Search Climate Insights Directory

The author contends that the White House has intentionally failed in its duty to inform the public by attempting to block scientific testimony from experts on both climate change and COVID-19. These actions are described as a consistent pattern of science suppression that leaves the American public vulnerable and unsafe, thereby posing a national security threat.

As of June 10, 2020, Israel reported 299 deaths and 18,268 confirmed cases of COVID-19. The state leveraged its advanced technology and healthcare sectors to manage the outbreak, though it faced criticism for employing counter-terrorism surveillance tools and intelligence services to track infections and procure medical equipment. The pandemic occurred during a severe political crisis, leading to the formation of a unity government. The response also highlighted disparities affecting Israeli Arabs, ultra-orthodox communities, and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

The authors highlight the accuracy of previous intelligence warnings regarding pandemics to argue that similar foresight must be applied to climate change. They assert that unabated climate change will trigger global instability through food and water insecurity, mass migration, increased international tensions, and high-impact 'wildcard' events, necessitating a move toward net-zero emissions to protect global security.

The authors argue that COVID-19 and climate change are direct threats to U.S. national security and act as 'threat multipliers' that amplify geostrategic competition and local conflicts. They contend that the U.S. should not simply reallocate funds away from national defense but instead expand the defense toolkit to include biodefense, climate adaptation for military bases, and support for international cooperation to prevent the collapse of global governance systems.

The author recommends two immediate 'Day One' actions for a U.S. President to address climate security: rejoining the Paris Agreement to restore international leadership and announcing a whole-of-government 'Climate Security Plan for America'. This plan is structured around four pillars: demonstrating leadership through a new White House Office on Climate Security, assessing risks via an interagency Climate Security Crisis Watch Center in the ODNI, supporting allies through Regional Climate Security Plans, and preparing for impacts through a Climate Security Infrastructure Initiative and a global greenhouse gas emission reduction policy.

The document details a March 3 hearing where U.S. defense officials discussed the strategic challenges of the Arctic. Key issues include the military buildup of Russia and China, the degradation of military and local infrastructure due to permafrost thaw, and a critical shortage of icebreakers. While the U.S. is pursuing a Polar Security Cutter Program, officials acknowledged current limitations in conducting Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in ice-congested waters compared to Russia's extensive icebreaker fleet.

The author contends that while the U.S. government has established frameworks for critical infrastructure through CISA and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, these plans overlook the workers—such as grocery store staff and delivery drivers—who keep these systems operational. The text highlights a lack of consistent definitions for 'essential workers' across different states and a lack of protections for those without unions. It proposes a review of the Stafford Act to establish a shared lexicon and legal recognition for these employees to improve future pandemic preparedness and national security.

The CLEAN Future Act proposes a national goal of a 100 percent clean economy by 2050, targeting the power, building, and transportation sectors. Key mechanisms include a national Clean Electricity Standard, zero energy ready building codes by 2030, and the establishment of a National Climate Bank. The act emphasizes environmental justice, state-level climate planning, and workforce development through renewable energy job training.

The report evaluates global security threats under two warming scenarios: a 'Near Term' scenario (1-2°C) and a 'Medium-Long Term' scenario (2-4+°C). It concludes that even low levels of warming present high to very high risks, while higher warming levels pose catastrophic and potentially irreversible threats to global stability. The analysis is structured around U.S. Geographic Combatant Command areas, detailing how climate-induced physical shocks and social tensions act as threat multipliers that can lead to state failure, resource conflict, and the breakdown of international alliances.

White House officials prevented Rod Schoonover, a senior analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, from submitting written testimony to the House Intelligence Committee because it contained scientific information on climate change. Despite the hearing's focus on the national security implications of climate change, officials from the Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Council removed sections titled "Scientific Baseline" and "Stresses to Human and Societal Systems." The document asserts that this suppression was driven by a desire to align testimony with the Trump administration's positions and was supported by climate science deniers like William Happer. The suppression included the removal of data from the IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, with White House officials characterizing scientific consensus as "climate-alarm propaganda."

The statement by EESI Board Chair Jared Blum asserts that Senator John McCain's early efforts to sponsor bipartisan legislation and lead Senate hearings on global warming created a benchmark for prescience and gave credibility to the business case for renewable energy and energy efficiency. This leadership influenced petroleum-based industries, energy efficiency sectors, and Republican-led states to consider CO2 reduction. The document further links McCain's concerns to the current recognition of climate change as a direct threat to U.S. national security, as codified in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.

The Union of Concerned Scientists argues that space-based missile defense is an ineffective and dangerous strategy. The document explains that interceptors in orbit aim to destroy ICBMs during the boost phase to avoid decoy warheads, but this requires a massive number of satellites to ensure coverage. For example, covering North Korea would require 300 to 400 interceptors across seven or eight orbits. The National Academies of Science and Engineering estimated an 'austere' system of 600 interceptors would cost approximately $300 billion. Beyond cost, the system is vulnerable to saturation by multiple simultaneous missile launches and to ground-based anti-satellite weapons. Furthermore, the document warns that such a system would escalate tensions with Russia and China, as interceptors could be perceived as threats to vital military and economic satellites in various orbits, potentially triggering an arms race or military conflict.

The paper examines the evolution of US Arctic policy, noting a transition from a 'reluctant' actor to an active proponent of regional cooperation. Using frame analysis, it identifies a recurring focus on economic development and national competitiveness, while observing a shift in security perspectives from military-centric nation-building toward energy supply and climate change implications.

A statement by national organizations urging the U.S. Senate to reject Mike Pompeo's nomination for Secretary of State, citing his climate change denial, hawkish foreign policy views, and record on human rights.

The document analyzes climate change as a 'threat multiplier' that exacerbates global instability and poses direct risks to U.S. military infrastructure and operations. It details how the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agencies like the DHS and CIA integrate climate risk into planning, focusing on issues such as mass migration, water scarcity, and the opening of the Arctic. The brief also outlines specific energy and resilience initiatives across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, while noting the tension between military adaptation needs and Congressional fiscal priorities.

The document argues that national risk assessments, while appearing scientifically objective, are inherently political because they rely on institutional biases and expert subjectivity. This political nature can reinforce existing power structures, justify current institutional landscapes, and influence the allocation of resources. The author highlights the challenge posed by new digital media, which reduces state control over risk perception but increases the need for authoritative, accessible information. Using examples from the UK, Netherlands, Ireland, and Norway, the brief outlines how different states categorize risks. It concludes by proposing that Norway merge its four separate risk assessments into a single, transparent, and expertise-based national risk management website to strengthen public awareness while maintaining political neutrality.

The text analyzes the strategic objectives of the Islamic State (IS) in Europe—escalation, creating insecurity, and exploiting social divisions—and argues that restrictive anti-terrorism laws actually support these goals by fueling islamophobia and eroding civil liberties. It contends that IS is often portrayed as more cohesive and powerful than it is, noting that its core leadership consists of pragmatists from the Ba'ath party rather than global jihadists. The author advocates for a progressive response that rejects the 'clash of civilizations' narrative, opposes racial profiling, and views the expansion of civil rights for minorities as the most effective way to delegitimize IS and ensure genuine security.

The document assesses the threat of violent extremism in South Africa, concluding that while the overall risk of a major attack is low, the country remains vulnerable to 'lone wolf' incidents and the use of its infrastructure as a base for international extremists. It details the history of far-right groups like the AWB and Boeremag, the militant activities of Pagad in the 1990s, and recent concerns regarding South Africans joining ISIS. The brief highlights systemic vulnerabilities such as government corruption and porous borders, while recommending a focus on youth engagement, social cohesion, and improved intelligence capabilities.

Following the Senate confirmation of Rex Tillerson as U.S. Secretary of State, the World Resources Institute (WRI) emphasizes that the U.S. must remain a productive player in international climate relations to maintain global trust and security. WRI argues that continuing leadership on climate change and the Paris Agreement will drive domestic economic opportunities and global stability.

Richard Ottinger proposes that the U.S. government, specifically under the Trump administration, adopt a business-oriented 'insurance' approach to climate change. He argues that because the potential costs of failure—including mass displacement, food insecurity, and national security threats—far outweigh the costs of mitigation, taking action is a prudent risk management strategy. Ottinger highlights that transitioning to cheap renewable energy and energy efficiency would provide additional health and economic benefits.