National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces

Committee on National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces

Naval Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-05-G-0288, DO #25 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-15425-3 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-15425-1 Copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Acad - emies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibil- ity given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scien - tific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR U.S. NAVAL FORCES FRANK L. BOWMAN, Strategic Decisions, LLC, Co-Chair ANTONIO J. BUSALACCHI, JR., University of Maryland, Co-Chair ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology CECILIA M. BITZ, University of Washington SHARON E. BURKE, Center for a New American Security (through June 22, 2010) RONALD FILADELFO, Center for Naval Analyses JEFFREY M. GARRETT, Mercer Island, Washington HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., Gainesville, Virginia CATHERINE M. KELLEHER, University of Maryland and Brown University MAHLON C. KENNICUTT II, Texas A&M University RONALD R. LUMAN, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University W. BERRY LYONS, Ohio State University JAMES J. McCARTHY, Harvard University MICHAEL J. McPHADEN, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Solvang, California DAVID J. NASH, Dave Nash & Associates, LLC HEIDI C. PERRY, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. J. MARSHALL SHEPHERD, University of Georgia CHARLES F. WALD, Deloitte Services, LLP DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CARL WUNSCH, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director, Naval Studies Board BILLY M. WILLIAMS, Study Director RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Senior Program Officer MARTA V. HERNANDEZ, Associate Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SEKOU O. JACKSON, Senior Program Assistant SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant iv

OCR for page R1
NAVAL STUDIES BOARD MIRIAM E. JOHN, Livermore, California, Chair DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company, Vice Chair CHARLES R. CUSHING, C.R. Cushing & Co., Inc. SUSAN HACKWOOD, California Council on Science and Technology LEE M. HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University JAMES L. HERDT, Chelsea, Alabama KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services BARRY M. HOROWITZ, University of Virginia JAMES D. HULL, Annapolis, Maryland LEON A. JOHNSON, Irving, Texas EDWARD H. KAPLAN, Yale University CATHERINE M. KELLEHER, University of Maryland and Brown University JERRY A. KRILL, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Textron Systems Corporation JOSEPH PEDLOSKY, Woods Hole, Massachusetts HEIDI C. PERRY, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. GENE H. PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia J. PAUL REASON, Washington, D.C. JOHN E. RHODES, Balboa, California JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia TIMOTHY M. SWAGER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JAMES WARD, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, Gaithersburg, Maryland Navy Liaison Representatives RADM BRIAN C. PRINDLE, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 RADM NEVIN P. CARR, JR., Chief of Naval Research/Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN GEORGE J. FLYNN, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command v

OCR for page R1
Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Senior Program Officer BILLY M. WILLIAMS, Senior Program Officer MARTA V. HERNANDEZ, Associate Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SEKOU O. JACKSON, Senior Program Assistant SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant vi

OCR for page R1
Preface A 2007 report by the CNA Corporation, based on a study conducted by for- mer flag and general officers, concluded that worldwide climate effects could have major consequences for the military.1 In testimony provided before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in May 2007, it was noted that “projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security; climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world; projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world; and climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.”2 More recently the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), conducted internally by the Department of Defense (DOD) to identify military capabilities that could contribute to fulfilling U.S. national security needs, stated that “climate change and energy will play significant roles in the future security environment.”3 The National Academies4 has undertaken a number of completed and recently initiated activities aimed at examining climate change. In particular, in response to Public Law 110-161, the National Academies is undertaking a series of coor- 1Military Advisory Board. 2007. National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, CNA Cor- poration, Alexandria, Va. 2Testimony of ADM Joseph Prueher, USN (Ret.), Member, Military Advisory Board, Center for Naval Analyses Corporation report National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, May 9, 2007. 3Secretary of Defense (Robert M. Gates). 2010. Quadrennial Defense Review, Department of De- fense, Washington, D.C., February, p. xv. 4The National Academies comprises the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. vii

OCR for page R1
viii PREFACE dinated activities—known collectively as America’s Climate Choices (ACC)—to study the serious and sweeping issues associated with global climate change, including the science and technology challenges involved. The ACC studies are an effort to provide advice on the most effective steps and most promising strategies that can be taken to respond to global climate change. In short, the ACC suite of activities will produce a broad, action-oriented, and authoritative set of analyses to inform and guide responses to climate change across the nation.5 Outside of the National Academies, a number of organizations are likewise examining climate change, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which was formed in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations. Since its inception, the IPCC’s function has been to provide assessments of the science of climate change. In 2007, it released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which noted among its many findings that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increase in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.”6 Accordingly, what does climate change mean for the U.S. naval forces (i.e., the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard); and, specifically, what does climate change mean for U.S. naval forces in terms of the national security impli - cations? To understand this question in greater depth and in conjunction with the Navy’s efforts with respect to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) tasked the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and CNA to undertake separate studies.7 The CNAS study, recently completed after a 3-month duration, was aimed at examining the national security implications of climate change through a strategic lens. The CNA study, completed in 2009 after a 6-month duration, focused on the operational implica - tions for the Navy as a result of increased maritime activity in the Arctic region. 8 5The initial four reports from the America’s Climate Choices (ACC) studies are these: National Research Council, 2010, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change, Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, and Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Additional information on the ACC studies is available at http://americasclimatechoices.org. Accessed June 4, 2010. 6See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Sci - ence Basis,” Working Group I contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Susan Solomon, Dahe Qin, Martin Manning, Zhenlin Chen, Melinda Marquis, Kristen B. Averyt, Melinda M.B. Tignor, and Henry LeRoy Miller [eds.]), Cambridge Uni - versity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York. 7During the CNO Executive Board meeting in May 2009, the CNO directed the Oceanographer of the Navy to establish and lead Task Force Climate Change in order to develop a comprehensive ap - proach to guide the Navy’s future public, strategic, and policy discussions. See Vice Chief of Naval Operations (ADM Jonathan W. Greenert, USN), Memorandum 4000 Ser N09/9U103035, “Task Force Climate Change Charter,” Washington, D.C., October 30, 2009. 8See Center for a New American Security, 2008, Uncharted Waters, The U.S. Navy and Navigat- ing Climate Change, Washington, D.C., December; and Michael D. Bowes, 2009, Impact of Climate

OCR for page R1
ix PREFACE In a letter to the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the CNO requested that the Naval Studies Board (NSB) begin a new critical-area study in fiscal year (FY) 2009 examining the global implications of climate change for the naval services.9 In essence, the NSB study would follow on the heels of the CNAS and CNA reports. It would leverage these and other study insights along with the expertise and experience of the National Academies in the area of climate change. Moreover, certain areas from the CNAS and CNA reports either have not been considered or have not been explored in depth because of study duration. These areas are included in the investigation by the NSB in order to provide a thorough assessment of the national security implications of climate change for U.S. naval forces. TERMS OF REFERENCE The letter dated September 12, 2008, from ADM Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, to Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, requested that the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Naval Studies Board (NSB) conduct a comprehensive study on the national security implications of climate change for U.S. naval forces (i.e., the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard), based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assess - ments and other subsequent relevant literature.10 Accordingly, the NRC, under the auspices of its NSB, established the Com - mittee on National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces in September 2009.11 The study’s terms of reference, formulated by the CNO’s staff in consultation with the NSB chair and director, charge the committee to produce two reports over a 15-month period. The first report produced by the committee was a letter report that summarized the immediate challenges in each of the four areas of the terms of reference (see Box P.1). Specifically, the letter report highlighted issues brought to the committee’s attention during its first three meetings that could have potential near-term impacts, impose a need for near-term awareness, or require near-term planning to ensure that longer-term naval capabili- ties are protected. The requested letter report was delivered to the CNO and other naval leadership stakeholders in April 2010.12 After completing its letter report and conducting additional data gather- ing, the committee was requested to produce a comprehensive final report that addresses the full terms of reference. This report—the committee’s second and Change on Naval Operations in the Arctic, CAB D0020034.A3/1REV, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Va., April. 9Letter of request from ADM G. Roughead, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, to Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences, September 12, 2008. 10Ibid. 11Biographical information for the committee and staff is presented in Appendix C. 12 The committee’s letter report is provided in Appendix D.

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE BOX P.1 Terms of Reference—National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces At the request of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council will establish a committee to study the national security implications of climate change for U.S. naval forces (i.e., the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard). Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments and other subsequent relevant literature reviewed by the committee, the study will: 1. Examine the potential impact on U.S. future naval operations and capabilities as a result of climate change (e.g., how will U.S. future naval operations be impacted and what capabilities will be needed for U.S. future naval forces as a result of climate change? This includes an assessment of the U.S. Coast Guard and Marine Corps, and where the U.S. Navy might be required to supplement or augment their capabilities). 2. Assess the robustness of the Department of Defense’s infra- structure for supporting U.S. future naval operations and capabilities in the context of potential climate change impacts (e.g., are there any U.S. military installations and/or forward-deployed bases providing support to U.S. naval forces that are potentially vulnerable as a result of climate change?). 3. Determine the potential impact climate change will have on al- lied force operations and capabilities (e.g., are there any allies who may need U.S. naval force support as a result of climate change? Conversely, which allied force operations and capabilities may U.S. naval forces wish to leverage as a result of climate change?). 4. Examine the potential impact on U.S. future naval antisubmarine warfare operations and capabilities in the world’s oceans as a result of climate change; specifically, the technical underpinnings for projecting U.S. undersea dominance in light of the changing physical properties of the oceans. This 15-month study will produce two reports: (1) a letter report fol- lowing the third full committee meeting that summarizes the immediate challenges for U.S. naval forces in addressing each of the four above areas, as well as recommends approaches to address these challenges; (2) a comprehensive report that addresses in greater depth the full terms of reference.

OCR for page R1
xi PREFACE final report—builds on the near-term challenges identified in the letter report. In total, the committee believes that both reports have responded productively to the CNO’s charge. THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH In addressing its charge, the committee studied a range of issues associated with national security implications of climate change for U.S. naval forces. In addition, the committee reviewed IPCC assessments and other subsequent litera - ture, as well as reference documents from scientific and operational communities. The findings and recommendations in this final report are based on wide-ranging input from experts, both internal and external to the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, and on the committee’s own analysis, which draws on the expertise and experience of its members. The committee first convened in September 2009. After its third full meet - ing, the committee drafted its letter report. The committee went on to convene additional meetings and data-gathering sessions over a period of 7 months, both to gather input from the relevant communities and to discuss its findings and recommendations. A summary of the committee’s meetings is provided below: · September 17-18, 2009, in Washington, D.C. First full committee meeting: Briefings on current climate change and energy-related initiatives from Navy Task Force Climate Change; Navy Task Force Energy; the Navy Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Integration Group; the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Opera- tions for Integration of Capabilities and Resources (N81); the Office of Facilities Branch Head, U.S. Marine Corps; the Office of Environmental Management Section, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; and the Office of Policy Integration, Headquarters, U.S. Coast Guard. Additionally the committee received briefings on recently completed climate-change-related reports by the Center for a New American Security, the CNA, and the National Research Council. · October 19-20, 2009, in Washington, D.C. Second full committee meeting: Briefings on climate-change-related national security issues, naval installation vulnerabilities, and current research activities by representatives from the National Intelligence Council, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Navy Task Force Climate Change, Naval Installations Command, the Office of Naval Research, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Ice Center, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Washington, and the University of Colorado. · November 19-20, 2009, in Washington, D.C. Third full committee meeting. Briefings on human dimensions, allies’ perspectives, water resource issues, and maritime operational perspectives of climate change from Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network; the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security; the British Defence Staff

OCR for page R1
xii PREFACE of the United States British Embassy; the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Plans and Strategy; and the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard. · January 7-8, 2010, in Washington, D.C. Fourth full committee meeting. Briefings on U.S. naval and DOD military prespectives on climate change from Navy Task Force Climate Change, USMC Expeditionary Energy Office, the First Naval Construction Division, Navy QDR Integration Group, and DOD’s Strategic Environmental Research Group; allies’ prespectives from the Office of Defense Research and Development—Embassy of Canada; climate change initiatives and research coordination from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); and coastal vulnerability mapping from the U.S. Geological Survey. · February 4-5, 2010, in Washington, D.C. Fifth full committee meeting. Briefings on climate and disease, allies’ perspectives, climate science, and U.S. Navy and DOD perspectives from the Assistant Surgeon General, Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Academies Institute of Medicine; the Director, General Defence Research and Development—Canada; the United States Joint Forces Command; the Joint Global Change Research Institute; the White House OSTP; the Navy Task Force Climate Change; the Navy QDR Integration Group; and Project MEDEA. · February 25, 2010, in Stennis, Mississippi. Site visit/small group data- gathering session. Briefings on Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Com- mand’s climate-change-related capabilities, perspectives, and plans from Naval Oceanographic Office. · March 5, 2010, in Washington, D.C. Site visit/small group data-gathering session. Briefing on NATO and allied partners’ perspectives on national security and climate change issues, capabilities, and plans by ADM James G. Stavridis, USN, Commander of the United States European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. · March 22-23, 2010, in Washington, D.C. Sixth full committee meeting. Briefings on U.S. Department of State, U.S. naval services, and allies’ perspectives on climate change; U.S. naval services humanitarian assistance and disaster relief response in Haiti; and updated climate science and climate model projections. Briefings received from the Defense Attaché—Royal Norwegian Embassy; Office of the Commander, U.S. Second Fleet; Office of the Commander, Naval Instal- lations Command; Office of the Commander, Fourth Fleet, U.S Navy Southern Command; the Director, Plans, Policy and Operations, USMC Future Operations Group; Navy Task Force Climate Change; Project MEDEA; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. · April 12-16, 2010, in Irvine, California. Seventh full committee meeting. Committee deliberations and report drafting.

OCR for page R1
xiii PREFACE The months between the committee’s last meeting and the publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, gathering additonal information, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the security review needed to produce an unclassified report. The committee believes that it has responded productively to the original task- ing by providing in this final report a comprehensive analysis of the primary issues associated with the national security implications of climate change for U.S. naval forces. The committee thanks the many briefers who presented information essen- tial to the writing of this report. In particular, the committee is grateful to CAPT Timothy Gallaudet, USN, Deputy Director, Navy Task Force Climate Change, and CDR Esther McClure, USN, Head, Energy and Environmental Issues, Navy QDR Integration Group (who has, since the writing of this report, retired from the U.S. Navy and is now serving as the strategy action officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense-Policy)—both of whom helped facilitate the committee’s effort in gathering information related to the study.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: David L. Bradley, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, Rita R. Colwell, University of Maryland, Florence Fetterer, University of Colorado, Paul G. Gaffney II, VADM, USN (Ret.), Monmouth University, James D. Hull, VADM, USCG (Ret.), Annapolis, Maryland, William A. LaPlante, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Pamela A. Matson, Stanford University, Joseph Pedlosky, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and John E. Rhodes, LtGen, USMC (Ret.), Balboa, California. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommenda - tions, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review xv

OCR for page R1
xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS of this report was overseen by Robert A. Frosch, Harvard University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 17 Assumptions for the Report, 18 Climate Change Effects, 19 Implications for National Security, 20 Climate Change, Arctic Claims, and UNCLOS, 25 Naval Forces’ Positioning on Climate Change and Energy, 28 Additional Relevant Climate Change Assessments, 30 Proposed National and Global Frameworks for Climate Services, 31 Risk Management in the Face of Future Climate Change Projections, 32 Organization of the Report, 34 2 NAVAL CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL CLIMATE- CHANGE-RELATED OPERATIONAL ISSUES 36 Introduction, 36 Naval Forces’ Responses to Future Potential Climate-Induced Events, 38 Maintaining Capabilities, 59 Health, Disease, and Climate, 60 3 INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES 63 Naval Infrastructure and Global and Local Sea-Level Rise— Background, 63 Naval Coastal Infrastructure Issues, 73 Current Naval Coastal Vulnerability Studies, 75 xvii

OCR for page R1
xviii CONTENTS 4 ALLIED FORCES’ AND PARTNERS’ ISSUES 79 Immediate Challenges Assessment: Allied Forces’ Climate- Change-Related Issues, 80 Key Geographic “Hot Spot” Projections, Migration Patterns, and Climate Change Impact Assumptions, 82 Preliminary Strategies/Opportunities to Leverage U.S. and Allied Forces and Capabilities, 88 The New “Great Game,” 91 5 CLIMATE-CHANGE-RELATED TECHNICAL ISSUES IMPACTING U.S. NAVAL OPERATIONS 94 Current State of Navigation Systems Infrastructure with Respect to Arctic Navigation, 95 Communication Systems Infrastructure and Performance in Polar Regions, 100 Antisubmarine Warfare, 107 6 FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 114 Introduction, 114 Global Observations, Scientific Analysis, and Modeling in Support of Navy R&D Requirements, 115 The Special Case for Understanding Changes in the Arctic, 125 APPENDIXES A Terms of Reference 131 B Acronyms and Abbreviations 133 C Biographies of Committee Members and Staff 138 D Letter Report to the U.S. Navy 147