Opinion Editorial | |
Is the Global Warming Treaty a Threat to National Security?H. Sterling BurnettH. Sterling Burnett is an environmental policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education institute. |
What does a treaty proposed to prevent human-caused global warming have
to do with the U.S. military? More than you think. It turns out that the
federal government is the nation's largest user of energy. And, seventy-three
percent of the federal government's energy use goes to the Defense Department.
Most of this energy comes from burning fossil fuels, which generate potentially
heat-trapping greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases have been blamed
by some environmentalists, some scientists and President Clinton and Vice
President Al Gore for causing global warming and all manner of catastrophes
(like hurricanes, floods and maybe even El Nino). On this theory, to avert
environmental apocalypse, we must reduce the use of energy. However, because energy use is critical to the effective functioning
of the military, Sherri Goodman, deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental
security, and the leaders of the four branches of the military requested
a national security exemption from emission reductions for the Defense Department.
Before the negotiations in Kyoto, administration officials agreed they
would demand a a military exemption in any greenhouse gas treaty. But what
they promised and what they delivered are two different things. The Kyoto
treaty exempts only multilateral military operations sanctioned by the United
Nations. Neither the military engagements the U.S. undertook in Grenada, Panama,
Libya and, more recently, in Sudan and Afghanastan nor humanitarian relief
operations like providing aid to a flooded Bangladesh shortly after the
Gulf War were U.N.-sanctioned. And with the makeup of the U.N. Security
Council, future military operations - against Iraq or Yugoslavia, for example
- would be unlikely to get Security Council approval. In addition, day-to-day
operations, training and war games are not "multilateral operations
pursuant to the United Nations Charter," and so are not exempt. Has President Clinton truly decided that global warming poses a greater
threat to the U.S. than foreign aggressors like Saddam Hussein. Should
the U.S. military really be nothing more than a branch of the U.N.'s peace
keeping forces? The military has estimated that a 10 percent cut in fuel use, to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, would reduce tank training by 328,000 miles per
year, flight training and flying exercises by 210,000 flying hours, and
the number of steaming days (days on board ship in port and at sea for training
and military exercises) by 2,000. These reductions would substantially hamper military readiness - adding
as much as six weeks to the time the air force and tank corps need to deploy
in a time of crisis. What would our enemies be doing while our troops got
up to speed? And a 10 percent emission cut would be only third of the military's
share of the cuts needed to meet our commitments under the treaty. Another option to reduce energy use is to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.
However, electrically-powered vehicles are not realistic options for the
military, since refueling during combat is usually impossible and operations
often take place far from electric power supplies. Solar-powered vehicles
are underpowered, too dependent on weather for long-term operation and exorbitantly
expensive. Thus, the only realistic way of increasing vehicle fuel efficiency is
to reduce vehicle weight -- by providing fewer armaments and/or less protective
armor. Either would increase the combat danger faced by U.S. military personnel
relative to their prospective opponents. Even if U.S. tanks, planes and
ships are still better armed and armored than our opponents, improving fuel
economy would reduce the gap between the effectiveness of our military equipment
compared to theirs. Congress is aware of the national security implications of the Kyoto
treaty. In response to congressional pressure, Secretary Goodman testified
that, "If we were to undertake . . . a completely unilateral operation,
we do not need an international treaty to tell the United States how to
operate unilaterally. That is a matter of United States sovereignty."
Well said! But, this strong language did not make it into the treaty,
so in effect we are admitting to the world that when the treaty does not
suit us, we will break it. This puts us in the unenviable position of being
a rogue nation. Or other nations might follow our example, in which case the treaty becomes
merely a public relations ploy - so why sign it in the first place? Finally, if the Defense Department does get a blanket exemption, that
just means that the private sector will have to make even deeper cuts to
make up for it. Harming the U.S. economy would not seem to be any more
in our interests than hog-tying the U.S. military in case of a security
threat. None of the three options, weakening national security, flouting treaties
or harming the economy is an attractive policy stance for a presidential
candidate. Will Al Gore get the message? Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |