Joe Biden, U.S. Senator for Delaware

SEN. BIDEN:  The hearing will come to order.

And let me begin by saying we're honored to have the chairman of the Environment Committee here today, Senator Barbara Boxer, who has been in the lead on this issue of climate control in the Senate this -- not just this particular session, but because she chairs this committee front and center, and -- not this committee, chairs that committee.  We're happy to, as a member of this committee, to have her here this morning in sort of dual capacities.

And I'm going to make an opening statement -- it's a little longer than I usually do -- and then yield to Senator Lugar.

But with Senator Lugar's permission, maybe if you have an opening comment, Senator Boxer, because this is something that is of such interest to you in your other -- wearing your other hat.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA):  Well, Mr. Chairman, I am so proud, as you know, to be a member of this committee.  Both you and Senator Lugar are a dynamic duo.  And you're proving it yet again today with this hearing, which, if you asked many people, they wouldn't get the connection between the crisis -- the potential crisis we're facing on global warming and national security.  But as we'll learn today, there's a real nexus here.

I appreciate being called on first because at 10:00 I have a hearing right down the hall at EPW about this very issue.

So let me just put my whole statement in the record and ask for about two or three minutes if I might.

SEN. BIDEN:  (Off mike.)

SEN. BOXER:  Okay.

I also, Mr. Chairman, want to thank you personally and publicly for going on the Sanders-Boxer global warming bill.  This is a bill that was really written by our great former colleague Senator Jeffords, the most far-reaching global warming bill in the Senate.  I urge Senator Lugar to take a good look at it, because what it does is it meets -- really meets the threat head-on.  It's the one that follows the scientists' recommendations in terms of what we need to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save this planet, which I think is a moral and spiritual responsibility.

Well, clearly, we live in a time when numerous threats pose risks to our great nation.  Every day we see it.  We saw it yesterday over at Fort Dix.  We have these threats from terrorism, ongoing conflict, geopolitical instability.  And here we have another threat, I say to my colleagues.

Global warming poses a threat to our overall well-being.  And the report we'll hear about today is not the first time we've heard that global warming and national security are related.  And I just want to make a couple of quick points.

In '03 -- '03 -- the Department of Defense commissioned a report on this very subject, agreeing that unchecked global warming could create a large refugee population, shortages of food and water, and eventually lead to widespread conflict between nations.

Now, I have to admit, in '03, I didn't pay enough attention. I'll be completely honest here.  It wasn't until we began reading more and more about it and Al Gore came forward with "An Inconvenient Truth" -- and it is inconvenient.  It is inconvenient to have to pay attention to this subject because we have so much else on our plate.

And that's why I commend you so much for it.

The IPCC report -- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- issued in March underscored the fact that global warming could have national security and world security implications.  In Asia alone, fresh water shortages could affect more than a billion people by 2050. In Africa, by 2020, up to 250 million people could face shortages of fresh water.

You know, in California, we have what we call "water wars."  If you know the history of California, really all of the development took place -- and I know both of you spend a lot of time in Southern California.  If you saw the movie "Chinatown," you get a little flavor of what really drove development -- fights over water.  And there's a book written called "Cadillac Desert" about California, which basically made the point of how much we depend on water.

Now, if you look at worldwide shortages of water -- droughts and the like -- we know that these shortages could cause conflicts and could have severe, severe consequences.

So I go through in my statement, which will be printed in the record, a number of other problems that we face beside droughts.  We know that there'll be different kinds of problems with vectors.  We'll have political instability.  We'll have famine -- more famine than we have now.

But here's the good news:  We can act with hope, not fear.  And I think the fact that you're looking at this today gives me even more hope because this is how I approach global warming, is hope not fear.

The last IPCC report said there is much we can do starting today. And they lay that out.  We don't have to wait for some magic technology of the future.  We don't have to wait for China to move. Since when do we wait for China before the greatest country in the world, America, does the right thing and leads the world with these technologies which everyone will import?  We'll have "green-collar" jobs and the world will once again look to us.

So I am so grateful to both of you for holding this hearing.  I thank you very much.

And Mr. Chairman, again, for going on the bill, for doing all this work, you have my deep gratitude.

Thank you very much.

SEN. BIDEN:  Thank you, Senator.

Gentlemen, thanks for your patience.  We're going to each make an opening statement.  Then we'll yield to you gentlemen for your statements.

Let me reiterate what Senator Boxer just said.

Under the leadership of Senator Lugar -- and I want to make it clear:  Senator Lugar, who -- we were having a discussion a couple years ago -- pointed out that he thought his committee should be focusing -- without any encouragement from me or anyone else -- focusing on the energy crisis's impact upon our foreign policy.  And Senator Lugar started a series of hearings as chairman, and continues them now as essentially the co-chairman of this committee, focused on the national security threats that flow from out country's dependence on imported oil.

And -- but we've moved beyond that now, and as he has as well. And we have -- we've paid a very high price over the decades, not just financially but also to our -- the security of our -- the lifeblood -- insecurity in the lifeblood of our economy.  That is oil.

The hearings we held and the cold, hard facts they illuminated have begun to change the debate.  We're no longer simply asking, as you three gentlemen well know -- we're no longer simply asking what it takes to secure oil from foreign sources.  We're asking new questions now.

How do we move away from oil?  How and how soon can we develop alternative technologies that can loosen the grip of the "axis of oil" on our economy and on our foreign policy?  And how, in short, can we achieve real energy security?

This morning, we'll have a chance -- we'll have a chance to change another very closely related debate, and that is how we talk about climate change.

I have quoted a number of times the report that Senator Boxer referred to -- in 2003 by the Defense Department.  And quite frankly, when I started quoting it in '04, I don't think people really believed me.  When I'd be out around my state, around the country and involved in speeches to councils on foreign relations and things like that -- (laughs) -- and I'd quote it, and people would literally glaze over it like, "You mean, what do you really mean?  There's a prospect that how we deal with global warming and our failure to deal with it could actually cause wars?"  I mean, it literally was met with disbelief.

So I realized I should start literally taking the report with me. But even that didn't seem to get much attention.

And so we're here to discuss now what has become much more apparent -- an important new report by the Center for Naval Analyses Corporation: "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change."

With us are three very, very senior members of this Military Advisory Board responsible for this study.  And the real contribution of this report will be, I hope, to change the way we think about global warming, to add a whole new dimension to our discussions about global warming as a new and very different national security challenge.

It will change the way we calculate the risk we face and the way we calculate the cost and benefits of our energy and climate policies.

I want to welcome the witnesses today, who I'll speak to in just a moment.  But their very distinguished careers in the military -- all retired -- Admiral Joseph Prueher, who is a U.S. Navy retired, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command and former U.S. ambassador to China; Rear Admiral Richard H. Truly, U.S. Navy retired, former NASA administrator, shuttle astronaut, first commander of the Naval Space Command; and General Charles F. Wald, U.S. Air Force retired, former deputy commander, headquarters U.S. European Command.

I'm afraid those brief introductions are going to even begin to do credit to the contributions you've made to your country already and the outstanding service you're continuing to perform.  But I do want to just acknowledge the incredible service you've provided over the decades.  And I think maybe the service you're providing now may be among the most important that you provided.

The report you have brought to us is striking, in my view, in several ways -- first, its position on the science.  Comprised of retired flag and general officers from all four services, the advisory board brought to this task many combined decades of experience in analyzing risks.  The intelligence they used in their uniform careers to assess the threats facing this country range from atomic physics to, quite literally, rocket science.

They understand the need for the best available technical information.  They also understand the need to make decisions in the absence of absolutely mathematical certainty when asked to make decisions.

Here, in the words of one of the members of the board not with us today, General Gordon Sullivan, former chief of staff of the Army, and I quote: "We never have 100 percent certainty.  We never have it.  And if you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield," end of quote.

Well, this report moves beyond the paralyzing debate over 100 percent scientific certainty.  The authors have seen that the science is robust and convincing.  Their conclusions call for action.

Second, I was struck by the clarity of the connections between the predictable effects of global warming and the human actions that we know will follow.  The report warns us to expect profound shifts in the fundamental building blocks of nations and of economies.

Climate change will reduce the access to fresh water, impair food production, spread disease, erode coasts and increase flooding, displacing millions if not tens of millions, of people.

Then the report shows us the consequences.  Throughout human history, disruptions on this scale almost always and everywhere meant war.  In those nations already on the brink, governments will lack the capacity to cope.  When that happens, we will either be drawn in early to mitigate the worst of the climate effects, or we will be drawn in later as a nation, when a conflict has destabilized those countries.

This report shows how global warming will become a threat multiplier for instability and push failing states over the edge.  And it also shows why delay, indifference and inaction is simply no longer an option.

Finally, I was struck by the positive, mission-oriented response of this report.  Here are some of the report's recommendations.

Our national intelligence estimate -- which we refer to up here as the NIE -- our national intelligence estimates should, as recommended, account for the threat of climate change.  Senator Hagel has been a leader on this matter.  I and others on this committee have joined him and Senator Durbin on their legislation, calling for the incorporation of climate change into these national intelligence estimates.

Secondly, our defense strategy should also address the effects of climate change, as should our Quadrennial Defense Review.  We know the threat and our plans must reflect it.

The report calls for stronger national and international efforts by the United States to stabilize climate change.  That means cutting deals that cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Senator Lugar and I, along with two dozens of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, hope the Senate will soon be able to take up and pass our resolution calling for the return of U.S. leadership in global climate negotiations.

The assessment of this report is that our current efforts are not adequate for the threat we face.  There's much more to be explored here.  So I want to get to the testimony of our distinguished panel, and to our discussions.

But I'll close with this:  Climate, energy, national security -- these are all facets of the same single challenge.  A strong domestic and international response that increases our energy security, that slows, stops and reverses the buildup of greenhouse gases -- that policy -- that policy -- will make us more secure.

Absent -- absent such a policy, we will be less secure -- physically less secure.  Denial, delay and half measures are not going to be the order of the day any longer, I hope.  And this report is contributing mightily to that change.  And this report takes all excuses, in my view, off the table.

I'd now like to yield to my colleague, Senator Lugar.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN):  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank Senator Boxer for her generous comments about the hearing and our leadership.

And I am honored to join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming our distinguished panel.

During the last Congress, as you pointed out, the Foreign Relations Committee held a series of eight hearings addressing the geopolitical consequences of energy imbalances and the United States' reliance on energy imports.  In these hearings, we focused on quantifying the cost of the United States' energy dependence and examining options for improving our energy security.

We also explored in detail how energy is shaping our relationships with other nations, including India, China, Russia, Latin America and the Persian Gulf states.  During these hearings, I identified six fundamental threats to United States national security associated with our overdependence on imported oil and other fossil fuels.  Each of these six threats is becoming more acute as time passes.  Any of them could be a source of catastrophe for the United States and the world.

First, oil supplies are vulnerable to natural disasters, wars, terrorist attacks that can disrupt the lifeblood of the international economy.

Second, as large, industrializing nations such as China and India seek new energy supplies, oil and natural gas will become more expensive.  In the long run, we will face the prospect that the world's supply of oil may not be abundant and accessible enough to support continued economic growth in both the industrialized West and in large, rapidly growing economies.  As we approach the point where the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict.

Third, adversarial regimes are using energy supplies as leverage against their neighbors.  We are used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between nations, but energy is becoming a weapon of choice for those who possess it.  Nations experiencing a cutoff of energy supplies, or even the threat of a cutoff, may become desperate, increasing the chances of armed conflict, terrorism and economic collapse.

Fourth, the revenues flowing to authoritarian regimes often increase corruption in those countries and allow them to insulate themselves from international pressure and the democratic aspirations of their own peoples.  We are transferring hundreds of billions of dollars each year to some of the least accountable regimes in the world.

Fifth, much of the developing world is being hit hard by rising energy costs which often cancel the benefits of our foreign assistance.  Without a diversification of energy supplies that emphasize an environmentally friendly energy sources that are abundant in most developing countries, the national incomes of energy-poor nations will remain depressed, and that will have negative consequences for stability, development, disease eradication and terrorism.

The sixth threat is the risk of climate change made worse by inefficient use of nonrenewable energy.  Our scientific understanding of climate change has advanced significantly.  We have better computer models, more measurements and more evidence -- from the shrinking polar caps to expanding tropical disease zones for plants and humans -- that the problem is real and is exacerbated by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.  In the long run, this could bring drought, famine, disease and mass migration, all of which could lead to conflict.

Given these potential outcomes, the study by the Military Advisory Board is particularly relevant and timely.  To adequately prepare our security and diplomatic forces for future threats, we need to understand how climate change might be a source of war and instability.  We also must ensure that our military infrastructure can adapt to new circumstances, a component of which is developing secure alternative sources of fuel.

The American military is at the forefront of those working to develop energy resources that do not depend on the goodwill of unpredictable and sometimes hostile regimes from volatile regions.

At our 2006 hearings, we underscored -- at just $60 a barrel, the annual import cost to the United States' economy is well over $300 billion a year.  This revenue stream emboldens oil-rich governments and enables them to entrench corruption and authoritarianism, fund anti-Western demagogic appeals and support terrorism.

As global oil demand increases and the world becomes more reliant on reserves concentrated in these regions, the likelihood of conflict over energy supplies will dramatically increase, and energy exporting countries will have more opportunity to use their resources as leverage against energy-poor nations.

America is rich in coal, as are large, developing nations like China, India and Ukraine.  Coal remains a big part of the energy plans of many countries.  The United States and the world are unlikely to be able to deal with climate change without progress on clean coal technologies.

The Pentagon is experimenting with coal-to-gas and coal-to-liquid technologies to fuel America's military.  As the Pentagon moves to expand the use of coal fuels, it should simultaneously work to develop cost-effective carbon sequestration methods and cooperate with other agencies and entities engaged in this endeavor.

I've urged the Bush administration and my colleagues in Congress to return to an international leadership role on the issue of climate change.  As Senator Biden has pointed out, we've co-sponsored Senate Resolution 30, a resolution that advocates the United States' participation in multilateral forums that attempt to achieve global solutions to the problems of greenhouse gasses.  The resolution is intended to find common ground in a debate that too often has been divisive and politicized.

Senate Resolution 30 is not an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, nor does it support a negotiated outcome that is not in the national security and economic interest of the United States.  Supporting the resolution does not require one to suspend reasonable skepticism regarding the pace, severity or causes of climate change, and does not advocate a one-size-fits-all policy.  It acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions of developing countries will soon surpass those of developed countries and that a successful agreement will occur only if both developed and developing nations are involved.

Even those who are skeptical of prevailing climate change science should recognize that absenting ourselves from climate change discussions is counterproductive.  Many nations and businesses across the globe are moving to respond to climate change in innovative ways. How the United States participates in these efforts will profoundly affect our diplomatic standing, our economic potential and our national security.

We should also recognize that many of the most important steps that could be taken by the United States to address climate change would yield benefits for other U.S. priorities, especially bolstering energy security, generating export markets for high-technology industries, strengthening our rural economy and improving air quality.

Safeguarding the environment should not be viewed as a zero-sum decision in which limited resources must be diverted away from programs that more directly impact our immediate well-being.  To the contrary, the environment and energy security are interlinked priorities, the advancement of which increases the welfare of all Americans.

I thank Chairman Biden for holding this timely hearing.  And I look forward to the testimony of our panel.

SEN. BIDEN:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, again, we appreciate very much your being here.  If you will proceed in the order you were mentioned, I'd appreciate it.

Start with you, Mr. Ambassador.

MR. PRUEHER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation to testify before this committee.  I think you've introduced me sufficiently.  I won't go through credentials and things here.

But today, I'm here with two colleagues --

SEN. BIDEN:  I just have one question.  Would you prefer being called admiral or ambassador?  I'd rather be Admiral, but -- (laughter) -- it's up to you.

MR. PRUEHER:  I answer that question:  If an honorific is required, I'd choose admiral.  That was 35 years, and --

SEN. BIDEN:  I'm with you.  (Laughter.)

MR. PRUEHER:  -- ambassador was two.

SEN. BIDEN:  Admiral, keep going.

MR. PRUEHER:  The -- I'm here with two of my colleagues, Air Force General Chuck Wald and Admiral Dick Truly.  And I think one point should be that Dick Truly is a person who has a perspective on our planet that I dare say no one else in this room has.  He's looked at it from a lot of different angles than the rest of us have and he has a particularly valuable insight.

SEN. BIDEN:  I think Senator Nelson got a little bit of a view --

MR. PRUEHER:  I think he did true; that's right.  (Laughter.)  We have a double view there.

But each of us will touch on different parts of this issue, and hopefully, among the three of us, we'll give you a sense of the complete picture as we see it.

We were a group of other retired three- and four-star flag officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, and we agreed to serve on this military advisory panel to consider the potential impacts of climate change.  By using our military experience, we were asked to -- at a relatively high level -- to assess the national security implications.

Now I think -- listening to the statements that the senators on the committee have made, we may not bring issues to this that have not been mentioned, but perhaps we can recognize them and frame them in a way that will be helpful and be persuasive as well.

And there are three basic points in my portion of the testimony that I'd like to stress.

First, there's a direct linkage between climate change and energy security for our nation.  As we work to address the answers to one of these issues, we also make progress toward the other.  The second point is climate change will exacerbate many of the causes of instability that exist today in the world.  And a lot of these instabilities are the underpinnings of extremism that we see in the world today.  The third point is that climate change is going to be an increasingly important national security issue.

Now, let me explain how we -- our group arrived at his conclusions -- at our conclusions.

Like most of the other members of the board, I entered onto this endeavor with a good bit of skepticism because there are a lot of conflicting reports surrounding climate science and about the factors that may drive climate change.  But with all the scrutiny that we could muster -- and we tried to look at it as objectively as we possibly could -- all of us came to see that there's some really broad areas of agreement within the scientific community.

There's several facts on which almost all scientists agree.  One is that climate change is occurring and that that brings about warming changes in most regions.   Second, atmospheric carbon in the environment is higher than it's been in the last 400,000 years, and it is increasing.  Third, there is a linkage between the increased temperatures and the increased carbon levels, along with other greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere.  This relationship is a complex one, but it does exist.  And fourth, that the reduction of atmospheric carbons and -- or arresting the increase -- needs critical attention now from all of us.

There are other things that we don't know for sure.  We don't know exactly what kinds of effects climate change may bring.  We just know that there is a range of possible effects.

On the low end of the spectrum and the very likely things that we will see are rising temperatures, increased storm intensity and shifts in precipitation and drought patterns throughout the world.  These are Katrina-like events that I'm talking about here.

On the higher end of the spectrum, the higher risk we could see -- maybe are not likely to see, but could see dramatic shifts in weather, spread of infectious diseases, rapid loss of glaciers and sea level rise.

Now, this range of projected environmental effects will in turn affect societies.  I'm trying to go through a logic train here.  If, as projected, precipitation patterns change and already stressed nations, nations which have fragile environments which are struggling now to provide food, clothing and shelter for people, if they affect nations like these, that the access to food and water can be limited and extreme weather events, as they occur more frequently, can decimate the infrastructure of poorer nations.

As some project, if sea levels rise, human migrations may occur, both within and across borders.  And these are issues that can and will affect societies and nations.  These changes beget security risks for us.

And as you know, national security is discussed frequently just having to do with guns and military strength.

The people in this room are well aware that national security is defined as a confluence of political, military, economic and cultural issues.  And these all fit into the national security diagram.  And when we -- we risk a hazard when we don't consider all these issues when we talk about national security.

Climate change can have an impact on each of these -- the political, military, economic and cultural.  And these will be particularly true in the world's most volatile regions where environmental and resource challenges have already added greatly to the existing political, economic and cultural tensions.  These instabilities that result create fertile ground for extremism.  And these instabilities are likely to be exacerbated by global climate change.

When we add it up, our view is that global climate change yields a group of challenges with which we have not yet grappled in a systematic way in our country.

I request that our full report, Mr. Chairman, be included in the record of this hearing, so I'd briefly like to summarize our --

SEN. BIDEN:  The full report will be included, General (sic).

MR. PRUEHER:  Thank you.

SEN. BIDEN:  Thank you.  Or Admiral -- excuse me.

MR. PRUEHER:  Okay.

There are four fundamental findings.  Climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.  Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in the most volatile regions of the world.

Third, climate change will add to tensions in the even stable regions of the world.  And fourth, climate change, national security and energy independence are a related set of global challenges, as has been pointed out before.

I know General Wald will offer rich detail on these findings and talk about our recommendations.  Admiral Truly will touch on ways in which climate change will affect military commanders moving forward. And with my remaining time, I'd like to make three quick observations.

The first is to complete the link and highlight that link between climate change and energy security.  One can describe our current energy supply as finite, foreign and fickle.  And continued pursuit of overseas energy supplies and our addiction to them cause a great loss of leverage for our nation in the international arena.

Ironically, our focus on climate change may actually help us on this count.  Key elements of the solution set to mitigate climate change are the same ones we would use to gain energy security. Focusing on climate is not a distraction from our current challenges. It may actually help us identify solutions.

Second point is this issue is one that the U.S. alone cannot solve.  If we in the U.S. do everything right from now on out -- assuming what we know to do is right -- the hazards of global climate change would not be solved.  China, India, Brazil, other nations are integral to a global solution.  But we can't use this as an excuse for inaction on our part.

We must instead engage them on many fronts.  Many issues of great importance to our world will not get solved without U.S. and China working together.  So not talking to the Chinese and not engaging them on global climate change is not an option -- or it's certainly not a useful option.

My third point:  For military leaders, our first responsibility is always to try to fight the right war at the right place at the right time.  The highest and best form of victory for one's nation involves meeting the objectives that one seeks as a servant of the nation without having to actually resort to conflict.  It's a process of trumping the battle, if you will.  It takes a great deal of planning, strategy, resources and moral courage, but it's the higher art form for servants of the nation to use, and we need to use it in this way.

It seems like, to me, to be a reasonable way to think about climate and security.  There are a great many risks associated with climate change.  We don't know what they all are and we also don't know what all the costs are.  They're uncertain.  But if we start planning and working now, we may be able to meet our security objectives and also mitigate some of the climate battles that we might face in the future.  They will not attenuate.  They will only get worse.

The potential and adverse effects of climate change could make our current challenges seem small.  Facing and sorting these challenges for our nation's leaders can be daunting.  It will require vision, it will require perseverance and "proactivity" and courage. And it will require thoughtful articulation.  What we cannot do is wait.

And we're most grateful to the committee for asking us and for considering this issue.

Thank you.

SEN. BIDEN:  We're grateful to you, Admiral.

General?

MR. WALD:  Thank you, sir.

Since I'm a military guy, you actually said you were going to do it in the order you introduced us.  But I'm --

SEN. BIDEN:  You just look -- I was looking straight at you. You're so much bigger there, I didn't dare not call on you.  I -- but -- Admiral, let's do this the military way and go to you next, since you were the next one referenced.

MR. TRULY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you for having us here today.  And thank you for your introduction a little earlier.  We -- all three of us appreciate it.

This -- our Military Advisory Board spent about the last eight months dealing with this issue in many meetings.  We had 11 members. Eight of the 11 members are retired four-stars.  I had the privilege of being the junior officer on the group.

Our members had a wide range of experience -- a former ambassador, a NASA administrator, heads of things other than the military.  In my mind, though, the thing that -- the voices of experience that I really appreciated most were those -- two of whom are sitting at this table -- are former commanders or deputy commanders of U.S. forces in the very regions of the world that our report addresses, and that is the Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Africa and the Middle East.

I can tell you that we had spirited discussions, different points of view, and we certainly did not agree on everything.  However, we did agree on the findings and recommendations that we're presenting here to your hearing today.  And we did that because everywhere we looked, and no matter how long we examined the possibilities, we kept coming back to something that Admiral Prueher just mentioned, and that is the potential impacts of climate change first on the environment, and then the ways that those environmental stresses impact societies, and then those ways that those societal effects could turn out -- into security consequences -- led us to our findings and recommendations.

This is particularly true in the regions of the world where margins of survival are thin, where borders are uncontrolled, and where societies are already extremely stressed.  It's really hard to see how we can avoid these areas become breeding grounds for further trouble.

One region that is a particularly important -- that General Wald will talk about from his personal experience -- is in Africa.  Another is in the Middle East.  In the Middle East, two natural resources dominate the discussion -- first, oil and its abundance, and then water and its scarcity.  Climate change has the potential to exacerbate tensions over water because projected precipitation patterns are projected to decline in this area, some as much as 40 to 60 percent, leading to even more trouble in this region that has a history of both stable and very fragile governments, and infrastructures and historical animosities between countries and religious groups.

Another threat is a combination of both observed and projected sea level rise with increases in violent storms and the threat that they pose to coastal regions.  Much of our critical infrastructure, both (sic) in trade and energy and defense, lies on our coasts.

In the Pacific particularly, and in some places in the Indian Ocean, there are literally low-lying island nations that are -- that depending on the level of sea level rise, could literally be inundated.  And we have also strategic military installations around the world that are very low average elevation, such as in Diego Garcia, which is a principal strategic military facility that's critical to our Middle East operations.

Sea level rise, when it occurs and depending on its severity, also will pose a severe risk to the major river deltas of the world. One that General Wald will mention is the Niger River in Africa.  But in addition, particularly the mouths of the Ganges Delta and the Bay of Bengal, comprising a large portion Bangladesh and east India.  This is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth.  And it is also one of the most stressed areas on Earth.

A small sea level rise of literally measured in inches could displace millions of people from this delta.  And this -- and what does this have to do with security?  Well, as they turn around to walk to drier ground, they're also facing more of the most densely populated places on Earth and also borders between Bangladesh, India and east Pakistan.

Another thing that's going to be different about the national security pressures caused by climate change with those that we have been -- we have experienced in our history is also pointed out by the example that I just gave about river deltas.  We are used to normally dealing with single conflicts that are generally geographically confined.  However, in this case, if the Niger River delta becomes stressed and flooded by sea level rise, and the mouths of the Ganges becomes flooded, so will the Mekong, the Yangtze, the Nile, the Mississippi, all at the same time.  And this has potentially overwhelming security challenges, and that's why we recommend that we begin to assess and plan for them now instead of later.

There will also be added tensions in stable parts of the world, including here in the United States.  However, with our strength and wealth, we will be far better able to cope with internal stresses, but we will see them.  Where I live out in the West, it'll be water. Places down in the Mississippi Delta and other coastal regions, it may be storms and sea level rise.  But we have a much better chance of coping.

However, just south of us, the climate models predict major decreases in precipitation and rainfall, particularly in Mexico and the northern parts of Latin America.  And that could pose additional immigration stresses on our Southern border that we are already dealing with but could possibly be exacerbated.

And the polar regions is another area that climate change will affect, again at the same time as these others, and feel those effects sooner.  In the Arctic Ocean, all indications are that the Northwest Passage -- that is, connects the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific through Canada's high arctic -- in coming decades is going to become navigable part year, and later this century, it's predicted that the Arctic Ocean itself will be ice-free in the summer and later in this century.

An example of an issue that will have to be dealt with -- an international issue -- is the fact that is the Northwest Passage Canadian territorial water or is it international water open to navigation?  This is a example of a international issue that will have to be dealt with and caused by climate change.

In the polar regions also, we've read a lot -- and we heard a lot -- about indications and, in some cases, accelerating indications of melting of the Greenland icecap and, particularly also, of the west Antarctic ice sheet.  This will directly affect sea level rise. There's great uncertainty in the scientific community as to levels and timetables.  But in fact, they are major issues that will have to be studied.

Mr. Chairman, we came together today with just a few examples of what we spent a lot of time in the last several months -- there are others -- of the various elements of our national security, again, that Admiral Prueher mentioned -- political, economic, cultural and military issues that we believe the nation should address as we look at the effects of climate change on our national security.

And I thank you very much for allowing us to be here.

MR. WALD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators.