Analyzing War Magazine | May/Jun 2022

CLIMATE CHANGE AS A STRATEGIC ADVERSARY

Founded in 1975, the Pacific Forum is a non-profit, foreign policy research institute based in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Forum’s programs encompass current and emerging political, security, economic and business issues and works to help stimulate cooperative policies in the Indo-Pacific region through analysis and dialogue undertaken with the region’s leaders in the academic, government, and corporate areas.

We're very happy to announce our partnership with Pacific Forum as we head into 2022!

ENERGY SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

FEATURED SECURITY SCHOLAR LAYLA M. KILOLU

LAYLA M. KILOLU

Layla Kilolu is an economist at the State of Hawaii Public Utilities Commission where she assists the regulatory body in reviewing energy projects for the state. She is also a PhD student in urban and regional planning at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She holds two Bachelors of Arts in International Studies and Spanish Literature from the University of California, Irvine, a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from Pepperdine University, and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

FOREWORD

NEVER OUT OF THE FIGHT

This deep dive edition with Layla Kilolu may be Analyzing War’s last issue for this year as we continue to pivot to what will set us apart over the long term. We identified an important turning point in this journey to make a strategic move that will build on the gains that we made—even with zero budget— and harness technology to truly deliver on our mission, which is to advance knowledge and informed understanding of the Indo-Pacific security.

Building on those gains also comes with a sense of gratitude to our supporters as well as readers from different parts of the world, that even if this platform was a wild card bet in many ways, they encouraged us to learn from this journey, that there’s no other way but forward, and that going forward means to build, measure, and learn. Indeed, we learned a lot because every roadblock, every bump in the road was considered a valuable data point that would otherwise weaken and push others to quit. But we are never out of the fight. We don’t quit. We keep fighting for a better world by building a technology from the ground up that will hopefully turn Analyzing War into a beacon of scholarly truth.

All that being said, we are happy to present Layla’s work on the complex relationship between energy security and climate change, something that demands responsible action from militaries around the world.

One example is the U.S. Navy’s Great Green Fleet that gave rise to hybrid warships that can switch between electric and gas turbine propulsion. But tackling climate change by maintaining energy security is just one pathway because there is also the imminent risk of natural disasters from hurricanes and super-typhoons on a yearly basis, which make climate change-driven HADR operations (humanitarian assistance and disaster response) an urgent but recurring challenge, giving rise to multirole aircraft and warships.

While the challenges posed by climate change and energy security demand urgent action, especially from the armed services, it also requires patient and purposeful efforts that call for hard decisions to wean ourselves from coal and fossil fuels. Some of these efforts will look to technology to allow the world to heal, while some will need the backing of ethical policymakers who will go up against those who would rather take Big Oil’s counsel. At the end of the day, to bequeath a sustainable future to the younger generation is to take patient yet collective action now. It also requires staying power and an entrepreneurial, if not optimistic, mindset that utilizes feedback and bumps in the road as data points to keep iterating towards a sustainable solution. Either way, we all have a stake in each other’s future, and this means putting in our own contribution no matter how small as if it makes a difference. Because it does.

Mark Payumo Mountain View, CA

ENERGY SECURITY CLIMATE CHANGE&

Layla M. Kilolu

On January 28, 2022, President Biden (U.S.) and President von der Leyen (European Union) issued a joint statement as a response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, stating, “We are jointly committed to Europe’s energy security and sustainability and to accelerating the global transition to clean energy.” It is not a brow-raising statement—it sounds rather safe, even cliché. Energy security and sustainability have frequently been put in the same political toolbox to garner support from conservatives and liberals alike. Yet in reality, the pursuit of both energy security and measures to address climate change can lead to contradictions and conflict. In today’s volatile geopolitical context, matters of energy security are heightened, as climate change impacts are increasing at a rapid rate. This article discusses the complex relationship between energy security and climate change and explores whether there are possibilities for a more synergistic relationship between the two. Using the Russia-Ukraine crisis as an illustration, this article begins with a discussion of how

President Biden and President von der Leyen

energy security and climate change are separately defined and framed. It also discusses moments where energy security and climate change intersect, and the conflicts from such interactions. Lastly, it discusses possible approaches where energy security and sustainability can be pursued, or at least ways to move the debate forward in a productive way.

Energy security is defined by various organizations in a diverse number of ways. As an example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy security through the adequacy, affordability, and reliability of energy fuels and services, decreasing dependence on imports and pressures on the environment, competition and market efficiency, reliance on indigenous resources that are environmentally clean, and energy services that are affordable and equitably shared (International Energy Agency, 2019). Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency emphasizes the secure supply of energy fuels, technologies that promote

Moscow Oil Refinery

self-sufficiency and protect against disruptions, diversity of technologies and sources, reduction of threats from other nations, the enabling of well-functioning markets, and improving environmental sustainability. The European Commission defines it as the uninterrupted physical availability of energy products on the market at an affordable price for all consumers. The U.S. Department of Defense defines energy security as the capacity to avoid the adverse impact of energy disruptions caused either by natural, accidental, or intentional events affecting energy and utility supply and distribution systems. The United Nations defines energy security as the protection against shortages of affordable fuel and energy resources. The World Bank defines energy security as access to secure supplies of fuel, a competitive market that distributes those fuels, stability of resource flows and transit points, and efficiency of end-use. The U.S. Agency for International Development defines energy security as the availability of usable energy supplies, at the point of final consumption, in sufficient quantity and timeliness so that, given due regard for encouraging energy efficiency, the economic and social development of the country is not materially constrained.

While these multiple definitions have some threads of commonality, such as access to fuel supply and market efficiency, each definition also emphasizes certain aspects more than others. For example, while the European Commission’s definition entails an uninterrupted availability of affordable energy products, the IEA’s definition is much broader and includes the decreasing dependence on imports. This is important to note because Europe’s dependence on energy imports from non-EU countries such as Russia has put Europe in a vulnerable position. Approximately one-third of Europe’s gas comes from Russia, and as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war, natural gas prices in Europe doubled in a week. If the European Commission can find another source to provide an uninterrupted supply of energy, it will have achieved energy security, according to its own definition. However, its omission of “decreasing dependence” from its definition of energy security does not encourage the weaning off of fuel imports.

Viewpoints of Energy Security

TYPE DEFINITION OF ENERGY ENERGY SECURITY VIEWPOINT

Scientific

Energy is a property of heat, motion, and electrical potential, measurable in respective units (e.g., joules, BTUs). Energy can be neither produced nor consumed, quantity is always conserved, and quality is always declining.

Energy security is a matter of understanding thermodynamics and physics.

Economic

Energy is a commodity (e.g., electricity, coal, oil, and natural gas), traded on the market. Emphasizes the value of choice for consumers and producers and assumes the marketplace allocates choices efficiently. When prices rise, fuel substitutes will be found.

Energy security is a matter of analyzing transactions between buyers and sellers and minimizing external costs.

Ecological

Energy sources are either renewable or non-renewable, clean or polluting, and inexhaustible or depletable. Prioritizes the values of sustainability, frugality, and future choice.

Social Welfare

Energy services are a social necessity, and people have a fundamental right to energy for home heating, cooling, lighting, cooking, transportation, and essential purposes. The central value is social equity.

Energy security is a matter of recognizing that energy resources are finite and interdependent, and that present use can threaten the planet and future generations.

Energy security is a matter of distributing adequate and affordable energy services to all social classes.

Political

Focuses on the geographical location of energy resources, the stability of producing and consuming countries, and availability of fuel substitutes.

Energy security is a key component of national security, and correct policy becomes a matter of maintaining economic vitality and military strength.

Source: Adapted from Sovacool

Within the discourse of energy security, there are competing perspectives and ample opportunities for contradictions. Each perspective is correct in its own way—energy, after all, is a property of heat, while at the same time a commodity, and arguably by most, a social necessity. The underlying issue is that the value placed on each perspective differs based on the agenda. For an environmentalist, the ecological perspective of energy, that it is either clean or polluting, might be more important than the political value placed on energy. Further, for a developing country where industries are highly sensitive to the cost of energy,

the economic value of energy may be more important than its ecological value. And possibly the most widely accepted definition of energy is the social welfare perspective, where energy is seen as a necessity for daily living and should be accessible to all. Under this definition of energy, energy security is seen as energy services being accessible to everyone in society at an affordable price. However, this perspective is often taken for granted in academic discourses as other values, such as political, environmental, and economic are more emphasized. As Sovacool asserts, many of these perspectives are “incommensurable” with each other. For those who value economic growth, which is often accompanied by increased energy use, the expanding economy is enough to justify the use and cost of energy, even if it means increased pollution and adverse effects on human health. For those who view energy as a commodity, companies that supply energy should focus their efforts on distributing their services to areas where they can maximize profits and lower costs, while those who view energy from a social welfare perspective would view the distribution of energy services as necessary to everyone, regardless of the cost of providing that service.

For the purposes of this discussion, this article uses Drexel Kleber’s definition of energy security, which has been used in the context of the U.S. Department of Defense. In 2009, Kleber was the Director of the Strategic Operations Power Surety Task Force of the U.S. Department of Defense and was responsible for developing Department of Defense-wide policy regarding strategies to achieve Executive Order, legislative and regulatory energy efficiency mandates. According to Kleber, energy security is “the capacity to avoid the adverse impact of energy disruptions caused either by natural, accidental or intentional events affecting energy and utility supply and distribution systems.” Kleber’s description of energy security provides a framework where fuel, power production/distribution systems, and end-user devices possess five characteristics: surety, survivability, supply, sufficiency and sustainability. This model is useful as it reflects how energy security is perceived from a defense standpoint.

Source: Kleber, 2009

Surety

Elements of Energy Security

A condition that provides access to energy and fuel sources

Survivability Energy and fuel sources are resilient and durable in the face of potential damage

Supply

An identified and available source of energy, whether it is traditional fossil fuels, alternative energy (nuclear, clean coal, biomass, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, hydrogen) or renewable energy (ecological sources such as hydropower, geothermal/pressure, wind, tidal and solar)

Sufficiency There is an adequate quantity of power and fuel from a variety of sources

Sustainability

Operating practices can be perpetuated by limiting demand, reducing waste and effectively utilizing alternative energy and renewable resources to the maximum extent possible

Source: Kleber, 2009

Kleber acknowledges the military’s need for a holistic approach to energy security; instead of focusing on just one or two of the elements above, all of the elements should be pursued. For example, energy supplies in current military installations lack survivability and sustainability, and contingency plans lack sufficiency and surety. Therefore, a more holistic viewpoint of energy infrastructure and energy use should be taken. The five S’s—surety, survivability, supply, sufficiency, and sustainability—offer a holistic approach to viewing energy security.

THREE PERSPECTIVES ON ENERGY IN THE U.S.

The value of energy, and thus, energy security, will vary from country to country, and even within each country there will be competing values. In the U.S., for example, three distinct perspectives were identified during the 1970s Oil Crisis when oil supply was in high demand and prices soared, creating economic stagnation and political unrest. Some believed that the crisis was a “supply” issue and wanted to see more energy produced to avoid a future crisis, that energy resources were inexhaustible, and that government intervention was

harmful and disruptive to the free market (Orr, 1979). Furthermore, the priority for the first group was to achieve an abundant supply of cheap energy and reduce the risk of interrupting that supply. The second group approached the crisis from a “conservation” perspective, where energy usage was seen as a technical problem to solve — finding energy efficiency measures through research and technology would alleviate energy demands and therefore reduce the possibility of future energy crises. The final perspective, coined by Orr as the “energetics,” viewed the energy problem as a social issue that reflected an energy system that was incompatible with a democratic and more egalitarian society. The priorities of those who identified with this perspective included moving away from practices that were extractive, polluting, and detrimental to community cohesion. Due to these diverse perspectives, the oil crisis of the 1970s moved the public in different and opposing ways. For example, while environmentalists (“energetics”) viewed the oil crisis as a way to highlight environmental concerns and discourage oil consumption, others saw the crisis as an opportunity to find other ways to increase and secure America’s oil supply.

Oil crisis in the 1970's

In other countries, likely diverse perspectives exist when contemplating energy security. Unlike the United States, which has its own oil reserves and resources to pursue ocean extraction or Arctic exploration, these other countries may be limited in their energy options. It would make sense for the Middle East to use its plentiful oil reserves for its energy needs while Russia uses its natural gas resources. Countries that have no energy resources must procure energy from friendly allies or the very least, tolerant business partners. Usually, countries are price-sensitive and seek out the lowest cost for energy. Particularly for hard-toreach places, like island-nations, the lowest cost energy source is coal (which happens to be the dirtiest energy source), that needs to be shipped via marine transportation. This is expensive, time-consuming, and makes for higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions when considering the full lifecycle.

Coal power plant in the Baqiao district of Xi'an, China

THE IMPACTS AND THREATS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) most recent report released in February 2022,1 the world is currently experiencing climate change; that is, we are facing unavoidable climate hazards over the next 20 years with global warming of 1.5°C (2.7°F). While climate change impacts have often been viewed from an ecological or environmental perspective, the impacts of climate change will also touch every aspect of human society. People’s health, lives, livelihoods, and property and critical infrastructure, including energy and transportation systems, are being increasingly adversely affected by extreme weather events and slow-onset changes, such as sea level rise. To put this into perspective, since 2008, devastating floods and storms have forced more than 20 million people from their homes each year, and at least 50 percent of the global population faces water insecurity at least one month per year (WRI, 2022). Higher temperatures also enables the spread of vector-borne diseases, such as West Nile virus, Lyme disease and malaria, and water-borne diseases like cholera.

Aftermath of Super Typhoon Haiyan

Increased heatwaves, droughts, and floods are already exceeding the tolerance thresholds for flora and fauna, driving mass mortalities in species such as trees and corals (IPCC, 2022). These weather extremes occur simultaneously, causing cascading impacts that are increasingly difficult to manage. They have exposed millions of people to acute food and water insecurity, especially in the developing world—Africa, Asia, and Latin America (IPCC, 2022). For example, the ten costliest typhoons in the Philippines occurred between the years of 2009 to 2021, with Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) costing US$ 2.2 billion in damages. Meanwhile, wildfires are scorching larger areas than ever in many regions, leading to irreversible changes to the landscape (WRI, 2022). In Brazil, wildfires reached a decade high in 2020, while Nepal endured one of the worst wildfire seasons in 2021 (UNEP, 2022). Indirect threats include health problems associated with smoke, smog, and greenhouse gas releases from burned natural landscapes. These factors also cause disruptions to businesses, education, and transportation systems.

Source: Agence France-Presse (AFP), 2021

Source: Agence France-Presse (AFP), 2021

What is also not as readily discussed in popular discourse is the financial and economic impacts of climate change. According to one of the largest insurance companies in the world, if global temperatures increase as much by 2.6 degrees by 2050 based on current trajectories, economies around the globe will shrink.

For example, the economy of the U.S. would be as much as seven percent smaller than in a world without climate change (SwissRe, 2021). Other wealthy Western nations, including Canada, Britain, and France, could lose between six to 10 percent of their potential economic output. For less developed nations, which tend to be more exposed to warmer temperatures but have less ability to adapt their infrastructure and economies in response, the consequences would be far direr. Even if the increase in global temperature is held to two degrees Celsius, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand would each see economic growth 20 percent below what they could otherwise expect by 2050 (SwissRe, 2021). At an even higher temperature of 2.6 degrees, each country would have 30 percent less wealth than would otherwise be the case. Reversing climate change, therefore, also secures the economic stability of the world.

President Joe Biden participates in a virtual meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate

UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE SECURITY

Now that climate change and its impacts have been revisited, it is time to turn our attention toward the term, “climate security” and thereafter find its linkages with energy security. According to scholars in the field, climate security is referred to as, “the condition where people, communities, and states have the capacity to manage stresses emerging from climate change and variability” (Dellmuth, et al., 2018). Society’s approaches to “security” often refer to responses involving violent and direct intentional acts. But in the context of climate change, the potential effects of climate change on security depend not only on the magnitude of climate change but on context-based vulnerabilities related to water and energy infrastructure, interdependencies in supply chain of key commodities, social and political institutions, and ultimately, societies’ ability to adapt to changing conditions (Dellmuth, et al., 2018).

UN Security Council meeting on Climate and Security

McDonald (2013) systematically maps out discourses in climate security into four different elements: ecological security, human security, national security, and international security. This conceptual framework allows us to better understand the nuances of what climate security means and how climate security can be achieved. First, ecological security within the context of climate is the idea that there are “dynamic equilibriums” that must be maintained to achieve stability. These dynamic equilibriums include the balance between human development and consumption with the ability of nature to provide and replenish its resources and the balance between human populations and the populations of other plants and animals. Putting this into context, during the 2019–2020 wildfire crisis in Australia, nearly three billion animals were killed or displaced, while 100 plant species had their entire populations burned (WRI, 2022).

Elements of Climate Security

Ecological security

Environmental/Biosphere instability (droughts, extreme weather events); resource depletion (e.g., water); species and habitats at risk of loss or extinction

Human security Human lives; livelihoods; cultures; and values at risk of loss or extinction

National security

International security

Increase in conflicts (e.g., civil wars, rebellions, anarchy); migration (e.g., refugees); threats to sovereignty and economic interests

Increase in conflicts (e.g., global wars, terrorism); migration (e.g., refugees); threats to global stability

Source: McDonald, 2013

Human security within the context of climate security is the situation in which, “individuals and communities have the options necessary to end, mitigate, or adapt to threats to their human, environmental and social rights; have the capacity and freedom to exercise these options; and actively participate in pursuing these options” (Barnett et al., 2010). To put this into perspective, the IPCC report (2022) states, “Increasing weather and climate extreme events have exposed millions

of people to acute food insecurity and reduced water security, with the largest impacts observed in many locations and/or communities in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, Small Islands and the Arctic.” These sudden losses of food production and access to food compounded by decreased diet diversity have increased malnutrition in many communities, especially for Indigenous Peoples, small-scale food producers, and low-income households, with children, elderly people, and pregnant women particularly impacted (IPCC, 2022).

U.S.-Mexico Border Crossing apprehension in 2019

National security within the context of climate security is the perspective where climate change is perceived as a threat to the extent that it precipitates military threats, undermines national sovereignty and economic growth, or undermines the nation-state’s “culture” (McDonald, 2013). For example, the U.S. Department of Defense had defined climate change as a possible type of “environmental security threat” that undermined the department’s ability to prepare for or carry out the National Security Strategy or create instabilities that can threaten America’s national security (Floyd, 2010). While there are legitimate concerns regarding the management of climate impacts on a national level, some scholars find that the emphasis on national security discourse can have drawbacks. For example, people displaced by environmental disasters or stressors may be positioned as threats to the security of the state rather than as those in need of being secure (Campbell, 2008). For instance, seeking to develop more effective border control strategies to ensure that large populations displaced by manifestations of climate change (from rising sea levels or extreme weather events) could be kept on the other side of the national border (Schwartz & Randall, 2003).

Lastly, international security within the context of climate security emphasizes the need for internationalism in response to climate change threats and a central role in global cooperation (McDonald, 2013). Indeed, as it will take all nations to work together in alignment with each other to stabilize the climate, climate change impacts are also already affecting relationships between nations. According to the IPCC (2022), climate change has caused displacement and involuntary migration from extreme weather and climate events, which, in turn, has perpetuated vulnerability. Vulnerability is higher in locations with poverty, limited access to basic services and resources, violent conflict, and high levels of climate-sensitive livelihoods such as farming (IPCC, 2022). Further, the World Bank forecasts that climate change could drive 216 million people to migrate within their own countries by 2050, with hotspots of internal migration emerging as soon as 2030, spreading and intensifying thereafter (2022).

While the knowledge of climate security continues to expand, it is still a relatively new subfield of the climate change literature, and scholarship acknowledges that more research needs to be done. Internationally, we still know little about what works for several climate security risks, such as internal conflicts and existential threats that some countries confront, such as small island nations rapidly disappearing into the ocean (Busby, 2021).

FINDING SYNERGIES BETWEEN ENERGY SECURITY & CLIMATE SECURITY

While both energy security and climate security are increasingly used for theoretical policy design and political agenda-setting, the truth is that in practice, more emphasis and priority have been given to energy security measures. The most recent international climate negotiations held in Glasgow, Scotland in 2022

U.N. Climate Change Conference COP26

(COP26) reflect the tension between energy security and climate security. The ultimate decision for the language to be changed from “phasing out” coal to “phasing down” coal was a direct example of how countries prioritized energy security over climate security. While most countries understood the gravity of the climate crisis and pledged to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, at the eleventh hour, two countries that were heavily reliant on cheap energy (coal), were able to convince the parties of the agreement to change the language so that coal could still be used for the indefinite future. While this move was infuriating for more progressive countries, this situation shows the reality that many countries in the global south are dependent on cheap energy to power their economies. Indeed, it seems unfair for these developing countries do not have the opportunity to build their economies in the same way developed nations have done in the past.

The prioritization of energy security exists for a variety of reasons. One obvious reason is that energy supply is an immediate and ubiquitous need. People cannot go about their daily lives without an adequate energy supply. Society is highly dependent on energy--for cooking, transportation, working in offices, or scrolling on smartphones. Meanwhile, climate change remains an abstract issue for many people, with anomalies such as extreme weather events being the more visible manifestations. It is difficult to fight what seems to be an invisible monster, and for those aware of the gravity of climate change, it is sometimes too overwhelming to dwell on. As disaster risk research has shown, people do not adequately prepare for disasters until it is too late, and the same could be said about climate change.

Another reason for the prioritization of energy security over climate security is economic reasons. Countries and companies are profiting from fossil fuel

production, and this profit directly impacts their economies. Further, many large energy infrastructure projects, such as power plants, are reliant on fossil fuels, and retiring them earlier than expected might entail a profit loss. Transitioning from these large-scale infrastructure projects and supply chains that have been in existence for years, to clean, renewable energy sources are expensive, burdensome, and arguably, can be seen as disruptive to communities.

The time to prioritize climate security is now. Through the lens of climate security, energy security should be pursued, not the other way around. In other words, climate security must be the priority from which all other necessities such as energy security are aligned. How could we pursue energy security from the vantage point of prioritizing climate security? One way is by grounding the discussion with the elements of climate security, which McDonald (2013) had outlined, and combining the elements of Kleber’s energy security framework (2009) to frame the pursuit of energy security. From the ecological, human, national, and international security elements of climate security, energy security can be considered in a new light. For example, the “sustainability” definition of energy security would include the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and pursuing carbon neutrality goals, which is currently missing in the energy security framework. In pursuit of human security through energy approaches, there can be a focus on ensuring that all people have access to clean and resilient energy sources. In addition, replacing the definition of “renewable energy” with “clean energy” would remove energy sources that are technically renewable but are not beneficial for the environment, such as waste-to-energy projects (i.e., burning waste for fuel). New metrics to assess energy security in the context of climate will need to be created, which reflect the values that align with deep decarbonization. Even so, this approach will have unforeseen consequences, such as the expansion of nuclear energy.

Aligning Energy Security with Climate Security

ECOLOGICAL SECURITY

• Surety - Avoiding ecologically significant areas to place energy infrastructure

• Survivability - Infrastructure does not threaten wildlife

• Supply - Energy used will be clean and most efficient

• Sufficiency - Diverse energy sources avoid harming ecosystems

• Sustainability - Energy infrastructure and sources are regenerative, carbon negative, and have a symbiotic relationship with the environment

ECOLO

NATIONAL SECURITY

• Surety - Countries ensure access to energy sources

• Survivability - Energy infrastructure is resilient in the face of threats

• Supply - Countries produce their own energy as much as possible

• Sufficiency - Countries produce sufficient amounts of energy

• Sustainability - Countries produce clean and renewable energy

NATIO

URITY HUM RITY

HUMAN SECURITY

• Surety - Everyone has access to energy and the energy economy benefits society

• Survivability - Everyone has access to energy after a disaster or other event

• Supply - Everyone has consistent access to energy

• Sufficiency - Everyone has sufficient access to energy

• Sustainability - Everyone uses energy that is sustainable and clean

ECURITY

URITY

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

• Surety - Countries work together in providing access to energy autonomously

• Survivability - Countries work together to create resilient energy infrastructure

• Supply - Countries work together to help create clean and renewable energy globally

• Sufficiency - Countries have sufficient energy

• Sustainability - Countries have sustainable energy

National security and international security can also be pursued through new ways of pursuing energy security. For example, countries can work on increasing their own clean energy sources, decreasing their dependence on energy from other countries. Through international agreements, they can collaborate to build the infrastructure needed to increase their energy resilience. Intergovernmental organizations, through their transboundary nature, can help coordinate efforts and are essential for preserving human, national, and international security (Dellmuth, et al., 2018).

CONCLUSION

While both energy security and climate change are seen as high priorities for many countries, the fact is that these two aspirations are also in direct contradiction with each other. The pursuit of policies toward energy security is highly contextual as it depends on each country’s current energy situation. Meanwhile, the pursuit of policies toward climate change is also highly contextual as it depends on the country’s economic situation and political will. Thus, pursuing both energy security and climate change can have contradictory outcomes. While climate change is a “tragedy of the commons” issue that requires all nations to work together, energy security is often pursued on a national or subnational level. Both require major transformative shifts in infrastructure investment, regulation of markets, and legal frameworks. Both have environmental impacts and land use tradeoffs. Yet with the urgency of climate change and ongoing global conflicts threatening energy supplies worldwide, the urgency to pursue climate security is now. Energy security can and must be pursued from a climate security perspective for our future generations of people and natural resources.

The military sector has a unique role to play in advancing energy security. As a large energy producer and consumer, it can pursue demand reduction projects through the use of advanced technology and personnel management programs (Kleber, 2009). This approach is the least expensive energy conservation measure and would serve as the foundation on which all energy security measures would be pursued. In addition, the military sector can pursue cutting-edge technologies that can efficiently distribute, control, and manage the flow of electricity (Kleber, 2009). Some of these technologies may not be readily available to other sectors, so the military can lead the way in developing these technologies that produce clean energy, which can help other sectors to follow suit. Lastly, the military sector can pursue the diversification of its energy supply using clean energy sources.

NOTES 1

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Me teorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide political leaders with periodic scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies. In the same year the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by the WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC. It has 195 member states (IPCC, 2022).

REFERENCES

Almeida, Isis et al. “Europe Risks Another Energy Crisis Without Mandatory Reserves.” 16 February 2022. Bloomberg News. Web. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-16/europe-risksanother-energy-crisis-without-mandatory-reserves.

Bang, Guri. “Energy Security and Climate Change Concerns: Triggers for Energy Policy Change in the United States?” Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 4, Elsevier Ltd, 2010, pp. 1645–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.045.

Busby, Joshua W. “Beyond Internal Conflict: The Emergent Practice of Climate Security.” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 58, no. 1, SAGE Publications, 2021, pp. 186–94, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320971019.

Cook, Lorne and Samuel Petrequin. “EU takes major step toward Russian oil ban, new sanctions.” AP News. 4 May 2022.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-global-trade-moscoweurope-c6c7a1960b88c363ce5f3eaf0ea07dcd.

Flavelle, Christopher. “Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns.” 4 November 2021. New York Times. Web. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/climate/climate-change-economy. html.

IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.001 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ ar6/wg2/resources/press/press-release/.

“Joint statement by President von der Leyen and President Biden on U.S.EU cooperation on energy security.” European Commission website. 28 January 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ STATEMENT_22_664.

Dellmuth, Lisa M., et al. “Intergovernmental organizations and climate security: Advancing the research agenda.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 9.1 (2018): e496.

Kleber, Drexel. “The US Department of Defense: valuing energy security.” Journal of Energy Security 2.3 (2009). Web. http://www.ensec.org/index. php?option=com_content&id=196:the-us-department-.

McDonald, Matt. “Discourses of Climate Security.” Political Geography, vol. 33, Elsevier Ltd, 2013, pp. 42–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.01.002.

Murray, Brian, and Martin Ross. “The Lieberman–Warner America’s climate security act: a preliminary assessment of potential economic impacts.” Policy Brief NI PB 704 (2007).

Orr, David W. “U.S. Energy Policy and the Political Economy of Participation.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 41, no. 4, Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 1027–56, https://doi.org/10.2307/2129732.

Robert E. Looney. Handbook of Transitions to Energy and Climate Security. Taylor and Francis, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315723617. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_tmVDQAAQBAJ&oi =fnd&pg=PT17&dq=energy+%22climate+security%22&ots=-YpwmJd

rta&sig=eYroB3ZSg16u_47T404FdfEvpDY#v=onepage&q=energy%20 %22climate%20security%22&f=false.

Schwartz, Peter, and Doug Randall. An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. 2003.

Sovacool, Benjamin K., ed. The Routledge handbook of energy security. London: Routledge, 2011.

Swiss Re Institute The economics of climate change: no action not an option. Web. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/ climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-economics-ofclimate-change.html.

Tatarenko, Oleksiy. “Europe Must Go Renewable to Escape Energy and Climate Crisis.” 22 February 22, 2022. RMI. Web. https://rmi.org/europe-must-gorenewable-to-escape-energy-and-climate-crisis/.

United Nations Environmental Programme. As climate changes, world grapples with a wildfire crisis. 9 March 2022. Web.https://www.unep.org/news-andstories/story/climate-changes-world-grapples-wildfire.

World Bank. Climate Change Overview. Web. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview#1.

FEATURED SECURITY SCHOLAR

LAYLA M. KILOLU

Mark Payumo

Climate change as a strategic adversary was an idea that led me to meet Layla. She is more American than I am as she was raised in the United States, but we both trace our roots to the Philippines. Thus, it was a natural impulse for us to seek a fact-finding research fellowship on climate change with the Carnegie Council of New York where we both got accepted and eventually sent to Manila to gather data and inspiration for our research ideas.

We found that it is true that the Philippines barely contributes to carbon emissions worldwide, but it is hammered by climate change-driven super-typhoons every year. It is also true that numbers don’t lie and that solid scientific data exist as evidence that climate change is real, but climate activism appears to be losing to Big Oil’s lobbyists in Washington and capitals around the world. This begs a deeper question on how climate awareness is reaching ordinary Filipinos and whether this awareness translates to environmentally sensitive behavior on the individual level. Without this awareness that fosters a sense of stewardship for the environment, it is no small wonder why advocating for climate policies is struggling to gain traction.

Climate policies that are driven by popular awareness and a sense of environmental stewardship translate to leadership. Leadership with popular support is not only empowered to create jobs that are friendly to the environment but sufficient to move the needle towards breaking Big Oil’s will to keep denying that climate change is real. In the end, this is what an ideal world can offer, but we live in a world that’s far from ideal. As Layla and I also learned from our fact-finding research trip to Manila in the fall of 2018, change is not only difficult but slow. In my view, this is made slower by losing daily to entropy, as the majority of Filipinos are preoccupied with getting by on a daily basis that reverses any substantial gains even after spending precious taxpayer resources. This could explain why graduate degrees in sustainable development, both local and foreign, gained popularity among Filipino professionals in recent years.

It is admirable for these professionals to stake their future for something that could prove to be a long shot given how innovation in energy security is not particularly robust in Southeast Asia, especially in the Philippines. But they remain to be our best bet who will focus on this problem area and usher in

meaningful change down the road. It is our hope that Layla’s expertise in urban and regional planning will contribute to how these professionals will chart our future in order to tackle climate change and energy security effectively. These professionals who are concerned about the environment with an eye towards sustainable development also include military service members. This reflects awareness of the problem potentially across all sectors of Philippine society, but it is important to note that the military as the biggest consumer of energy is also taking notice—that alone is progress.

Finally, feel free to reach out to Layla if she is a resource person that you might want to consider for your institution or research. She is an economist for the state of Hawaii while currently finishing her PhD at the University of Hawaii in Manoa (UH). Layla holds an MBA from Pepperdine and a master’s degree in urban and regional planning at UH. You can also find her on LinkedIn.

AW: What do you think is the most concerning problem that we have right now in relation to energy security and climate change?

Layla: The most concerning problem I observe is that the climate change projections are looking very stark, according to the most recent IPCC report. Meanwhile, there are still efforts globally to expand fossil fuel-dependent infrastructure, which will be in service for at least two decades. The tension between energy security and climate change needs to be addressed based on the most urgent priority, which will take every country working together.

AW: Congratulations for hurdling your first two years in your PhD program and finally moving forward with your dissertation research! Can you share with us what we can look forward to learning from your dissertation?

Layla: We understand that the path to clean energy, while noble, is not a smooth journey. While people might theoretically support the concept of renewable energy, in practice, people might be less supportive of it if the infrastructure

affects them directly - for example, if a wind farm were to be placed in their vicinity. My research attempts to better understand the ways that communities can be compensated for hosting such infrastructure. My goal is that this research will help us better design policies and processes that help facilitate society towards clean energy while improving the well-being of our communities.

AW: What made you decide to pursue a PhD in the first place? And why a fiveyear PhD, and not three years in another country like the UK or Australia?

As a second-generation Filipino-American woman, I felt it important that women like me pursue their education and contribute to the knowledge that eventually shapes policy. My PhD program is taking me much longer to finish since I am also working a full-time job as an economist at the State of Hawaii. It is a huge privilege to pursue an education, and I have always had to work in order to pursue my education. I do not mind working hard, as those values have been instilled upon me by my cultural heritage and family values.

AW: What is your favorite book and why?

Layla: My favorite book right now is called The Properties of Perpetual Light by Julian Aguon who is an indigenous human rights lawyer from Guam. It is a small and mighty book that consists of poems and short stories that I resonate with from my islander background.

AW: Let's talk about music! What type of music speaks to your soul?

Layla: My favorite type of music right now is contemporary jazz! I am enjoying Portico Quartet, Robert Glasper, and Alan Pasqua.

When evil men plot, Good men must plan.

When evil men burn and bomb, Good men must build and bind.

When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, Good men must commit themselves to the glories of love.

Where evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, Good men must seek to bring into being A real order of justice.

Martin Luther King, Jr.