Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

You are here: Home / Archives for Issue Center / Environment and Climate Change

Does Climate Change Affect the 2010 NPT RevCon?

In the arms control community, the third pillar of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) — the right to peacefully use nuclear energy — is like the ugly duckling, marginalized while the other two pillars — non-proliferation and disarmament — are more loudly championed.

Nonetheless, the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy technology is an equal pillar of the treaty, and an increasingly important one as the international community struggles to grapple with climate change.

The United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change today released a report that clearly outlines how a carbon-based energy market contributes to climate change:

At the global level, the energy system – supply, transformation, delivery and use – is the dominant contributor to climate change, representing around 60 per cent of total current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

And:

Emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are major contributors to the unpredictable effects of climate change, and to urban air pollution and acidification of land and water.

The report also emphasizes that the energy industry will have to be at the forefront of reform towards more sustainable, responsible, environmentally-friendly technology in order to mitigate against climate-change causing greenhouse gas emissions:

Reducing the carbon intensity of energy – that is, the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy consumed – is a key objective in reaching long- term climate goals. As long as the primary energy mix is biased towards fossil fuels, this would be difficult to achieve with currently available fossil fuel-based energy technologies. Given that the world economy is expected to double in size over the next twenty years, the world’s consumption of energy will also increase significantly if energy supply, conversion and use continue to be inefficient. Energy system design, providing stronger incentives for reduced GHG emissions in supply and increased end-use efficiency, will therefore be critical for reducing the risk of irreversible, catastrophic climate change.

Especially after the failure of COP15 and the resulting Copenhagen Accord to provide binding commitments on the part of States Parties to mitigate against rising greenhouse gas emissions, affected nations might look for rigorous support of nuclear energy at the NPT RevCon.

Moreover, the UN report adds that the push for cleaner energy technologies also comes at a time when the Millennium Development Goals call for universal energy access, especially lacking amongst the world’s poor:

Worldwide, approximately 3 billion people rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating, and about 1.5 billion have no access to electricity. Up to a billion more have access only to unreliable electricity networks. The “energy-poor” suffer the health consequences of inefficient combustion of solid fuels in inadequately ventilated buildings, as well as the economic consequences of insufficient power for productive income-generating activities and for other basic services such as health and education. In particular, women and girls in the developing world are disproportionately affected in this regard.

If the international community designs to both decrease greenhouse gas emissions and expand energy access, then nuclear energy emerges as the least-bad currently available option en route to sustainable energy and away from fossil fuel consumption.

Yes, there are proliferation risks involved in peaceful nuclear energy use.  Yes, there are environmental concerns.  The international community should make every effort to secure nuclear energy facilities while also hastening the move towards other alternatives.

But nuclear energy expansion can be a stepping stone towards those cleaner technologies, a necessary evil that nonetheless should be emphasized and supported as a way to mitigate against climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions, reduce our dependence on fossil fuel consumption, and broaden energy access to all.  

The end goal is still clean technologies that don’t carry proliferation risks, like hydro, solar, and wind.  However, given our competing priorities – tackling climate change, reducing energy poverty, and providing security against proliferation risks – nuclear energy as a necessary evil en route to a global economy that can fully support renewable energy might be our best option.

Draft QDR Offers a Glimpse into the Future of Pentagon Spending

Defense geeks are abuzz: A draft version of the Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) was obtained yesterday by Defense News.  The Pentagon’s major planning document, spearheaded by Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, will shape U.S. defense posture around the globe for the next several years and likely influence the fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget.  

The document “Acknowledges and puts top priority on succeeding in today’s conflicts,” but also places a major emphasis on the balance between “near and longer-term risks.”  It states that the FY 2011 budget will build on FY 2010, placing additional attention on “key lines of investment.”  These include, “our troops and our people” and “how we buy and operate.”

Gone is the focus on fighting two peer militaries simultaneously, which has existed as a pervasive part of the QDR since the 1990s.  The Pentagon will scrap that concept, “in order to prepare the services for a wider and more complex array of security challenges,” notes Jason Sherman.

Spencer Ackerman points out that this new focus is better because it is centered on existing capabilities: “Not on people. Not on states. Not on specific enemies. But on capabilities that hostile actors have demonstrated to use against the United States and its allies.”

In line with previous statements from Secretary Gates, “the Department will continue to look assiduously for savings in less pressing mission and program areas so that more resources can be devoted to filling these gaps.”  This does not indicate, by any means, a cut or reduction in overall Pentagon spending, but does signal a larger focus on those programs that truly benefit the goals of the Department of Defense (DoD), as well as further cuts to those that don’t.

In addition, the document places a greater emphasis than ever before on climate change, noting that, “While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability.”  In the future, climate change will affect the DoD in two ways.  First, it will affect the “operating environment, roles and missions” that are undertaken.  This may involve an increased demand for defense, such as in the case of extreme weather events.  Second, “DoD will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on our facilities and military capabilities,” which may include a change in installations and energy sources.

In further speculation, Ackerman points out that the draft QDR is written as if its authors already know what President Obama’s 2010 National Security Strategy will say.  He points to this quote:

As outlined in the President’s 2010 National Security Strategy, America’s enduring interests are:

  • The security and resiliency of the United States, its citizens and their way of life, and of U.S. allies and partners;
  • A strong and competitive U.S. economy with a leading role in a vibrant and open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity
  • Respect for values such as civil liberties, democracy, equality, dignity, justice, and the rule of law at home and around the world; and
  • An international order underpinned by U.S. leadership and engagement that promotes peace, security, responsibility, and stronger cooperation to meet global challenges, including transnational threats.

    • While this rhetoric is not new, it is certainly a welcome change from President Bush’s more hawkish language on preemptive action.