VADM Dennis McGinn, USN, Ret.
Member, Advisory Board, The Center for Climate & Security
Statement to the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense
Climate Change and National Security
17 March 2021
Thank you, Chairwoman McCullom, Ranking Member Calvert, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today on the critical impactof climate change on national security. My views are based on over thirty-five years ofservice to our Nation in the United States Navy, as a former Assistant Secretary of theNavy for Energy, Installations and Environment, and as a senior executive intimatelyfamiliar with issues of energy and the environment.
So, based on my national security expertise, I can testify unequivocally that climatechange is a national security issue, and it is in our national interest to address it.
A little more than a year ago, I joined dozens of fellow security experts – many of themretired flag officers like myself – in developing and issuing a report called the Climate
Security Plan for America. This report includes dozens of recommendations that I
would commend to your attention, and it is based on two fundamental principles. First,
that in order to make a real difference in addressing the security risks posed by climatechange, climate security must be an articulated priority of the President, communicatedplainly to both the American people and to the Federal agencies tasked to respond tothe threat. Second, climate impacts must be integrated into the considerations ofsecurity actors throughout the government, not simply as a separate category of action
but as a risk that informs programs and priorities throughout the agencies.
In a related report, A Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change, the Centerfor Climate and Security’s National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel concluded
that we run the risk of catastrophic security consequences at home and abroad if we do
not urgently and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions - reaching, at the very
least, net-zero emissions by 2050 to avoid those consequences.
I could not have asked for a better response to these warnings and recommendations
than the one President Biden has made, declaring in Executive Order 14008 (Tacklingthe Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) that climate change is an essential element offoreign policy and national security and setting the climate agenda for DoD and other
Federal agencies. In his Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, President Bidenstates that we must be able to “meet challenges not only from great powers andregional adversaries, but also from violent and criminal non-state actors and extremists,and from threats like climate change, infectious disease, cyberattacks anddisinformation that respect no national borders.”

This attention to climate threats and other global challenges is not inconsistent withtraditional priorities but is aligned and integrated with them. China’s posture in Asia andaround the world, for example, is informed by growing water scarcity and food insecurityin Asia, coupled with the need to feed the world’s most populous nation. They makeeconomic choices to invest in renewable energy and electric vehicles because they see
the direction the world is going and the opportunity that presents. Similarly, Russia’s
posture in the Arctic is inextricably linked to the receding ice and increased access tothe region. They see both opportunity and threat to their north.
In fact, Congress has repeatedly acknowledged the security impacts of climate change,such as when it declared climate change to be a direct threat to U.S. national security in2017. The pragmatic, bipartisan approach Congress has taken on this issue in recent
years has been extremely important.
On March 4, Secretary Austin highlighted climate change as a DoD priority in a memo
to the Department, stating:“We face a growing climate crisis that is impacting our missions, plans, andcapabilities and must be met by ambitious, immediate action. In line with thePresident's direction, we will elevate climate as a national security priority,integrating climate considerations into the Department's policies, strategies, andpartner engagements. We will incorporate climate risk assessments into our wargaming, modeling, and simulation, and we will bolster mission resilience anddeploy solutions that optimize capability and reduce our own carbon footprint.
Where possible, we will seek to lead the way for alternative climate-consideredapproaches for the country.”
This is a logical progression from statements Secretary Mattis made during the last
Administration. Mattis stated that “the effects of a changing climate — such asincreased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others— impact our security situation.” He added, “Climate change can be a driver ofinstability and the Department of Defense must pay attention to potential adverse
impacts generated by this phenomenon,” adding that “…climate change is impacting
stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.”
The common thread is a recognition of the threat that both Secretaries understand:recognition that climate change will increasingly drive instability around the world;
recognition that the opening Arctic will create new dimensions in great powercompetition; recognition that extreme weather will create both readiness challenges andhumanitarian crises that DoD will have to manage. It is a recognition that we must
prepare for this change, and that dealing with climate change aligns with theDepartment’s mission. Just as tactical commanders would not consider engaging in an
operation without weather reports and intelligence, our strategic approach must
incorporate the effects of climate change, which are reshaping global dynamics inmultiple ways.

Climate change is different from traditional military threats, because it is not like having
a specific enemy, a rapid and well-defined response timeline, or a clearly located crisis
region to which we are responding. Climate change has the potential to create more
frequent, intense and widespread natural and humanitarian disasters due to typhoons,flooding, drought, disease, crop failure and the consequent migration of large
populations. These climate-driven severe weather events will magnify existing tensions
in critical regions, overwhelm fragile political, economic and social structures, causingthem to fracture and fail. The predictable result: much greater frequency and intensity ofregional conflict and direct threats to U.S. interests and national security.
For example, climate change didn’t cause the Syrian civil war, but by making extreme
drought more likely in a land whose reliance on agriculture made it vulnerable todrought, it increased the likelihood of significant internal displacement and certainly
helped to amplify tensions.
In addition to the geopolitical stress it applies, climate change is having a direct impact
on readiness and installations. I oversaw all Navy installations, and I can tell you thatour base commanders know that we don’t have the luxury of waiting to be inundated
before shoring up our facilities. Our commanders are working to reduce the risk ofcurrent investments by incorporating resilience and placing new facilities away fromrisk. Our planning is changing, and it makes more sense to invest in risk reduction now
than to wait and pay for repairs after the fact.
This is clear when we look at the increasing impact of extreme weather. In October
2018, for example, Tyndall AFB suffered more than $5 billion in damages fromHurricane Michael, with 484 buildings destroyed or damaged beyond repair. InSeptember 2018, Camp Lejeune suffered $3.6 billion in damages, with more than 400buildings demolished. The full recovery of both bases is still years away. Six months
later, Offutt AFB in Nebraska, the home of U.S. Strategic Command, suffered more than
$1 billion in damages and severe mission impacts due to serious flooding incidents.
Severe storms and associated flooding are far from the only impacts the military has
suffered. Wildfire risks, increased by extreme drought, have driven evacuations ofmilitary installations such as the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center(2018); Naval Air Station Point Mugu (2018); Vandenberg AFB (2016); and Camp
Pendleton (2014), all in California. Heat- related illnesses and deaths during training
have increased dramatically in the last decade.
A 2019 DOD study examined 79 mission critical military installations and found that twothirds faced climate risks, with flood and drought being the most common. In
subsequent assessments, each service identified sites vulnerable to climate risks: theMarine Corps identified 10 sites including Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune and theNavy 16 including Naval Base San Diego and Naval Air Station Key West, the Air
Force's top 10 included six sites in Florida including Tyndall AFB and MacDill AFB; andthe Army’s top 10 all identified desertification as the primary risk and were mostly sites
in the southwestern United States such as Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona and Fort
Bliss, Texas.
In the face of these threats, Congress has been an important partner in the effort toaddress the climate impacts on national security. In the past few years, Congress has,on a bipartisan basis, passed multiple measures in a series of National Defense
Authorization Acts focused on improving installation resilience to climate change and onplanning for future challenges – particularly in the Arctic. Just two months ago, theFiscal Year 2021 NDAA again included multiple climate change measures, including
directing DoD to update its climate change strategy, last updated in 2014.
The Administration will soon deliver a Fiscal Year 2022 budget request for yourconsideration that will, by all reports, have an increased emphasis on climate change.
As you consider the request and develop the Defense Appropriations Act, particularly as
you look at any increased resources that address the climate threat, I recommend you
consider the following.

Taking climate threats into account doesn’t always cost moremoney. Sometimes it involves choices as simple as siting a building on higher
ground, away from floodplains, or ensuring regional planning and wargames
incorporate future climate scenarios. It will involve informing decisions with thebest possible science and projections. The bottom line, though, is that DoD mustincorporate climate as a consideration throughout the enterprise.

Increased investments in predictive and intelligence systems will help theDepartment to prepare for these threats, and hopefully in some cases avoid
them. While climate stresses can be a source of instability in different regions of
the world, it is in our interest to anticipate conflict and act to head it off, but weneed to ensure we have the tools that will help us do so.

A greater investment in resilience is necessary and is aligned with mission. Evenwith current conditions, our readiness and installations are impacted byclimate. When Tyndall AFB was leveled by Hurricane Michael, it not only
damaged the buildings, it damaged multiple F-22s that were unable to evacuate
because of their maintenance status. Climate risks put our people, our missions,our facilities and our assets at risk. Congress should consider increases infunding for pragmatic, preventative measures to increase DoD’s resilience and toprepare it for unavoidable climate impacts. Ultimately, failing to prepare will costmore.

While we must be resilient to near-term climate challenges we cannot change,
the longer term security threats of climate change are driven by greenhouse gasemissions. As I highlighted above, the Center for Climate and Security publisheda Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change last February, looking
at the consequences of 2-degree and 4-degree warming scenarios. The security
implications of these scenarios were catastrophic, and the only way to avoid
them was to achieve net-zero emissions as soon as practical - by 2050 at thelatest. DoD need not be the only part of that solution, but it can and should leadby example, increasing efficiency and using zero-emissions energy sources
where appropriate. Frankly, most of these measures are yet again aligned withmission. We all want to achieve greater efficiency and reduced logistics
requirements.

In closing, while the military has understood for many years the threat that climatechange poses, the Biden Administration has significantly elevated its priority and theattention it is receiving. However, to realize this ambition and to ensure it is resilient tothe climate challenges ahead, DoD will need your support.