Tag Archive for: Climate change and security

Stop the World: Climate change and security with ‘Climate General’ Tom Middendorp

In this episode of Stop the World, Justin Bassi speaks to retired General Tom Middendorp – also known as the ‘Climate General’ – about the links between climate change, defence and security. They discuss the impact of climate change on the military and its role in disaster preparedness and response.

With a growing global population meaning a growing demand on natural resources, the conversation also explores how we can adapt and learn to do more with fewer resources. They consider the role that technology and innovation can play in responding to climate change, as well as the importance of supply chain security.

They also discuss the different climate risks in South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and how countries like Australia and the Netherlands can work together to support these regions and help address the combined climate and security threats we face.

Guests:
⁠Justin Bassi⁠
⁠General Tom Middendorp⁠

Tag Archive for: Climate change and security

Indian climate policy in a post-Paris world

After five month’s training in solar power engineering, four women in Tinginaput, India are transforming their remote village - bringing light and electricity to their homes. See how they are providing a new, “green” path for development in our photo gallery. And find out more about the female solar engineers at: www.dfid.gov.uk/solarengineersMost experts agree that the consensus achieved at COP21 in Paris, like most global agreements, produced a sub-optimal outcome, and by itself, is unlikely to limit global average temperature rise to two degrees centigrade (much less 1.5 degrees). The real work will happen within nations, as countries begin to roll out the implementation of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Going forward, India’s climate policy and energy policies are likely to be shaped by three documents: the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Agenda and the Indian NDC submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). All three have implications for India’s national ambitions to grow infrastructure, ensure inclusive development and maintain sustained economic growth. The agreements also raise questions around financing, namely whether the global financial architecture can respond to the needs of this new development paradigm.

India requires in excess of $1 trillion in the next five years for meeting its stated national goals. Besides the domestic mobilisation of resources, there are two fundamental challenges that need to be resolved if the country is to meet its climate and energy goals. The first is to ensure steady global funding for its traditional infrastructure and energy projects in a carbon-constrained world. That will be difficult. The World Bank has already restricted loans for building coal-fired power plants since 2013; and in November 2015, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) agreed to limit most state financing to ‘ultra-supercritical plants,’ which burn less coal to produce the same amount of electricity.

The second challenge is to reform the structural bias in the global financial architecture, which, since the global crisis, pays more attention to ‘credit adequacy’ rather than the ‘credit enhancement’ that India and other developing countries so urgently require. Aligning those banking needs and the global banking mood is an imperative for traditional, renewable and low-carbon projects.

Understanding India’s energy options is also a crucial task. On the mitigation front, the Indian NDC commits to reducing the emissions intensity of its economy by 33–35% by 2030 from 2005 levels and achieving 40% of its installed electrical capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. The latter commitment is conditional on receiving adequate technological and financial support. The NDC also signals that India’s per capita energy consumption may grow up to more than six times beyond 2015 levels.

As of the end of 2015, the installed capacity of clean energy sources (renewables, hydro and nuclear) in India was 30% of the total installed capacity.  Therefore, even if that were to be scaled up to 40% by 2030, 60% of capacity would still be based on fossil fuels. The real room for India to maneuver is in this large block of base-load conventional generation, which will account for a majority of the actual power generation, given the low capacity factors of renewable sources of power.

According to analysis done by the Centre for Policy Research, India could have something between 600–800 GW of total electrical capacity by 2030. Taking the median figure of 700 GW, 60% of fossil fuel capacity would add up to 420 GW. The current fossil fuel capacity stands at 198 GW with 173 GW of coal and just over 24 GW gas. India is therefore likely to more than double its fossil fuel capacity by 2030, alongside the impressive commitment on increasing renewable installations.

To ensure that India’s path to development doesn’t compromise its climate action, India has a few options. First, it can ensure that the additional 200 GW of fossil fuel capacity that’s to be added up to 2030 is significantly fueled by gas. Gas-based power has roughly half the emissions of coal fired power plants. 24 GW of current gas capacity points to the limited presence of gas in India’s current energy mix and also to the potential to dramatically scale that up.

Two market conditions allow India to pursue that policy path aggressively. First, the slump in global gas prices following the restart of Japanese nuclear reactors and an oversupply in the market means that it’s the perfect time for India to negotiate new gas deals and secure long term supply at competitive prices. In fact, a lot of Indian gas plants were idle in 2015 as the prices of importing gas was more expensive than the cost of selling power. The Indian government has had to recently renegotiate the price with Qatar, its main supplier, and achieved a price reduction of about 50%. The second follows from the Iran nuclear deal, which could see Iranian gas becoming available as a viable source. Just last month, it emerged that India and Iran are considering a US$4.5 billion undersea pipeline that would connect Iran to India’s west coast via the Oman Sea. Iran has the largest gas reserves in the world and the availability of Iranian gas changes India’s energy calculus significantly.

India’s second option is to significantly scale-up nuclear power. Nuclear energy has the advantage of being both carbon free and, like gas power, available all the time. It’s therefore the only clean energy option to substitute coal in the electricity grid. However, India’s tardy rate of growth in the nuclear sector so far, with only 5.8 GW of current capacity, as well as issues with the liability law, procurement of technology and long construction times, mean that gas remains the only viable and cleaner option over the short term.

However, to make this shift to gas India needs to work on three key areas. First, the country’s gas infrastructure needs to be scaled-up so that it can link to transnational pipelines, draw from regasification terminals of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and develop last-mile connectivity to consumers.

Second and more importantly, the political will to allow for the development of an integrated gas market is needed. The difficult decision to remove direct and quasi control over pricing and end-use needs to be taken. Such a move will create conditions where benefits and costs are accrued through market operations and will help attract interest from investors, producers and distributors.

Finally, India’s geopolitical overtures need to support this new energy agenda. Financing and infrastructure development require strong global support and partnerships. India’s relationships with Iran, Qatar and Turkmenistan among others also needs to be re-energized and must be seen as part of the national imperative of seeking energy security and more robust climate action.

Climate change and security: the challenge for the ADF (part 1)

Industry

Editor’s note: As governments and other global stakeholders work to refine their talking points and targets in advance of the COP21 meetings in Paris, The Strategist today launches a series that will consider a wide range of policy issues related to climate change and international security. While the intersection of climate and defence planning will naturally be a focus, climate change is a strategic policy consideration at its core. So this series is also a prime opportunity to examine topics as diverse as food security, energy, climate economics and mass climate migration, among others. As always, we look forward to receiving comment and contributions from our readership as the collection unfolds over the coming months.

Australia’s defence force is lagging significantly behind its US and UK counterparts in preparing to deal with the challenges created by a changing climate.

This is a key finding of the recent report ‘Be Prepared: Climate Change, Security and Australia’s Defence Force’, published by the Climate Council. In the wake of the report the Council last week convened Australia’s first climate security summit in Canberra, which brought together leading experts to explore the significant and growing security challenges presented by a changing climate.

While the current position may appear alarming, it can’t be interpreted as meaning that the ADF has done nothing about climate change planning. The ADF has been looking at the impacts of climate change since 2007, and its record in environmental management, planning and acting to preserve our environment has been good, with few exceptions.

In recent years, however, as Australia’s climate change credentials have suffered from a lack of political leadership, our key allies and partners have taken a different pathway. They have overtaken us comprehensively, including climate change priorities in national security assessments and integrating climate change impacts fully into their defence planning.

Military forces around the globe perceive climate change as a threat multiplier because its impacts can undermine individual and societal well-being. Climate change will affect the availability of food, water and energy which become basic insecurities, as well as fostering migratory movements forced on people by sea level rise and the greater frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. These pressures have the potential to lead to conflict.

At present, the international community is preparing for the COP21 climate talks in Paris which will set the action agenda for coming decades. In the lead up to the Paris talks Australia should be providing the kind of regional leadership that we have in the past.

Our regional leadership and presence—important matters for the ADF—have been overtaken by the highly proactive NZDF and the US Pacific Command in Hawaii who have been ordered directly by the American government to establish clear leadership in the region on climate change matters.

My colleagues and I who prepared the report are convinced that the science behind climate change is so compelling that urgent action needs to be taken now to head off the worst of the predicted consequences, but also to build the capabilities and capacity needed to deal with changes in our strategic situation and environment, here in Australia and in our region.

There is growing concern that the seriousness of the present position will mean much more dramatic action needs to be taken to ensure human security over the next 100 years. So, notwithstanding anything the defence force may need to do now, there must be action taken by all governments and the global population to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and embark on comprehensive adaptation initiatives.

NASANOAA, the IPCC and a long list of other trusted organisations have confirmed that the yearly global average temperature continues to climb; 14 of the hottest 15 years have occurred this century. Globally July 2015 was the warmest month since records began, and 2015 is on track to be the hottest year globally on record. Consequences are being felt all over the globe. From late April to early August in Japan, 35,000 people have been hospitalised due to hot weather and more than 1,000 people died in India and Pakistan during heatwaves.

Apart from warning us about ‘boiling the oceans’ and the dire consequences of a great deal of generated heat being absorbed into the seas, a recent article in The Economist has drawn on analysis  that suggests even if all countries fully honour their recent pledges on greenhouse gas reductions at COP21 temperatures may still rise by 2.7⁰C by 2100.

This is well over what governments around the world have agreed to, which is to keep a rise in global temperature to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Without drastic action we are advised that we are heading into completely unexplored territory. A 2°C rise in global temperature will have serious impacts on the lives and livelihoods of many people worldwide, and could trigger major changes in the Earth System. For instance, a 2°C rise could trigger the melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, which would eventually raise sea level by about 7 metres, inundating major cities worldwide. Complicating matters further, global population is predicted to rise by more than 25% over the rest of the century.

On 29 September Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, warned that though measures to avoid catastrophic climate change are essential, not least for long-term financial stability, in the shorter term they could cause investors huge losses by making reserves of oil, coal and gas ‘literally unburnable’. The Climate Council’s Unburnable Carbon report released earlier this year found that to have a 75% chance of meeting the 2°C warming limit, at least 77% of the world’s fossil fuels cannot be burned.

In a second post I will examine the capability risks and the geostrategic risks that climate change presents for the ADF.