. "So, if that requires some more greenhouse gas emissions, then so be it."

The current bottom line: While the U.S. military is in some ways aligned with environmentalists' goals—reducing reliance on fossil fuels to make it a leaner, cheaper, more resilient fighting force—it is naïve to expect the DOD to take steps to solve the climate problem single-handedly, and even unwise. As an institution, it won't accept any policy that reduces its ability to make war.

In the final analysis, it is clear that the mega-expansion of the military as desired by the Pentagon, and as formulated by Trump and the Congress, will lead to more greenhouse gas emissions, not less. That's especially true because the military's growth is likely to come at the expense of other agencies, such as the EPA and the Department of State, along with their climate programs.

As a result, experts say, even as the U.S. military bulks up, its fighting forces are likely to face an exhaustingly high number of international conflicts as global warming devastates crops, shatters developing nation economies, increases the number of failed states, and leads to war after war—leaving the world's future all the more insecure.

This story originally appeared at the website of global conservation news service Mongabay.com.

===

https://www.americansecurityproject.org/congress-climate-security/

11/17

...Climate change is a threat to national security. The military and national security community has been preparing for the effects of climate change for over a decade. However, for several years, there has been notable push-back from Congress; as recently as 2016, the House of Representatives had voted along purely partisan lines to support an amendment prohibiting any action by the Department of Defense on climate change.

In a remarkable turnaround, the Republican-led Congress has now begun to ask for the military to plan for the effects of climate change, and President Trump has signed legislation requiring that they do so. Below, is a of list legislation considered in 2017, by their committee of jurisdiction.

House Armed Services Committee

In the House version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 2810), the committee accepted an amendment sponsored by Congressman Langevin (RI) that stated that it was the sense of Congress that climate change “is a direct threat to the national security of the United States” and that military installations “must be able to effectively prepare to mitigate climate damage.”

The Amendment requires a report to Congress on vulnerabilities to climate damage in military infrastructure and how climate change is affecting missions like humanitarian assistance and disaster response. The report would detail how much addressing climate change is expected to cost the Department.

The amendment was accepted by voice vote in committee.

Full House of Representatives

When the full House considered the NDAA on July 13, Representative Perry offered an amendment that would strip the bill of any language on climate change, including the report. After floor debate that included discussions from Rep. Langevin, Rep. Peters, and GOP Representatives Stefanik and Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment to strip the climate security section failed by a vote of 185-234, with 45 Republicans voting against. This vote on the House floor was an important signal that Congress is ready to support the military’s actions in preparing for the effects of climate change.

House Appropriations Committee

In the report to accompany the 2018 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2998), the House Appropriations committee called on the Department of Defense to plan for the effects of climate change on its bases and its operations.

The report directs the Department of Defense to take into account the impacts of climate change, both “as a driver of instability” and as a threat to the military’s infrastructure. Noting the 2015 report to Congress about the national security implications of climate change, the report asks the Secretary of Defense to report back to Congress (not later than 120 days after enactment of this Act) on the “adaptation strategies developed for vulnerable installations.”

Furthermore, the report includes strong support for the Department of Defense to continue its work planning for the impacts of climate change. In a section titled “Climate and Security for Military Installations” the report states:

The Department of Defense must pay close attention to potential adverse impacts of climate change as a driver of instability. From sea level rise to increased drought and flooding across the country and the world, proper defense planning must include considerations related to climate change impacts. The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to plan infrastructure and other projects using the best available data and science on climate change to mitigate risks to our armed forces serving domestically and abroad.

The Omnibus Appropriations bill in which this bill was folded into has not yet been signed into law.

Senate Armed Services Committee

In the reportto accompany the Senate version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S.1519), the committee asks that the Secretary of Defense performs a “comprehensive threat assessment” and “implementation master plan” by March 1, 2018. The report looks both at how to address overseas stability issues as well as infrastructure impacts. The committee is worried about how climate change will threaten readiness for the military as a whole. One particularly interesting area is that it asks for the report to asses how “public-private partnerships” could be used to build resiliency.

House-Senate Conference

On November 9, the Conference Committee agreed to the Conference Report of the NDAA, including section 335, a “Report on effects of climate change on Department of Defense.” This is the Langevin Amendment, as passed by the House of Representatives. Both the House and Senate will consider final passage of the bill before it is sent to the President for his signature.

Final Passage and Signature

Both the House and Senate passed the NDAA Conference Report, without amendment, and it was presented to the President on November 30. On December 12, President Trump signed the bill into law. With this action, the President and the Congress have now passed legislation into law stating: “climate change is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and is impacting stability in areas of the world both where the United States Armed Forces are operating today, and where strategic implications for future conflict exist.”

Overall, when combined together, these developments show that Congress is taking responsibility for leading on the national security impacts of a changing climate. President Trump’s The American Security Project commends Members of Congress, particularly those Republicans who acknowledge the need for action, in their support. These actions should give support to Secretary Mattis and those in the uniformed military working on this issue that Congress will not suddenly force them away from their work.

Related Resources

Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security's Strategic Foresight Initiative hosted a workshop on "Climate Change and National Security" as part of our ongoing partnership with the Government of Sweden. Given the clear national security dimensions of climate change and the politically contentious nature of the climate debate, this workshop served as an opportunity to learn about how the American national security community is dealing with climate change, and how national security issues connect to broader political debates on climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The removal of Steve Bannon from the National Security Council was first revealed in the capital’s dullest publication, the Federal Register, and explained in the country’s most influential conservative newspaper, the Wall Street Journal.The register published an executive order from President Trump, giving full control of the National Security Council to National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The order shows every sign of having been written by McMaster himself. In the Journal, Bannon resorted to spin, explaining his demotion as a planned success, part of his master plan to save the NSC from White House demon du jour Susan Rice.

"Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration," Bannon said. "I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized. General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function."

Breitbart duly echoed Bannon’s spin, adding the less-than-electrifying news that Energy Secretary Rick Perry will join NSC meetings.

In this case, dull reality matters more than political spin.

McMaster now has control of the NSC agenda, which is to say he has control of the policy options presented to the president, and Bannon does not. Of course, Bannon is still a trusted adviser and still attends NSC meetings. But he will have a lot less influence over what Trump sees, especially in a crisis.

Which is why Trump’s allies are worried. WikiLeaks wonders if this is a CIA victory.

:{:(style="position:relative;top:1px;display:inline-block"):}:

Follow

[WikiLeaks :{

✔

}:@wikileaks](https://twitter.com/wikileaks)

The empire strikes back? Steve Bannon ("Counsel to the President") off NSC Principal's Committee and CIA Director on :{https://:(style="position:absolute !important;overflow:hidden !important;width:1px !important;height:1px !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px) !important"):}:s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspect:{ion.federalregister.gov/2017-07064.pdf }:…

8:53 AM - 5 Apr 2017

:{1,122:(style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:text-bottom"):}::{1,122 Retweets}:

:{1,282:(style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:text-bottom"):}::{1,282 likes}:

Michael Flynn Jr., son of the ousted NSC adviser whose conspiratorial ravings disqualified him for a Trump administration job, senses a White House failure of nerve.

:{:(style="position:relative;top:1px;display:inline-block"):}:

Follow

:{:(style="position:absolute;display:inline-block;top:0px;left:0px;width:36px;height:36px;overflow:hidden;background-color:transparent;border-radius:4px"):}::{Michael Flynn Jr}: @mflynnJR

Fact 1: Flynn/Bannon most loyal to DJT (both out at NSC)

Fact 2: McMaster wont say "Radical Islam"

Is WH serious abt defeating our enemy? :{https://:(style="position:absolute !important;overflow:hidden !important;width:1px !important;height:1px !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px) !important"):}:twitter.com/prisonplanet/s:{tatus/849655122120593408 }:…

9:31 AM - 5 Apr 2017

:{1,422:(style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:text-bottom"):}::{1,422 Retweets}:

:{1,864:(style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:text-bottom"):}::{1,864 likes}:

Flynn is correct that McMaster doesn’t like to use the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” But is WikiLeaks right that the CIA “empire” has struck back at Trump/Bannon because of their hostility to the U.S. intelligence community? Is Bannon’s defenestration the revenge of the so-called Deep State?

I don’t think so, for three reasons.

First, the fact that the CIA now has Bannon’s seat on the principals committee means that Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo will have a place at the most important meetings, instead of Trump's chief propagandist. That’s a net plus for the agency as an institution, but not a huge one, nor a new one.

Second, this move was publicly announced and attributed to a specific government official, McMaster, in an open government publication. The presidential order doesn’t signal any new encroachment of secretive national security agencies on the powers of the Madisonian government (meaning Congress, the White House and the courts). If there is a “Deep State” of unaccountable U.S. decision-makers, it does not announce its work in the Federal Register.

Third, there is another, simpler explanation: Bannon was simply outwitted by more experienced Washington operators.

McMaster made clear to Trump he wanted authority and Trump, a graduate of military high school who avoided the draft, has no ability to stand up to him in a face-to-face meeting. Ditto for Bannon, who served in the Navy three decades ago and has had no national security experience since.

David Rothkopf, author of two histories of the National Security Council and publisher of Foreign Policy magazine, said McMaster’s success is a "sign of a smart, effective bureaucrat and leader. This restores the traditional structures to the NSC. It is putting in place a professional team of national security advisers. It gives McMaster more authority and restores the roles of the military and intelligence leadership.”

McMaster did not act alone. Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently took Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner on a trip to Iraq as part of a Pentagon charm offensive. And Secretary of Defense James Mattis has been wooing the White House and tutoring out-of-his-depth Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

As Politico’s Bryan Bender recently reported:

Two officials said that both Mattis and Dunford have spent a considerable amount of time meeting privately with the commander-in-chief, who graduated from military school as a teen but never served, to discuss a range of issues facing the armed forces. They declined to provide further details. Dunford and Mattis have also invited White House advisers to high-level meetings in the Pentagon, said the officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Not coincidentally, Politico reports that Kushner “has asked searching questions—sometimes for hours—of inside and outside advisers about the White House's performance and complained about Bannon in particular, according to people who have spoken with Kushner.”

In particular, Kushner “has told people that Bannon’s desire to deconstruct the government, is hurting the president.”

Trump’s hostility to the national security agencies is more rhetorical than real, as his new deference to McMaster and Dunford indicates. Bannon didn’t lose out to the Deep State of national security agencies. He seems to have lost out to the deep family of Trump.

Jefferson Morley

===