The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
10 Things the Department of Defense Needs to Include in Their New Climate Change Report
By Shana Udvardy
After a dearth of action on climate change and a record year of extreme events in 2017, the inclusion of climate change policies within the annual legislation Congress considers to outline its defense spending priorities (the National Defense Authorization Act) for fiscal year 2018 was welcome progress. House and Senate leaders pushed to include language that mandated that the Department of Defense (DoD) incorporate climate change in their facility planning (see more on what this section of the bill does here and here) as well as issue a report on the impacts of climate change on military installations. Unfortunately, what DoD produced fell far short of what was mandated.
With such a report, Congress was aiming to understand the most at-risk installations and the types and costs of mitigation measures that can help to ensure mission readiness. The Center for Climate and Security provides an excellent briefer on why these analyses are needed.
On Jan. 10, 2019, a month late, the Pentagon released the report. Congressional leadership (see statements by Senator Reed and Representatives Langevin and Smith) were rightly disappointed that the report failed to do due diligence in answering vital questions as mandated by law, such as ranking the ten most vulnerable installations by service branch and estimating the costs of mitigation measures. Experts Mark Nevitt at University of Pennsylvania Law School and John Conger at the Center for Climate and Security also weighed in on the inadequacy of the report. It was therefore welcome news that Representatives Langevin, Smith and Garamendi called for a version 2.0 to be completed by April 1, 2019.
With Congress demanding a thorough revision, what should DoD focus on for v2.0? After doing my own assessment of how DoD's original report matched up with the legislative mandate, here are the top ten priorities the Department of Defense must include in their revised report to Congress. DoD must:
1. List the 10 Most Vulnerable Military Installations Within Each Armed Service
In the first report, DoD focused on 79 military considered priorities for mission assurance and relied on a binary approach, noting the "presence or not of current and potential vulnerabilities" to the installations deemed to be priorities for mission assurance over the next 20 years. In the revised report, DoD must, as mandated, rank national and international installations by each climate change-related impact for each of the armed service branches.
2. Include Consideration of the Marine Corps Branch
We know that the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune was hit hard by Hurricane Florence, sustaining $3.6 billion in damages. Additionally, our analysis found that Parris Island (a Marine Corps Recruit Depot) is highly exposed to storm surge and will be more so in the future. In fact, DOD's own 2018 climate-related risks report found that:
"[U.S. Marine Corps] sites have experienced impacts from flooding, winds, extreme temperatures, drought, and wildfires. And, that "the impact categories receiving the highest frequency of occurrences are training areas/ranges/facilities and HVAC systems from extreme temperatures."
With so much documented vulnerability to climate impacts, the omission of the Marine Corps is glaring in the current version of the report and must be addressed going forward.
3. Include International Sites in the Vulnerability Assessment
In the initial assessment, DoD included just two installations in U.S. territories both in Guam—Naval Base Guam and Andersen Air Force Base—which makes sense given that in 2018 Guam was hit by two major typhoons, Mangkhut and Yutu. However, it is not clear how or why other international sites were not addressed given that the report and the legislation both mention a few examples of their vulnerabilities, for example to the Marshall Island radar installation.
In Addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the U.S. military's nearly 600 overseas sites are critical to maintaining the readiness of military forces and represent a massive investment. In fact, GAO estimated the cost to replace these sites in 2014 to be roughly $158 billion. Moreover, DoD's own reports include an assessment of sea level rise at more than 1,700 coastal installations worldwide and of sea level rise on atoll installations. Finally, we know that many of these international installations are in need of better planning and implementation of measures to address extreme weather impacts.
4. Address Extreme Weather Including Extreme Heat, Cold, Rainfall and Hurricane
Scientists have found strong evidence that indicates climate change increases the frequency and intensity of events like extreme heat and extreme rainfall from hurricanes. In the original report, DoD was generally responsive to the letter of the law by assessing the risk of recurrent flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires and thawing permafrost. However, DoD ought to have included additional risks including extreme heat, cold and rainfall events given the evidence of damages these events cause, that they are projected to cause in the future and that Congress directed DoD to include "any other categories the Secretary determines necessary." As a start, DoD can utilize their own climate-related risk vulnerability assessment from 2018 that provides a qualitative assessment of extreme weather and climate change-related risks on installations.
A quote by Lieutenant General Norman Seip, USAF (Ret) in The Hill opinion piece "Our military bases are not ready for climate change" on Nov. 2, 2018. He served in the Air Force for 35 years. He currently serves on the board of directors of the American Security Project.
5. Assess All types of Flooding Individually
DoD must assess sea level rise, storm surge and inland flooding risks independently while also including an assessment of cascading impacts of multiple flood events simultaneously. Otherwise, addressing different types of flooding mixes and masks the risks and impacts of rising seas, recurrent high tide flooding, inland flooding and storm surge.
6. Include the Climate-Risk Vulnerability Methodology
In the revised report DoD must include their methodology on assessing climate-risk vulnerability. DoD also must ensure the analyses are based on the latest science on climate change and extreme weather such as the new and major reports including the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) and the groundbreaking Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5 ⁰C report. In addition, DoD has a wealth of excellent climate change-related reports that they ought pull from as well (e.g. DoD's Regional Sea Level Rise Scenario report, among many others).
7. Include a Robust List of Mitigation Measures for All Risks and Vulnerable
Version 2.0 must address the types of mitigation measures needed for each of the climate change-related risks at the most vulnerable military installations. To do this, DoD can start by utilizing the Naval Facilities Engineering Command's "NAVFAC Installation Adaptation & Resilience Climate Change Planning Handbook," which provides workbooks meant to help installation planners both analyze and develop actions to address the climate change-related challenges. For example, the NAVFAC handbook includes mitigation measures and estimated costs and benefits for measures such as seawalls, flood gates, restoration of natural areas and installation of oyster reefs. Ideally, the report could also provide an overview of the types of measures that could be taken to address the interconnectedness of the natural, built and social systems which are vulnerable to cascading impacts.
Airmen from the 821st Contingency Response Group setup tent city at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Oct. 12, 2018. The contingency response team deployed to assess damage and establish conditions for the re-initiation of airflow, bringing much needed equipment, supplies and personnel.U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Liliana Moreno
8. Address the Costs of Different Types of Mitigation Measures
Given the estimated cost of damages from Hurricane Florence on Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune ($3.6 billion) and from Hurricane Michael on Tyndall Air Force Base ($5 billion), and given the adaptation needs particularly for overseas installations, it's no wonder that Congress asked the Pentagon to estimate the costs of making installations more resilient. DoD can utilize the cost assessment tool in Appendix G of the NAVFAC adaptation handbook to help define the scope and costs of different mitigation measures.
A recent example from work done by Dewberry for Virginia Beach underscores why cost estimates are so important in planning and budgeting. Dewberry found that measures to adapt to sea level rise could cost from $1.71 billion to $3.79 billion over several decades, but the annualized economic losses of doing nothing could be $50 million in 2050. While a tremendous amount of time and effort went into this report, it is exactly the type of analysis that is so helpful for planners and decisionmakers.
9. Assess the Growing Needs for Humanitarian Relief and Disaster Assistance
DoD must include an estimate of the increase in the frequency of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions and the theater campaign plans among other aspects that the legislation requests. A recent study confirms that climate change is fueling violent conflicts, migration and refugees. The recent 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community again makes the case that climate change is a national security threat, and a threat multiplier when it comes to humanitarian disasters.
10. Provide a Robust Overview of Mitigation Efforts Already Underway and Address Costs
The report makes clear that climate change is "a cross-cutting consideration for our planning and decision-making processes" and not a one-off, separate program. In version 2.0, DoD has the opportunity to provide more depth to the overview of mitigation measures currently in place and what might be necessary to ensure mission resilience. An estimation of the costs of these mitigation measures, at least at some level, ought to also be addressed.
Marines with Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune help push a car out of a flooded area during Hurricane Florence, on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Sept. 15, 2018. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Isaiah Gomez
A Revised Report Is Essential to Provide Vital Guidance to Congress on Military
Climate change will continue to strain the nation's resources, resilience and our military's mission readiness. The scale of the budget needed to mitigate each of the climate risks for each of the most vulnerable installations will be immense, but the cost of doing nothing will be much greater. The good news is, studies indicate that federal investments in mitigation measures is a wise use of taxpayer dollars and can save $6 in future disaster costs, for every $1 spent on hazard mitigation.
DoD now has the chance for a "do-over" of their climate-change risks report to fill-in the many incomplete and inadequate responses. This vital revision, version 2.0, will be an important contribution to Congress to help members formulate policies and budgets needed to ensure our military's installations, infrastructure and communities across all armed service branches are climate ready.
Our military and intelligence leaders are calling for action and solutions on climate change and recently members of Congress have called for ambitious and urgent action and solutions on climate change. The time is now for action.
Shana Udvardy is the climate resilience analyst with the climate & energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
- The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate ... ›
- The US Defense Department takes climate change seriously ›
- U.S. Military Prepares for Sea-Level Rise and Other Climate Change ... ›
- New Defense Bill Strengthens the Military's Flood & Energy ... ›
- Trump Mocks Climate Change After DoD Releases Climate Report ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Global Banks, Led by JPMorgan Chase, Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
By Sharon Kelly
A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.