The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

The air is crisp and the skies at night are aglow with millions of stars.  Spirits are high with anticipation for the coming season.  No, I'm not taking about the holidays, I'm referring to the impending kick-off of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's (SSCS) Southern Ocean counter-whaling season.  Many of those who follow the group see SSCS campaigns as not simply eco-activism, but as a living laboratory for the study of modern irregular warfare at sea.

This year's Antarctic campaign, dubbed "Operation Zero Tolerance," will be SSCS' largest ever in terms of fleet size and capability.  The fleet includes four ships, a helicopter, eight RHIB’s, three UAVs, and more than 120 international volunteer sailors.  SSCS has acquired a southern operating base at Seaworks, Williamstown near Melbourne, Australia.  Undoubtably, the campaign will also feature new tactics.

Guess #2 - Is this Sam Simon?

The Sea Shepherds have routinely integrated elements of operational and tactical deception to their campaigns.  Earlier this year, I made the mistake of taking SSCS press releases at face value and guessed that the new addition to their fleet was a former ice-breaker of German origin.  Rumors now abound that the SSCS were likely engaging in a disinformation dissemination campaign.  The new ship, named SSS Sam Simon, is likely actually the former KAIKO MARU NO. 8, a 56 meter survey vessel built in Japan in 1993 (see matching IMO numbers here).  In late November, the ship was renamed from "New Atlantis" and flagged to Tuvalu while inport Brisbane.   Reflagging and renaming ships has been a regular tactic of smugglers, pirates, and other groups trying to lay low at sea for as long as there have been ships.  This will be an interesting season to be sure.

MTF.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

Fisheries, Piracy, and Stability in Somalia

Life in Mogadishu is returning to some semblance of economic normalcy as shown by this catch (hammerhead, mako, swordfish, and tuna) in the fish market. Thanks mostly to the dedication of AMISOM contributors Uganda and Burundi and the TFG’s unexpected staying power (a bit of Uncle Sam's money for ACOTA didn't hurt, either), al Shabaab has been driven from the Somali capital. The al Qaeda affiliate is not on the ropes yet, but has also been squeezed in the south by the incursions of Kenya and Ethiopia. More on that topic another time.

The importance of fisheries and their protection to coastal-based economies can’t be underestimated. As an example, revenues from the UK’s fisheries enforcement supported free university educations for Falklands Islands teenagers following the 1982 war. One of Somalia's other major problems (there are many) is of course, piracy. The negative economic impacts of piracy are often mentioned in terms of global shipping disruption, higher insurance and security costs, etc., but the price to law abiding Somali people is also tangible. There are indications that the populations in regions where pirates still operate are fed up with their criminality and that people realize the negative attention piracy has brought on these areas. Another good sign is that local policing and military efforts against pirates are picking up steam ashore.

The initial rationalization of Somalia’s pirates was that foreign fishermen and other vessels' disposal of hazardous waste in Somali waters had put them out of business. The narrative persists, but the reality is that the motivation of today’s pirates is based on outright greed and criminality. However, as evidenced by the number of Asian fishing vessels captured by the pirates', it's likely that illegal fishing continues in Somalia's waters, and will continue even after Somalia piracy dissipates.

I've mentioned many times in this blog as well as other forums that securing Somalia's waters -- and not just against piracy -- is one of the keys to long term stability in Somalia. To date, these efforts have come in fits and starts. One of the latest controversies involves UN opposition to the creation of the Puntland Marine Police Force. The UN must realize that their inability to drive enforcement of the various resolutions the body has passed is partially responsible for the mess in which Somalia finds itself in now and that as long as governments are not willing to directly intervene to train and equip Somalia's navy, coast guard, and marine police forces, indirect efforts involving private security firms funded by various entities will fill the void. Regardless, were any sort of U.S. or international cohesiveness on Somalia policy suddenly to materialize, maritime security capacity building efforts focused on fisheries protection should become a top priority. A properly regulated fishing industry could replace and more equitably distribute at least some of the income derived from piracy in Somalia's economy.

And speaking of piracy, the latest issue of USCG Proceedings is dedicated to the subject.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

The Navy and Climate Change

Interesting observations over at the CNAS Natural Security Blog.

Any audience member who may have been skeptical about how seriously the Navy is taking climate change probably had their fears allayed by RADM Titley’s statement that “we in the very top of the Navy believe that climate change is real and is having big impacts on the Navy.” Titley explained that much of the Navy’s concern about climate change is not about climate models theorizing what may happen in the future, but the very real changes that they are seeing in the Earth’s oceans and the Arctic. As global temperatures rise, the Arctic is warming 2 times faster than the rest of the world and Arctic sea extent continues to melt and thin from year to year.

Titley asserted that increasing Arctic activity is the aspect of climate change that will have the biggest impact on Navy operations, emphasizing that by the middle of the century, a significant volume of trans-Arctic shipment will probably be the norm, and that the Bering Strait “could have similar significance as the Strait of Hormuz” today in terms of hydrocarbon shipping. He also noted that the QDR describes climate change as an accelerant of future conflict. The Navy is taking these threats seriously, engaging at the top in developing energy use reduction goals. Titley also emphasized Arctic exercises and Port visits, regional security cooperation and careful environmental observation and prediction as important tools of adapting to the effects of climate change.

And an important item from Jan 5, 2011.

Todd Shipyards Corp. said Wednesday it received a $16 million contract modification from the U.S. Coast Guard for work on the icebreaker ship USCGC Polar Star, which is being reactivated.

Todd said the contract is in support of the reactivation of the Polar Star, which is designed to move through ice covered waters and can break through up to 21 feet of ice. The ship was commissioned in 1976 and placed on special caretaker status in June 2006. The Coast Guard plans to reactivate the Polar Star by 2013 and announced last year that Todd Pacific would retrofit the ship.

FYI the USCG has three icebreakers, none of which are currently operational. If the maritime services are serious about climate change, the nation needs more icebreakers.

Should we even bother with this Danger Room article? Who wants to talk about ice capabilities of the Virginia class, or is that subject taboo...

Securing American Maritime Boundaries

When I started my blog Information Dissemination in 2007, I made the conscious decision to use a pseudonym from my days as an iRCop - Galrahn. The intention behind using a nickname was to focus the readers attention on the content of what was being written, rather than who was doing the writing. The maritime services - and indeed topics like maritime strategy and maritime security - are topics where the details are important to insiders but can sometimes be boring to average Americans. The citizens of our country no longer feel the same connection to the ocean as it relates to our livelihood as Americans once did in the early years of our country. I can be a long-winded writer though, and my tactic was to suck people into my message with just enough information to be insightful, educational, and hopefully interesting and entertaining. Like all bloggers - my success rates may vary.

My inspiration behind using a nickname was my favorite founding father and fellow New Yorker Alexander Hamilton, who along with James Madison and John Jay published the Federalist Papers from fall of 1787 until the spring of 1788. On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia had approved a new constitution and sent it to the Continental Congress, which ten days later sent it to the states for ratification. It was a difficult period for America in those first years after the Revolutionary War - the country was broke and heavily in debt; and Congress under the Articles of Confederation had no power to raise funds. Our founding fathers believed the federal system under the Articles of Confederation was fatally flawed, and the country would not survive without a stronger federal system.

It was Alexander Hamilton's idea to publish a series of essays urging ratification of the new Constitution, and he threw himself into the work producing 51 individual essays in four months. James Madison added 29 and John Jay wrote 5. All were published under the pseudonym "Publius." The Federalist papers, as they are known today, were printed in four New York newspapers between October 1787 and May 1788.

In his book Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy, Ian W. Toll describes how the Federalist papers revealed the importance of maritime security in the minds of our founding fathers.

Hamilton's Federalist essays made a ringing case for "active commerce, an extensive navigation, and a flourishing marine." (No. 11) It was America's destiny to trade by sea, and "the little arts of the little politicians" could never "control or vary the irresistible and unchangeable course of nature." The major Europeans powers were determined to suppress the growth of American trade -- to "clip the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness." If America was serious about asserting her maritime rights and protecting her hard-won independence, "we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy." (No. 24) Madison pointed to the vulnerability of the nation's long, unfortified coastline. Those living near the sea, north and south, should be "deeply interested in this provision for naval protection." (No. 41) Without a navy to defend them, they were vulnerable to the "predatory spirit of licentious adventurers," and would sooner or later be "compelled to ransom themselves from the terrors of a conflagration, by yielding to the exactions of daring and sudden invaders."

Today these words are even more applicable, indeed with 90% of the worlds trade taking place by sea today - there remains an inherent bond between freedom and access to the sea and the United States of America. Today is the first day of Homeland Security 2020: The Future of Defending the Homeland conference at the Heritage Foundation. The panels for the day will include:

1000-1100: Defending Domestic Waters: U.S. Maritime Security Policies

Mr. Michael Barrett, President of Diligent Innovations and former Director of Strategy, Homeland Security Council, White House

Mr. Adam Salerno, Senior Manager, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

1100-1200: Programs, platforms, and People: Public Sector Capabilities for 2020

VADM Terry Cross, USCG (Ret), Vice President for Homeland Security Programs, EADS-NA, and former USCG Vice Commandant

Dr. Steve Bucci, Associate Partner and Cyber Security Lead, Global Leadership Initiative at IBM Global; former DASD for Homeland Defense and Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

America's Maritime Challenge

The CIA World Factbook lists the land boundaries of the United States as 12,034 kilometers (7,477 miles), and the coastline as 19,924 km (12,380 miles). The CIA World Factbook breaks down the land boundaries further to include 8,893km (5,526 miles) for Canada (including 2,477 km or 1,539 miles with Alaska), and 3,141km (1,951 miles) for Mexico.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lists the US coastline as 12,383 miles. Most organizations who use geography figures of the US coast line cite the numbers provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration instead of the CIA Factbook, but maybe the CIA knows something about those 3 miles that the rest of us don't know?

The Learning Network has a breakdown of coastline length by state using the 12,383 mile coastline figures of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 12,383 miles of United States coast line includes 2,069 miles of Atlantic coastline, 1,631 miles of Gulf coastline, 7,623 miles of Pacific coastline, and 1,060 miles of Arctic coastline along Alaska's northern border.

Following 9/11 the US government gave priority to port security as the maritime defense layer in most need of security. While Congress has passed legislation to protect America’s ports, it’s important to evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation passed, as well as that of intelligence measures taken since 9/11. 90% of the worlds trade is transported by sea, and an attack on a major port would have serious economic impacts to America. In every maritime security conference I have been to, port security is usually the first and foremost topic.

But in the conference at the Heritage Foundation today I hope to learn more about three other topics that I believe requires the constant attention of our national political leaders if they are to truly address the dynamic change of the maritime security environment around our nations maritime borders.

The Coast Guard

The United States Coast Guard is a national treasure, but it is also taking on water at a phenomenal rate. The material condition of the Coast Guard has long passed the tipping point, and the funding necessary to provide the manpower and training for the US Coast Guard to address the emerging roles and missions of the 21st century has not been provided. It is a real credit to the men and women of the US Coast Guard that they are able to do what they do, because every single day they are - in my opinion - carrying more responsibility with less money provided than any agency in the Federal government today.

The budget and size of the Coast Guard is out-of-sync with the responsibilities being tasked. According to a recent tally by Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., in the past 35 years Congress has handed the agency at least 27 new responsibilities. Prior to the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the Obama administration planned to cut Coast Guard personnel by 773, decommission five large cutters, retire four HU-25 Falcon medium-range surveillance aircraft, retire five HH-65 Dolphin search-and-rescue helicopters, and dissolve five 90-person marine safety and security teams next year. Following the BP oil spill, Congress has added minor increases to personnel end-strength for offshore oil monitoring, canceled the elimination of around 1,100 billets, and decreased the number of ships and aircraft scheduled for decommissioning. These adjustments are token changes and fall well short of what is necessary to strengthen the Coast Guard.

The FY 2011 budget for the Coast Guard is $10.1 billion (PDF) - 4% less than the FY 2010 budget. The Acquisition & Construction budget in FY 2011 for the entire Coast Guard is $1.536 billion - about 70% the shipbuilding cost of a single US Navy destroyer. The material condition of the US Coast Guard is not good by any standard. The US Coast Guard operates 250 cutters 65' or more, and the average age of those cutters is 41 years old.

“No amount of maintenance can outpace the ravages of age,” retired Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen said in a recent speech. “The condition of our fleet continues to deteriorate, putting our crews at risk and jeopardizing our ability to do the job.” Of the 12 major cutters assigned to Haiti relief operations, 10 of the cutters (87%) suffered mission-altering breakdowns. In the immediate hours following the explosion on DEEPWATER HORIZON, no less than 3 Coast Guard aircraft were unable to respond due to maintenance problems. In February of 2010, Mackenzie Eaglen of the Heritage Foundation made an applicable analogy:

The mismatched demands of the nation and the President’s budget cuts for the Coast Guard are unacceptable. One can only imagine the outcome—and outrage—if 83 percent of the fleet assigned to the Battle of Midway had to return to Pearl Harbor for emergency repairs. The Coast Guard should not be held to lower standards.

The DEEPWATER HORIZON explosion is only one symptom of a larger problem related to the Coast Guard being able to meet the responsibilities they have been tasked by our national leaders, and the Gulf oil spill is only a taste of the real economic disaster that awaits any nation with insufficient capabilities in maritime security and protection.

Technology Evolutions

In November of 2006, a Coast Guard cutter operating 100 miles off Costa Rica observed a strange blur in the water. Upon investigation, spotters on the cutter observed what appeared to be several snorkels poking up out of the water. It turned out to be a self-propelled, semisubmersible built in the jungles of Colombia carrying 3 tons of cocaine. Nicknamed "Bigfoot" the simisubmersible is now on display at Truman Annex, Naval Air Station Key West in Florida.

In 2009 officials estimated that 70 such simisubmersibles are now being constructed every year, and it is estimated only 14% are interdicted as they transfer narcotics from source to destination. In 2009 simisubmersibles were believed to carry 30% of Columbia's total cocaine exports. The cost to build a drug smuggling simisubmersible is around $500,000, and simisubmersibles are only used for a single trip. However, it is a remarkably affordable way to smuggle drugs into the United States.

The street value for 1 kilogram of cocaine in the United States can be averaged at $20,000. These simisubmersibles can transport between 3 and 7 tons of cocaine, and one short ton contains about 907 kilograms. That puts the street value of one simisubmersible full of 3 tons of cocaine at just over $54 million. At $54 million the transport costs using simisubmersibles with a 3 ton payload from South America to the United States is below 1% of the total street value.

In the 21st century, the rate of technological change drug cartels and other non-state actors have demonstrated is remarkable. In just the last 10 years, the drug trade has gone from go-fast speed boats to simisubmersibles to - as recently discovered in July 2010 in Ecuador - full midget submarine technology. Leveraging tides that ebb and flow through the rivers and tributaries in South America, simisubmersibles and submarines are being constructed well away from the coast in swamp areas sometimes as much as a hundred miles inland.

At roughly 30m long, the drug smuggling midget submarine found in Ecuador is roughly the same size as the midget submarine suspected of sinking the South Korean warship Cheonan, albeit far less sophisticated than its North Korean counterpart. Leveraging off the shelf technologies like the Hummingbird depth finder and GPS technologies, Jay Bergman, Andean regional director for the DEA, told CNN the submarine costs about $4 million to build. As a fully submersible submarine capable of carrying 10 tons of cocaine and reusable unlike its simisubmersible counterparts, one can see how the full submarine approach would be more cost effective - thus more likely to be used - by drug cartels in the future.

Now that midget submarines have transitioned from a theoretical capability used off the US coast to an actual capability to be used off the US coast, how does this influence the resource and training plans of the US Coast Guard? If the drug cartels are already using submarine technologies, what happens when organizations with more nefarious plans than smuggling narcotics develop these capabilities to use off the shores of the United States? The United States is not only unprepared for these types of challenges, there is little evidence that Congress is taking the rapid technological evolution of maritime threats seriously. Asking tough questions about US Coast Guard sonar technologies and training highlights the significance of the challenge the US faces today - much less the near future.

America's Arctic Problem

In September of 2008 the MV Camilla Desgagnés, owned by Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., transported cargo from Montreal to the hamlets of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak through the Northwest Passage. The transit marked the first time supplies were delivered to communities in western Nunavut from an Eastern port.

In 2009 two German ships, the Beluga Fraternity and the Beluga Foresight left the Russian port of Vladivostok with cargo picked up in South Korea bound for Holland. The traditional route for the ships would have been through the western Pacific towards the Strait of Malacca, across the Indian Ocean over to the Suez Canal, and out through the Strait of Gibraltar up to Holland for a total of roughly 11,000 nautical miles (12,658 miles). Using the Northeast Passage over Russia, the ships cut ~4,000 nautical miles from that trip and saved roughly $300,000 - of which $100,000 was in fuel savings alone. With permission from Russia to make the trip, the nuclear powered icebreaker 50 Years Since Victory escorted the two freighters through the Northeast Passage.

Last week the Barents Observer reported that the 100,000 ton tanker “Baltica” left Murmansk loaded with gas condensate for China escorted by 3 nuclear powered icebreakers. This is the first time a high-tonnage tanker will take the Northern Sea Route from Europe to Asia. The Northeast Passage will cut ~5,000 miles from usual route taken around Africa, as a 100,000 ton tankers are too large for the Suez canal.

As the Northwest and Northeast Passages open up new sea trade opportunities, it is important to note that regardless of which route is taken, both routes will increase the number of ships transiting in US waters - as both routes require ships to pass through the Bering Strait. Alaska has 1,060 miles of Arctic Ocean coastline of which any vessel utilizing the Northwest Passage will transit through. What the United States does not have today is any operational heavy icebreakers to escort and insure safety of navigation in those icy waters.

The Coast Guard has two heavy polar icebreakers — Polar Star (WAGB-10) and Polar Sea (WAGB-11). The Polar Star is not operational and has been in what is called "caretaker status" since July 1, 2006. Congress has provided funding to repair Polar Star and return it to service for 7 to 10 years, and the Coast Guard expects Polar Star reactivation to be completed by 2013.

On June 25, 2010, the Coast Guard announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine problem and consequently will likely be unavailable for operation until at least January 2011. That leaves the United States currently without any operational heavy polar icebreakers.

The Coast Guard also operates a third polar icebreaker — Healy — which entered service in 2000. Compared to Polar Star and Polar Sea, the medium polar icebreaker Healy has less icebreaking capability but more capability for supporting scientific research - and is primarily used supporting scientific research in the Arctic.

With 1,060 miles of Alaskan Arctic coastline, and by international law the United States claims out to 200 miles of that coastline to be part of the American economic exclusion zone; how can our nation afford to have ZERO operational heavy icebreakers today? If I had a penny for every time I have heard a news anchor or politician say "Global Warming" on Television, our nation could buy 10 heavy icebreakers - and yet in 2010 we have none.

The Arctic policy of the United States has no political leadership at all, because there isn't a single US politician who would take responsibility for a policy we have no capabilities today to enforce policy with. There is significant global economic potential should either the Northwest or Northeast Passages become a viable sea trade route between Europe and Asia, which means the shipping industry will be exploring these trade routes over the next few years. While politicians in America will openly discuss scientific theory related to global warming, there is a tangible economic and maritime boundary issue for the United States taking place in plain sight today related to climate changes impact to global maritime commerce trade patterns that could result in US territory - the Bering Strait - becoming a crowded sea trade choke point in the very near future. The US economic exclusion zone off the Alaskan coastline is a marine resource, a potential energy resource, and a possible economic trade resource that the United States must be prepared to protect.

The condition of the United States Coast Guard, the technology evolutions by non-state actors and criminals in the 21st century, and the missing-in-action US Arctic Policy represent three homeland security concerns along our nations maritime borders that are evolving at a pace greater than our nations political leaders in Washington are adapting. I look forward to the Heritage Foundation Homeland Security 2020 event today in hopes that these issues are discussed thoughtfully and inform our national leaders on how the United States can best address these and other emerging challenges off our nations shorelines.

Homeland Defense and the Maritime Domain

I will be attending Homeland Security 2020: The Future of Defending the Homeland conference at the Heritage Foundation on August 23rd - or at least I will be attending the first day which is specifically regarding maritime security. The description is as follows:

With ninety percent of the world’s trade transported by sea, a major terrorist attack focused on one or more U.S. ports would significantly impact the U.S. economy and our ability to project military power. While Congress has passed legislation to protect America’s ports, it’s important to evaluate its effectiveness, as well as that of intelligence measures taken since 9/11. Join us as our panelists examines what policies and capabilities the U.S. needs to develop in order to prevent or recover from possible attacks and better protect the homeland.

10:00 a.m.
Panel 1
Defending Domestic Waters: U.S. Maritime Security Policies

Dr. Steven Bucci
Associate Partner and Cyber Security Lead, Global Leadership Initiative at IBM Global Services, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense & Defense Support of Civil Authorities, U.S. Department of Defense

Michael Barrett
President of Diligent Innovations and former Director of Strategy, Homeland Security Council, The White House

Adam Salerno
Senior Manager, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Hosted by Claude Berube
Visiting Fellow for Maritime Studies, The Heritage Foundation


11:00 a.m.
Panel 2
Programs, Platforms, and People: Navy and Coast Guard Capabilities for 2020

VADM Terry Cross, USCG (Ret)

CAPT Tom Bortmes, USN (Ret)

Port security is foremost in the mind of national leaders in Washington in regards to the maritime component of Homeland Security, and it should be. I gave serious thought to focusing on this specific issue and throwing all of my collected research into the topic and write several posts to generate as much focus as possible on the issue. The thing is, everyone else will be focused on this issue - so I'll be approaching the maritime component of homeland security from a completely different perspective. These are the three issues I'll be writing about leading up to and after the conference.

1) How seriously is the United States addressing the enormous challenges facing the Coast Guard today when they are currently going through budget cuts and equipment attrition at an accelerated rate. There are 250 cutters 65ft or more, and their average age is 41 years old! In response to the BP oil spill, no less than 3 aircraft aborted their tasking in the initial hours due to maintenance problems. Is it time to expand the Coast Guard? Is it time to move the Coast Guard out of DHS?

How do we rationalize the two hat service between DHS and DoD and expect high returns on investment when the service is being pulled too many different directions with its broad - and expanding - roles in missions on issues like port security, homeland defense, international maritime security training, environmental protection, maritime navigation and safety, marine resource protection, ice operations, drug interdiction, and migrant interdiction... to name a few. In a post 9/11 world, how has the material condition of the Coast Guard been allowed to deterrent so far when there has been so much rhetoric and tax money spent in the name of homeland security?

2) The emerging threats to the maritime domain in US territorial waters are impressive. It is no longer simply a matter of mini-submarine smuggling, but we now have evidence drug cartels have been building conventionally powered submarines of military design for operations off our coast lines. Is our nation adapting our maritime security capabilities for homeland defense at the same pace as criminal advesaries are adapting their capabilities? A submarine is a conventional military weapon system - and doesn't even address the irregular maritime warfare capabilities that might be deployed in our nations coastal regions.

3) Alaska is a state, although some Americans tend to forget about it. When looking at a globe of the earth, we typically see the world from the equator rather than from the viewpoint of the North Pole. Rarely is it highlighted how much territory in the Arctic Sea is part of our nations economic exclusion zone that extends 200 miles from the Alaskan northern shores. That enormous region of sea contains numerous natural resources that nations like Russia will exploit if allowed, and the potential impact on marine life and environment is just as significant to our economic interests as the loss of any energy resources.

As of 2010, the Coast Guard (thus the United States as a nation) has only 1 operational Ice Breaker - ONE. How do we enforce the nations Arctic Policy with a single operational Ice Breaker? Furthermore, how is it even possible Congress can't build more (and state of the art) Ice Breakers when US Shipbuilding is in dire need for new orders, when Arctic Sea issues are commonly discussed in Congressional hearings on Capitol Hill, and when virtually every Think Tank in Washington - including the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress (which covers both sides of the political isle) - have reports in recommendation of building more Ice Breakers?

I expect to dive into all three of these issues on the blog beginning on August 23rd. Hopefully there are answers to some of the questions list here - among others - at the conference.

Navy Releases Global Climate Change Roadmap

In addition to the release of the NOC on Monday, the Navy also released the Roadmap for Global Climate Change. According to the press release, the roadmap was actually released this past Friday, but in typical Navy communications excellence the press release was on Monday, and who knows exactly when a download will be made available.

For now, the press release is all we have.

The Climate Change Roadmap is intended to be a companion document to the Navy Arctic Roadmap, released in November 2009. While the Arctic Roadmap serves to promote maritime security and naval readiness in a changing Arctic, the new Climate Change Roadmap examines the broader issues of global climate change impacts on Navy missions and capabilities.

"We issued the Arctic Roadmap first because that is where the most significant evidence of climate change is occurring," Titley remarked, "but the Arctic is not a vacuum. The changes that are occurring there, from both an environmental and political standpoint, reflect changes that will occur in the rest of the world."

The roadmap lays out a chronological approach divided into three phases.

Phase 1, focusing on near-term goals, includes defining the requirements for improved operational and climatic prediction capabilities through cooperative efforts within the U.S. government and scientific and academic communities.

Phase 1 also calls for inclusion of climate change impacts on national security in Naval War College coursework and in strategic "table top" exercises.

Phase 2, which is targeted for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, identifies as a priority the development of recommendations for Navy investments to meet climate change challenges. These challenges include protecting coastal installations vulnerable to rising sea levels and water resource challenges and being prepared to respond to regions of the world destabilized by changing climatic conditions.

Phase 2 also calls for the formalization of the cooperative relationships defined in Phase 1, and targets incorporation of climate change considerations in strategic guidance documents and fleet training and planning.

Phase 3, looking out through fiscal year 2014, addresses the execution of investment decisions and the initiation of intergovernmental, multilateral and bilateral activities with various partners to better assess and predict climate change, and respond to the military impacts of climate change.

I don't want to be a prick, honestly, but...

The Arctic issues are not trivial, indeed with potentially 13% of the uncharted global oil reserves and 30% of the uncharted global natural gas reserves, the Arctic represents a gold mine. We already see actions by Canada, Denmark, and Russia (among others) looking to leverage the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the legal foundation for claims to those resources, while the United States does not take that route primarily because we are not a signatory of the treaty.

That is just a sample of the mixed and confusing messages being sent by the United States on these issues. Whenever I hear someone use the phrase "whole of government" I shake my head, because on the most complicated issues we don't even have half of government on the same page in regards to the objective to be clearly articulated in communication to our friends, much less our competitors.

Now we are looking at the broader issues of Climate Change, and again, what are we telling our friends, allies, competitors, and even the American people here? Do we intend to study the problem, or simply prepare for a series of contingencies? How does one tell the difference between a weather phenomenon related to climate change and one that is not related to climate change? Does it really matter to the Navy?

What exactly is the Navy planning for? Flood response? Hurricane response? How one country might leverage water access over another country? Resource wars? Is any of this something new the Navy has never considered or planned for, or simply a new context to study age old issues that might call upon military power?

Sorry, but absent significantly more information than has ever come forth through traditional communication channels of the Navy, I find Task Force Climate Change to be nothing more than another example of the Navy Redundant Department of Redundancy Department spending money on studying activities the Navy has been capable of managing for scores of decades, if not almost two centuries.

Seems to me building a new Icebreaker able to support oceanography and sea floor mapping for the Arctic Ocean would have been a better use of money than to put a bunch of sailors in a box to ponder the absence of any specific unique behavior associated with events that might result from global climate change.

After all, what is important to the Navy in regards to events that might be associated with Climate Change is the unique behavior governed by geography and the human terrain of the places a climate change event may occur. Other than Arctic areas that might represent new operating environments for the surface Navy, it seems to me Task Force Climate Change is a huge waste of time and money.

Maritime Insurgents and Global Oil Disruption

While all eyes are focused on the oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, across the Atlantic, potentially more devastating spills threaten the Nigerian Delta. The MEND has resumed attacks on oil companies and is wreaking its own brand of ecological and economic warfare against the Nigerian government and the world's energy supplies. MEND's guerilla tactics against oil production include a combination of piracy and kidnapping on deepwater rigs, sabotage against coastal pipelines, and direct attacks on facilities. In 2009, 51 oil workers from Shell were kidnapped for ransom, an increase from 11 in 2008.

As can be expected in modern globalized insurgencies, additional groups with diverse motives and tactics have entered the fray against oil production in Nigeria. In the future one might expect the MEND to import additional tactics from other movements, including waterborne IEDs. And by the way, the US imports more oil from Nigeria than Saudi Arabia.

If tasked, would the US Navy be prepared to deal with this sort of problem? Are current force structure, training, and TTPs ready for a maritime-focused insurgency?

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense or any of its agencies.

Chinese Coal Carrier on Great Barrier Reef

Maritime emergency in Australia; a Chinese coal freighter illegally sailed through a restricted zone near the Great Barrier Reef and ran aground:

Australian authorities are battling to stabilise a stranded Chinese coal carrier which is threatening to break up on the Great Barrier Reef and spill more oil into the pristine waters of the World Heritage site. The Shen Neng 1 ran aground on Saturday when it hit a shoal off the eastern state of Queensland at full speed, rupturing a fuel tank and causing a 3km-long slick.

"One of the most worrying aspects is that the ship is still moving on the reef to the action of the seas, which is doing further damage," Patrick Quirk, the general manager of Marine Safety Queensland, said. Quirk said the initial report was that the ship's main engine room had been breached, the major engine damaged and the rudder seriously impacted...

Anna Bligh, the premier of Queensland state, said salvage crews were assessing how they might refloat the carrier stranded some 70km east of the Great Keppel resort island, but warned that the operation could take weeks. "This is going to be a very specialist and delicate operation," she told Australia's Nine news network. Bligh had earlier said there was "a very real risk that the vessel may break apart" and the authorities fear an oil spill will damage the world's largest coral reef.

Tidbit: Anna Bligh is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of William Bligh, captain of the Bounty.

The Responsibility to Protect Sea Turtles

NPR had a mildly interesting piece this weekend on the efforts of the Mexican Navy to protect endangered sea turtles in Oaxaca. The turtles are valued on the black market for a number of properties, and would quickly disappear without protection. With protection, of course, value rises and incentives for poaching increase. This story isn't new; the Mexican Navy has been conducting the operation since the early 1990s. Nevertheless, it's an interesting example of what navies can do in service of tourism and of local economic management.

On a related note, I'm curious as to why the Mexican Navy has always maintained a relatively low profile. In general, Mexico has pursue a minimalist strategy in terms of defense; in spite of having a large and relatively affluent population, Mexico has typically ranked very low in terms of Latin American defense spending. Unlike the nations of the Southern Cone, Mexico never made an apparent effort to join the dreadnought race, or to acquire an aircraft carrier. Mexico has also been slow, for a country its size, to pursue purchase or construction of an amphibious warfare capability, although it does possess two old Newport class LSTs. The obvious explanation for this is the proximity of the United States. That explanation leads in two different directions, however. Has Mexico maintained a low defense profile because the proximity of the US means that Mexico has nothing to fear (from anyone except the US)? Or has the US pressured Mexico to maintain low defense spending? Any thoughts welcome...

...here is a conference paper on potential Mexican membership in NATO.

The Great Green Fleet

I would have had difficult time keeping a straight face during this announcement, which would have got me thrown out of town had I attended the Naval Energy Forum. It is actually a very clever slogan and an idea well worth promoting and following through, but it does sound a bit corny the first time you say it out loud.

Navy Department leaders issued a set of ambitious new plans to boost the Navy and Marine Corps’ energy efficiency Wednesday, including the goal of fielding a completely sustainable carrier strike group dubbed “the Great Green Fleet.”

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus cited the example of President Theodore Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet, which announced the arrival of American sea power by circling the globe in 1907, and said a new focus on energy would augur just as big a turning point for the service.

Is there an Admiral bold enough to paint all the ships Green too, perhaps a camouflage kit similar to the General Dynamics LCS art? Maybe we can borrow the blue camouflage designs from the Chinese Type 022, but instead of white we use green? Could be fun in Photoshop anyway...

The basic idea is to use nuclear power and hybrid drives, like technologies previously discussed, for all the ships, aircraft, and submarines in the carrier strike group. I think it is a clever idea. According to the idea, the SECNAV wants the Navy to demonstrate that it can sail this green carrier strike group by 2012 and deploy it by 2016 as evidence the Navy can exert influence at sea without the need for foreign oil. Obviously this is all very possible.

The article by Phil Ewing lists other SECNAV energy plans for the Navy:

• Mandate that energy usage, efficiency, life-cycle costs and other such factors be part of the Navy’s decision when acquiring new equipment or systems, as well as vendors’ efficiency or energy policies.
• Cut petroleum use by half in the Navy’s fleet of commercial vehicles by 2015, by phasing in new hybrid trucks to replace older ones.
• Get half the power at Navy shore installations from alternative energy sources — including wind or solar — by 2020, and where possible, supply energy back to the grid, as the Navy does today at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Calif. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said Wednesday he wants Marine Corps bases in the U.S. to eventually buy no external power, and sell back excess power when possible.
• Reach the point that half the energy used throughout the Navy Department, including in ships, aircraft, vehicles and shore stations, comes from alternative fuel or alternative sources by 2020. Today that percentage is about 17 percent.

Here is a fact about Navy history that uniformed folks rarely mention when honoring their uniformed brothers throughout US Navy history. For every A. T. Mahan, there was a Theodore Roosevelt on the civilian side. Even Stephen Decatur had his Benjamin Stoddert and Paul Hamilton. It hasn't been since John Lehman that the Navy had a Secretary of the Navy who came out and gave a bold, forward looking vision that was relevant to the geopolitics of ones era. If Secretary Mabus truly makes bold initiatives in energy during this era, he will be remembered, because I think we are about to enter the decade of energy.

Look, a few things between just you and me. My spies tell me RAND is soon to release a report on Alternative Energy that is going to flat out say Algae energy is "impossible" and is going to recommend the federal government quits "wasting" its money on the technology. I read RAND reports and enjoy many of them for their analytical processes and development theories, but as a dumbass Arkansas redneck known to make a reckless rant or two, I really can't wait to see this report. Here is the dirty little secret... if that RAND report isn't released very, very soon, it will be obsolete and may never actually see the light of day, and it will save RAND from looking supremely foolish and out of touch. The analogy that will be used should this report see the light is that this report is like holding a hearing in Congress in late November 1903 saying that human controlled flight by man is impossible.

I recently solicited emails to every algae energy expert I could find mentioned in a LA Times, NY Times, and Wall Street Journal articles on algae energy asking what it will look like for a major oil replacement energy source technology to "break out" into the mainstream information space. I sent eight emails and had five responses, and all five of them asked the same thing: "Who are you working for?"

That is an interesting sign that tells how the politics of Green Energy are dominating, and the money of this sector is competitive. Seeing that I couldn't find one expert to go on the record for my little corner of the internet, I consulted my international businessmen friends instead, and asked what we are looking for. The answers are my top five tips for watching Green Tech break out, and I expect it to happen very soon.

1. Don't watch the oil companies, watch the transportation companies. If an airline, transportation company, or shipping company signs a deal with a green energy company, the green technology is probably viable and preparing for commercial production. Everyone wants to be the next Southwest Airlines locking in cheap fuel for the next several decades like they did with oil long ago.
   
2. The first big green energy contract will likely be an American company setting up shop overseas. All this talk of "Green Jobs" in the US is the stuff of politicians and academics; real investors will take advantage of cheap land and cheap labor. It will not be good politics when a US "Green Energy" company builds a billion dollar facility in the 3rd world, but it will be good business.
3. The companies that break out with the first few huge commercial contracts will get raked over the coals by "experts" and "consultants" in the green energy field, including in mainstream media and with Washington elite, casting skepticism on both the contract and the technology. For many experts and consultants, their opinions are only worth anything as long as Green Energy remains a field of theory instead of practice.
4. The DoE, indeed the entire federal government including the DoD, will likely be the very last to learn which company makes the big breakthrough in Green Energy technology that can take over for oil. The governments funding model is configured for people with concepts, not products. The Navy's contract with Solazyme is a perfect example how government is completely caught up looking at pretty trees instead of the forest when it comes to green technology. Solazyme has very cool technology for making SVO, but it can't scale because they literally cook sugar to create SVO. Show me what the kitchen looks like that Solazyme uses to cook enough SVO to replace gasoline used in cars. Hmm...
   
5. The future oil replacement is Algae, not ethanol, and the algae technology that breaks out into commercial contracts will not be reliant on traditional methods of photosynthesis and therefore will not conform to the conventional wisdom of "expert" analysis. The major technology breakthrough will be when a company can find the right combination of an open pond capable photobioreactor for use on synergistic colonies of algae (several Algae companies already have algae strains to meet this requirement) and has perfected an extraction technology that scales to commercial levels. Everything else has been invented.

The SECNAV is being very smart with his recommendations and for pushing a vision of energy, in fact I would call the timing fantastic. Attend any energy forum or read any "expert" paper and they tell you we are still very far away from algae energy. We really aren't as far away as is suggested in the press, it is a lot closer than people think and on scales people are not prepared to believe. We will see 200,000+ bpd SVO facilities by 2015 that are capable of producing biodiesel at prices about equal to $30-$40 a barrel of crude. That is only 5 years from now.

You see, the conversation over Green Technology is soon no longer going to be about "what if," the questions will become "what now." After all, it will be American companies setting up these algae energy facilities in foreign countries, shifting the global energy center of gravity away from the Middle East and into places of cheap labor like South America, Africa, and southeast Asia.

With the ability to build mature 200,000+ bpd SVO facilities in 3-4 years, the transformation is going to happen a lot quicker than people think. I'm not even going to bother making the bonus points on how this positively influences food and water resources, which will make the algae technologies even more desirable to investors, including governments having problems with inland fishery problems.

The real conversation is whether you have even considered how this is going to change your near-term wargame? You better give it more than a thought or two, the decade of energy change will be 2010-2019. Want to hold me to a prediction? Hold me to this one... we will see the first billion+ dollar Algae Energy contracts to produce large quantities of SVO by 2Q 2010, if not sooner.

Navy Energy Security

I really enjoyed the Rhumb Lines from yesterday, good enough to quote in my opinion.

The Naval Energy Program is focused on enhancing operational capability. Energy security means having an adequate, reliable and sustainable energy supply - sufficient to meet the demands of the mission. Energy conservation and efficiency enhance our combat capability to fly and sail farther, and longer. Investing in alternative sources and protecting our supply provide resilience against a fragile grid ashore, insulates from volatile energy prices, and ensures we can accomplish our mission at sea.

Energy Security

• Energy security is focused on transforming vulnerabilities associated with energy supply and demand into a strategic and operational advantage. Energy security involves tactical and shore missions that have different energy challenges and opportunities, and therefore require unique solutions.
• By implementing energy efficiency measures and considering energy when making decisions, from the individual to program-level, the Department of the Navy is reducing energy consumption and serving as a global role model for environmental stewardship.

Tactical Energy Security

• Tactical energy security addresses risks to the warfighter. These include significant costs associated with volatile petroleum prices, unstable petroleum suppliers and extensive supply lines on land and at sea. Lengthy supply lines are vulnerable to attacks that can result in loss of life and mission.
• The Navy increases tactical energy security by improving overall fuel conservation efforts, enhancing energy efficiency of tactical platforms and increasing use and availability of non-petroleum fuels.

Shore Installation Energy Security

• Increasing shore energy security provides protection from vulnerabilities related to the commercial electrical grid, which is susceptible to natural disaster, physical or cyber attack and malfunction.
• The Department of the Navy increases shore energy security by lessening our shore energy consumption through sustainable building design and renovation. We will further strengthen our energy security by enhancing protection of critical infrastructure and increased use of renewable alternatives.

This part is very good.

• The Department of the Navy’s emerging energy strategy is centered on energy security, energy efficiency and environmental stewardship while remaining the pre-eminent maritime power.
• Energy security is critical to mission success. Energy security safeguards our energy infrastructure and shields the Navy and Marine Corps from a volatile energy supply.
• Energy efficiency increases mission effectiveness. Efficiency improvements minimize operational risks, saving time, money and lives.
• Environmental stewardship protects mission capabilities. Investment in environmentally responsible technologies afloat and ashore reduces green house gas emissions and lessens dependence on fossil fuels.

The key point:

• DoD is the largest government and individual petroleum user in the U.S., consuming about 330,000 barrels per day. The Department of the Navy is the 2nd largest fuel user in the DoD, consuming about 100,000 barrels per day. The Air Force uses about 200,000, and the Army uses about 30,000.

The Naval Energy Forum kicks off today outside Washington DC today. I had intended to go, but it didn't work out. You can check it live video stream here, and I think they will have archive video up later as well.

I will have a lot more on this subject, probably next week.

The Navy Will Go Green

When the price of crude oil goes up $10, it costs the DoD about $1.3 billion dollars. That is roughly equal to the procurement budget of the Marine Corps. Energy is big business in the Department of the Navy. Securing alternative energy sources is a good thing for any military, but the financial reason to have access to inexpensive energy makes energy investment important for the DoD in peacetime. The DoD uses 1% of all energy consumed in the US. That is more energy than several countries.

From the Green Light blog.

The Department of Defense has ordered over 20,000 gallons of algae fuel from Solazyme to see if algae fuel can replace F-76 Naval Distillate, the primary shipboard fuel used by the Navy. The contract calls for Solazyme to deliver the fuel over the next year.

In the overall fuel market, 20,000 gallons in a drop in the bucket. The U.S. consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day, and a barrel contains 42 gallons. But 20,000 gallons in the algae world is like the Atlantic Ocean. Most companies have only produced token amounts of oil and even early leaders like Solazyme (which has actually produced quite a bit of oil) have not moved into commercial production yet.

I only know about two types of energy. Nuclear power and Algae energy. Yes, algae. It is a long story, but it comes down to thousands of hours wasted researching the various companies and the various methods. On my list, Solazyme ranks #2 in the market. The Green Light blog author goes on to make the point 20,000 gallons of algae fuel is a lot. It is for most algae companies, but not really for the top two.

Solazyme

From what I have seen, Solazyme's technology looks like it will work. The Solazyme process grows algae in the dark using sugar as a concentrated energy substitute for sunlight. Actually they cook it. This method costs more because they have higher infrastructure and material costs than some of the alternatives, but the process itself looks solid and they have produced a lot of oil proving the technology. The challenge for Solazyme will be bringing the cost down. The method used by Solazyme should allow them to get between 15,000 and 20,000 per acre foot, per year. Their cubic capacity gives them an advantage over most algae producers.

So you green folks are wondering who I think is #1? The answer is not obvious, and I encourage skeptical experts to make an appointment with these folks and go see what they are doing. For reasons I care not to share on the blog, I know a lot about this company, more than most green experts.

SunEco Energy of Imperial Valley, CA is the clear #1 in algae energy, and has the best shot of all green energy companies of being the first household name brand in green energy. I am not sure, but I think the reason they have not been bought out already is because their asking price is higher than anyone is willing to spend on green energy at this time. That would include the huge bucks folks like Exxon Mobile is spending, who already has investments over $600 million in algae energy this year alone.

SunEco Energy

Southwest airlines is respected throughout the transportation industry for their aggressive and proactive policy in keeping energy costs lower than everyone else. It is why they can offer deals to Vegas, for example, for less than everyone else and from anywhere in the country. Back in July, when J. B. Hunt announced they signed a partnership with SunEco Energy, it got my attention. J. B. Hunt is one of the biggest transportation companies in the country. They depend on diesel fuel. What do they know that no one else knows that would have them partner up with some small unknown algae energy company in California?

SunEco Energy is the only algae energy company that has cleared the big technical hurdles with algae energy. There are five stages in the algae production process; cultivation, harvesting, dewatering, separation, and processing; and SunEco Energy is the only algae company I am aware of that is ready to go commercial with their proprietary technology at each stage of production. Because their algae technology leverages a digestive method and a photo-reactor technology, they are able to cultivate algae by metrics of cubic feet per acre instead of just square ft per acre, which allows them to produce considerably more algae per acre than most pond growers.

SunEco Energy's facility out in Imperial Valley is surrounded by 1.5 million cattle. That matters, because SunEco Energy produces two products from an acre of algae: Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO, sometimes called bio-crude) and Livestock Feed Supplement (LFS).

You see, Algae energy companies like Solazyme are trying to produce bio-crude that can be processed into any number of fuels. The reason most algae experts don't really know much about SunEco Energy is because bio-crude isn't really their primary business model. The demand for Livestock Feed Supplement (LFS) in the Imperial Valley area by the farmers with 1.5 million cattle is so high that by the time SunEco Energy can meet that demand, they will be the largest producer of SVO in the United States... by enormous margins. Their business model isn't really structured around bio-diesel, its structured around the local Livestock Feed Supplement (LFS) demand.

SunEco Energy's pilot stage is 2 years old and ~20 cycles experienced, this gig is going commercial. SunEco Energy doesn't even bother bragging about their gallons of SVO/biocrude per acre foot, per year in public anymore, the internet green energy guy who knows everything doesn't believe them anyway; well except of course J. B. Hunt, one of the largest ground transportation companies in the world. Then again, none of the green community experts have tried to make an appointment and examined SunEco's activities themselves. By 2010, less than 4 months from now, I'll provide more details about SunEco Energy and add context why they are quietly already the world leader in green energy.

Congrats to Solazyme for getting the Navy contract. Very well deserved btw, I think your technology is solid but has a lot of hurdles to overcome to make your process work cost effectively. Whoever the Navy guy is who is pushing green energy, you rock, but you also need to get your butt out to Imperial Valley, CA before the end of the year and see what SunEco Energy is doing. It will be well worth your time.

Observing Typhoon Morakot

When Typhoon Morakot slammed the Taiwan coast on Sunday, news reports suggested rain would be the primary cause of damage. Those reports have proven true, as a record 118 inches of rain has been suggested to fall in some places of Taiwan, burying villages and triggering massive mudslides. This storm has created a broad disaster on the island nation, but what is remarkable is how few people the storm has apparently killed relative to the amount of rain that has fallen. There is something to be said about the preparation efforts prior to the storm, and upon observation, there is also something to be said for the emergency response by the Taiwan military.

This is an older BBC report with some video of the damage, and this is another video. I quote from this is the latest AFP article that sets the discussion.

"We have found around 700 people alive in three villages last night and 26 more this morning. We are deploying 25 helicopters to evacuate them," said Major-General Richard Hu.

Rescuers said Tuesday around 100 people in Hsiaolin were feared dead, while some media reports had speculated that up to 600 people had been killed in the landslide triggered by torrential rains brought by Typhoon Morakot.

As of late Tuesday, 219 people from Hsiaolin and several nearby villages had been airlifted to safety, Hu said.

"We believed that some were buried but it's not possible to estimate how many at this moment as almost 90 percent of the houses were buried," he said.

The latest death toll is 66, with another 61 missing and 35 injured. Rescue operations to date have included over 17,000 troops using armored vehicles, marine landing craft, and RHIBs for rescue operations. In several southern villages, the roads have been washed out. The typhoon has caused at least $225 million US in agricultural damage, and 30,000 houses were still without power. AFP also reports that 750,000 homes are without water as of Wednesday.

The storm has also moved into China, although now it is out to the Yellow Sea moving towards South Korea at much reduced strength. Among the damage reported, 6 apartment blocks collapsed due to the storm, and officials say they have managed to pull six people alive from the rubble in the town of Pengxi in Zhejiang province. The death count due to the current Tropical weather in Asia over the last week includes 23 in the Philippines due to Typhoon Morakot, 14 in Japan due to Typhoon Etau (16 have additionally been reported missing in Japan), and 6 in China due to Typhoon Morakot. To add to mother natures fury, Japan suffered from a 6.4 magnitude earthquake prompting the government to deploy 400 troops for disaster response.

What I find noteworthy though is how the USS George Washington (CVN 73) pulled into Manilla yesterday for a 4 day stay, and immediately Rear Admiral Kevin Donegan offered assistance to areas recently devastated by the Typhoon. In other words, in 2009 the forward deployed 7th fleet can get an aircraft carrier to the Philippines following a Typhoon faster than FEMA can get to the Superdome in New Orleans in 2005.

Storm season is approaching, and as it does weather is sure to be a topic of emerging interest on the blog this storm season as it has over the last few years. As is always the case, the maritime services almost always play a role not only in national response to disaster, but international response to emerging crisis following disaster in places less fortunate than the United States for resources managing crisis.

The Obama administration has made 'smart power' the emphasis of the new administrations foreign policy, and two legs of the smart power stool are humanitarian aid and disaster response. It is unclear if the DoD has been given any special political guidance beyond the Bush administration HA/DR policy in regards to these activities, but it is very clear from a political examination that HA/DR carries more emphasis as political policy for this administration, an emphasis sometimes inconsistent in the last administration. As climate change is also a major political position of this administration, it will be interesting to see if there is any noticeable activities by the maritime services in preparing for, or perhaps prepositioning for DR scenarios. After all, there is no question the 2004 Tsunami response was the major foreign policy achievement of the Bush administration, not only wiping out piracy in the Strait of Malacca but also creating a massive favorable, measurable shift in public opinion in several areas throughout Southeast Asia. That point is often overlooked, because the Bush State Department was so initially mediocre compared to the DoD in that effort.

With the George Washington arriving in Manilla just days after the Typhoon, clearly 7th Fleet gets it. It is about being in the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment. After all, according to this latest report in Science Daily, it was only last year the world saw the eighth deadliest cyclone recorded worldwide in history with a death toll that may have exceeded 138,000. Given the devastation of the 2004 Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and other recent Cyclones, Typhoons, and Hurricanes there will be few excuses for not being ready to respond to tragedy with prompt reassurance, - as outlined in maritime strategy.

The Navy and Climate Change

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Tuesday regarding Climate change, and among the topics that popped up was the threat Climate change presented to national security. There is quite a bit of thought going into the potential, but let me ask a question...

If Climate Change is so serious that we would apply a $600 billion cap and trade 'tax' on energy in the US, and we all know this will be largely unsuccessful even if 'global warming' is real, why isn't the Navy getting extra funding to provide disaster recovery along the shorelines of the US in preparation for the awaiting climate caused calamities?

We can barely find $15 billion for SCN, and OPNAV is ready to cut the amphibious fleet which will be the most useful assets for managing disasters as a result of climate change, and yet response just doesn't seem to be important.

I guess we will all just trust in FEMA!

Anyway, here is John Kerry's opening remarks. I think there is evidence that we are in a natural cycle of climate change, but I am very skeptical of global warming. I am also skeptical of how serious government cares about climate change if it is indeed becoming a serious concern, because the most realistic way to build capacity for response is to increase funding for the maritime services to purchase platforms optimized to deal with emerging climate events. It isn't just homeland security either, the Tsunami response in SE Asia was the best diplomatic event of the first decade in the 21st century, and the polls of that region prove it (even as the response itself was token in context).

Opening Statement by Senator John Kerry

We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future.

It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching.

Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders.

Fortunately, America’s most trusted security voices—including those here today—have been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.”

This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPs—environmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us.

Nowhere is the nexus between today’s threats and climate change more acute than in South Asia-the home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035.

Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction.

Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the world’s population but just two percent of the world’s water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree.

Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness.

Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dots—if we fail to take action—the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world.
We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy.

I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warner’s gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacle—a tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warner’s own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue.

Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project.

Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Center’s work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges.

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar.

Hmm. I guess I think we should be considering how this influences our amphibious ships, the number of helicopters we have for SAR operations, and our capacity to produce fresh water off shore in responses to places where fresh water sources are wiped out by a coastal climate event. If the problem was really as serious as John Kerry claims, one would think the production of a nuclear powered fresh water producing helicopter carrier, painted white for CG or Hospital purposes, would be the right response.

They could even be built to commercial standard for that purpose.

Talking About Ice

There are two very interesting conversations worth taking a look at related to the 'global warming debate' worth a read. The first is an analysis of “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheetsurface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Steig, E.J., D.P. Schneider, S.D. Rutherford, M.E. Mann, J.C. Comiso, and D.T. Shindell. Nature, January 2009, pp 459-462 from Fabius Maximus. As is highlighted, once again we have questionable information where many scientific observers in the media are finding consensus online while the scientific community is up in arms wondering why these articles get so much attention when the raw data is not released as per normal publishing standards required in the scientific community for virtually every other research topic.

The second conversation worth a look is over at Watts Up With That where they are looking at ice flows of both the Arctic and Antarctic and attempting to make sense of the trends. The arctic ice is well within normal levels dating back to 1979 while the Antarctic ice continues expansion, when global warming models have long suggested this should be contracting.

Am I skeptic of global warming? Absolutely, if politicians weren't so blatantly exploiting climate change for a reason to raise taxes while allowing scientists to hide the raw data, maybe I'd be less skeptical. Global Warming is a consensus theory, not a fact, and as Fabius Maximus highlights there are serious agendas at play that somehow make Global Warming science immune to the scientific requirements and standards every other science is held to. That should concern people who are tired of politics tampering with science, and that includes the politics of religion and the politics of environmental agenda.

I also don't believe there is any doubt at all the planet is in the midst of a climate change cycle we have we do not understand very well. The big problem is that what is happening is both unique in that it is not normal but also does not match any of the models for global warming. That tends to suggest to me that something is actually happening with our climate, and I find it troubling governments don't seem to actually care that they don't know what it is.

That second part is key, because policy decisions are being discussed largely absent good information of knowing what exactly we should be planning for. In my opinion, Congress should substantially increase funding for the collection and review of climate data for the scientific community, and the data should be made public so we can move beyond consensus and into the realm of fact, where science should be.

And when Congress substantially increases research funding, I hope they also invest in icebreakers, because contrary to the global warming models, the amount of ice on the ocean surface is increasing globally off South America while the summer months in the Arctic are producing more drift ice that will create dangers should commercial maritime traffic expand use of the northwest passage.

I'm 100% OK with that

Every year the Navy must request authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to conduct sonar training exercises near Hawaii. This year there was no suspense, NOAA's Fisheries Service authorized the Navy to conduct sonar activities in 2009. The authorization process is annual.

Is seeking a permit news? Only if you are Natural Resources Defense Council and you are looking for a headline. The news ran under the headline: Navy Allowed to Kill Whales in Hawaii During Sonar Training

Fair and balanced? Not really, NRDC has never been a responsible actor in environmental issues related to the Navy, in their book the Navy does nothing but harm. There is irony of coarse, the Navy spends more money on environmental science and research of the Oceans than anyone in the world, which is why the NRDC always loses in a court that weighs the facts (the facts come from the Navy, so they usually make them up as the did in Appeals last year).

However, I will give Environment News Service credit, the headline is 100% accurate. Given all the actions the Navy takes to mitigate risks to whales, it probably won't happen, but the headline is accurate when it says the Navy is allowed to kill whales in Hawaii during sonar training.

And so far in 2009, we have already had an announcement that 6 more submarines will be purchased by an Asian power, this time South Korea. At the rate submarines continue to increase in the Pacific, if a whale dies during submarine training in the Pacific, well... read the title of the post.

If you are curious about what actions the navy takes to mitigate risks to whales, see here.

Update: There appears to be more to this than my bias and attempted humor allowed. The AP has an article that does make me think the Navy is trying something new here. It doesn't really influence me to think there is something nefarious, but new tactics are always interesting.

BTW, that AP article is inaccurate in one regard, we do know why beaked whales are more vulnerable than other mammals to mid-frequency sonar. The reason is because they dive much deeper than other whales and stay deep for up to 45 minutes at a time, sometimes as deep as 1000 ft. Until the Navy learned this, and used another type of sonar to study it, even the environmental groups had no idea how many beaked whales there were in the waters, indeed at the time some environmental groups were trying to get beaked whales protected because they thought there were so few of them.

It will be interesting to see if the National Marine Fisheries Service gets sued by environmental groups for issuing the permit. The answer is, of coarse they will file a lawsuit, but it is unclear if that means the permit will be voided, thus restricting the Navy from using sonar off the Hawaii coast.

US Establishes Arctic Policy

Today the President of the United States established the policy of the United States regarding the Arctic region as follows:

Policy

A. It is the policy of the United States to:

1. Meet national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region;

2. Protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources;

3. Ensure that natural resource management and economic development in the region are environmentally sustainable;

4. Strengthen institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic nations (the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and Sweden);

5. Involve the Arctic's indigenous communities in decisions that affect them; and

6. Enhance scientific monitoring and research into local, regional, and global environmental issues.

B. National Security and Homeland Security Interests in the Arctic

1. The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight.

2. The United States also has fundamental homeland security interests in preventing terrorist attacks and mitigating those criminal or hostile acts that could increase the United States vulnerability to terrorism in the Arctic region.

3. The Arctic region is primarily a maritime domain; as such, existing policies and authorities relating to maritime areas continue to apply, including those relating to law enforcement.^[1] Human activity in the Arctic region is increasing and is projected to increase further in coming years. This requires the United States to assert a more active and influential national presence to protect its Arctic interests and to project sea power throughout the region.

4. The United States exercises authority in accordance with lawful claims of United States sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction in the Arctic region, including sovereignty within the territorial sea, sovereign rights and jurisdiction within the United States exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, and appropriate control in the United States contiguous zone.

5. Freedom of the seas is a top national priority. The Northwest Passage is a strait used for international navigation, and the Northern Sea Route includes straits used for international navigation; the regime of transit passage applies to passage through those straits. Preserving the rights and duties relating to navigation and overflight in the Arctic region supports our ability to exercise these rights throughout the world, including through strategic straits.

6. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to national security and homeland security interests in the Arctic, the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

1. Develop greater capabilities and capacity, as necessary, to protect United States air, land, and sea borders in the Arctic region;

2. Increase Arctic maritime domain awareness in order to protect maritime commerce, critical infrastructure, and key resources;

3. Preserve the global mobility of United States military and civilian vessels and aircraft throughout the Arctic region;

4. Project a sovereign United States maritime presence in the Arctic in support of essential United States interests; and

5. Encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes in the Arctic region.

C. International Governance

1. The United States participates in a variety of fora, international organizations, and bilateral contacts that promote United States interests in the Arctic. These include the Arctic Council, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), wildlife conservation and management agreements, and many other mechanisms. As the Arctic changes and human activity in the region increases, the United States and other governments should consider, as appropriate, new international arrangements or enhancements to existing arrangements.

2. The Arctic Council has produced positive results for the United States by working within its limited mandate of environmental protection and sustainable development. Its subsidiary bodies, with help from many United States agencies, have developed and undertaken projects on a wide range of topics. The Council also provides a beneficial venue for interaction with indigenous groups. It is the position of the United States that the Arctic Council should remain a high-level forum devoted to issues within its current mandate and not be transformed into a formal international organization, particularly one with assessed contributions. The United States is nevertheless open to updating the structure of the Council, including consolidation of, or making operational changes to, its subsidiary bodies, to the extent such changes can clearly improve the Council's work and are consistent with the general mandate of the Council.

3. The geopolitical circumstances of the Arctic region differ sufficiently from those of the Antarctic region such that an "Arctic Treaty" of broad scope -- along the lines of the Antarctic Treaty -- is not appropriate or necessary.

4. The Senate should act favorably on U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea promptly, to protect and advance U.S. interests, including with respect to the Arctic. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our Armed Forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.

5. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to international governance, the Secretary of State, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

1. Continue to cooperate with other countries on Arctic issues through the United Nations (U.N.) and its specialized agencies, as well as through treaties such as the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution and its protocols, and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;

2. Consider, as appropriate, new or enhanced international arrangements for the Arctic to address issues likely to arise from expected increases in human activity in that region, including shipping, local development and subsistence, exploitation of living marine resources, development of energy and other resources, and tourism;

3. Review Arctic Council policy recommendations developed within the ambit of the Council's scientific reviews and ensure the policy recommendations are subject to review by Arctic governments; and

4. Continue to seek advice and consent of the United States Senate to accede to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

D. Extended Continental Shelf and Boundary Issues

1. Defining with certainty the area of the Arctic seabed and subsoil in which the United States may exercise its sovereign rights over natural resources such as oil, natural gas, methane hydrates, minerals, and living marine species is critical to our national interests in energy security, resource management, and environmental protection. The most effective way to achieve international recognition and legal certainty for our extended continental shelf is through the procedure available to States Parties to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

2. The United States and Canada have an unresolved boundary in the Beaufort Sea. United States policy recognizes a boundary in this area based on equidistance. The United States recognizes that the boundary area may contain oil, natural gas, and other resources.

3. The United States and Russia are abiding by the terms of a maritime boundary treaty concluded in 1990, pending its entry into force. The United States is prepared to enter the agreement into force once ratified by the Russian Federation.

4. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to extended continental shelf and boundary issues, the Secretary of State, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

1. Take all actions necessary to establish the outer limit of the continental shelf appertaining to the United States, in the Arctic and in other regions, to the fullest extent permitted under international law;

2. Consider the conservation and management of natural resources during the process of delimiting the extended continental shelf; and

3. Continue to urge the Russian Federation to ratify the 1990 United States-Russia maritime boundary agreement.

E. Promoting International Scientific Cooperation

1. Scientific research is vital for the promotion of United States interests in the Arctic region. Successful conduct of U.S. research in the Arctic region requires access throughout the Arctic Ocean and to terrestrial sites, as well as viable international mechanisms for sharing access to research platforms and timely exchange of samples, data, and analyses. Better coordination with the Russian Federation, facilitating access to its domain, is particularly important.

2. The United States promotes the sharing of Arctic research platforms with other countries in support of collaborative research that advances fundamental understanding of the Arctic region in general and potential Arctic change in particular. This could include collaboration with bodies such as the Nordic Council and the European Polar Consortium, as well as with individual nations.

3. Accurate prediction of future environmental and climate change on a regional basis, and the delivery of near real-time information to end-users, requires obtaining, analyzing, and disseminating accurate data from the entire Arctic region, including both paleoclimatic data and observational data. The United States has made significant investments in the infrastructure needed to collect environmental data in the Arctic region, including the establishment of portions of an Arctic circumpolar observing network through a partnership among United States agencies, academic collaborators, and Arctic residents. The United States promotes active involvement of all Arctic nations in these efforts in order to advance scientific understanding that could provide the basis for assessing future impacts and proposed response strategies.

4. United States platforms capable of supporting forefront research in the Arctic Ocean, including portions expected to be ice-covered for the foreseeable future, as well as seasonally ice-free regions, should work with those of other nations through the establishment of an Arctic circumpolar observing network. All Arctic nations are members of the Group on Earth Observations partnership, which provides a framework for organizing an international approach to environmental observations in the region. In addition, the United States recognizes that academic and research institutions are vital partners in promoting and conducting Arctic research.

5. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to promoting scientific international cooperation, the Secretaries of State, the Interior, and Commerce and the Director of the National Science Foundation, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

1. Continue to play a leadership role in research throughout the Arctic region;

2. Actively promote full and appropriate access by scientists to Arctic research sites through bilateral and multilateral measures and by other means;

3. Lead the effort to establish an effective Arctic circumpolar observing network with broad partnership from other relevant nations;

4. Promote regular meetings of Arctic science ministers or research council heads to share information concerning scientific research opportunities and to improve coordination of international Arctic research programs;

5. Work with the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) to promote research that is strategically linked to U.S. policies articulated in this directive, with input from the Arctic Research Commission; and

6. Strengthen partnerships with academic and research institutions and build upon the relationships these institutions have with their counterparts in other nations.

F. Maritime Transportation in the Arctic Region

1. The United States priorities for maritime transportation in the Arctic region are:

1. To facilitate safe, secure, and reliable navigation;

2. To protect maritime commerce; and

3. To protect the environment.

2. Safe, secure, and environmentally sound maritime commerce in the Arctic region depends on infrastructure to support shipping activity, search and rescue capabilities, short- and long-range aids to navigation, high-risk area vessel-traffic management, iceberg warnings and other sea ice information, effective shipping standards, and measures to protect the marine environment. In addition, effective search and rescue in the Arctic will require local, State, Federal, tribal, commercial, volunteer, scientific, and multinational cooperation.

3. Working through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United States promotes strengthening existing measures and, as necessary, developing new measures to improve the safety and security of maritime transportation, as well as to protect the marine environment in the Arctic region. These measures may include ship routing and reporting systems, such as traffic separation and vessel traffic management schemes in Arctic chokepoints; updating and strengthening of the Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic Ice-Covered Waters; underwater noise standards for commercial shipping; a review of shipping insurance issues; oil and other hazardous material pollution response agreements; and environmental standards.

4. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to maritime transportation in the Arctic region, the Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, Commerce, and Homeland Security, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

1. Develop additional measures, in cooperation with other nations, to address issues that are likely to arise from expected increases in shipping into, out of, and through the Arctic region;

2. Commensurate with the level of human activity in the region, establish a risk-based capability to address hazards in the Arctic environment. Such efforts shall advance work on pollution prevention and response standards; determine basing and logistics support requirements, including necessary airlift and icebreaking capabilities; and improve plans and cooperative agreements for search and rescue;

3. Develop Arctic waterways management regimes in accordance with accepted international standards, including vessel traffic-monitoring and routing; safe navigation standards; accurate and standardized charts; and accurate and timely environmental and navigational information; and

4. Evaluate the feasibility of using access through the Arctic for strategic sealift and humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

G. Economic Issues, Including Energy

1. Sustainable development in the Arctic region poses particular challenges. Stakeholder input will inform key decisions as the United States seeks to promote economic and energy security. Climate change and other factors are significantly affecting the lives of Arctic inhabitants, particularly indigenous communities. The United States affirms the importance to Arctic communities of adapting to climate change, given their particular vulnerabilities.

2. Energy development in the Arctic region will play an important role in meeting growing global energy demand as the area is thought to contain a substantial portion of the world's undiscovered energy resources. The United States seeks to ensure that energy development throughout the Arctic occurs in an environmentally sound manner, taking into account the interests of indigenous and local communities, as well as open and transparent market principles. The United States seeks to balance access to, and development of, energy and other natural resources with the protection of the Arctic environment by ensuring that continental shelf resources are managed in a responsible manner and by continuing to work closely with other Arctic nations.

3. The United States recognizes the value and effectiveness of existing fora, such as the Arctic Council, the International Regulators Forum, and the International Standards Organization.

4. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to economic issues, including energy, the Secretaries of State, the Interior, Commerce, and Energy, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

1. Seek to increase efforts, including those in the Arctic Council, to study changing climate conditions, with a view to preserving and enhancing economic opportunity in the Arctic region. Such efforts shall include inventories and assessments of villages, indigenous communities, subsistence opportunities, public facilities, infrastructure, oil and gas development projects, alternative energy development opportunities, forestry, cultural and other sites, living marine resources, and other elements of the Arctic's socioeconomic composition;

2. Work with other Arctic nations to ensure that hydrocarbon and other development in the Arctic region is carried out in accordance with accepted best practices and internationally recognized standards and the 2006 Group of Eight (G-8) Global Energy Security Principles;

3. Consult with other Arctic nations to discuss issues related to exploration, production, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, including drilling conduct, facility sharing, the sharing of environmental data, impact assessments, compatible monitoring programs, and reservoir management in areas with potentially shared resources;

4. Protect United States interests with respect to hydrocarbon reservoirs that may overlap boundaries to mitigate adverse environmental and economic consequences related to their development;

5. Identify opportunities for international cooperation on methane hydrate issues, North Slope hydrology, and other matters;

6. Explore whether there is a need for additional fora for informing decisions on hydrocarbon leasing, exploration, development, production, and transportation, as well as shared support activities, including infrastructure projects; and

7. Continue to emphasize cooperative mechanisms with nations operating in the region to address shared concerns, recognizing that most known Arctic oil and gas resources are located outside of United States jurisdiction.

H. Environmental Protection and Conservation of Natural Resources

1. The Arctic environment is unique and changing. Increased human activity is expected to bring additional stressors to the Arctic environment, with potentially serious consequences for Arctic communities and ecosystems.

2. Despite a growing body of research, the Arctic environment remains poorly understood. Sea ice and glaciers are in retreat. Permafrost is thawing and coasts are eroding. Pollutants from within and outside the Arctic are contaminating the region. Basic data are lacking in many fields. High levels of uncertainty remain concerning the effects of climate change and increased human activity in the Arctic. Given the need for decisions to be based on sound scientific and socioeconomic information, Arctic environmental research, monitoring, and vulnerability assessments are top priorities. For example, an understanding of the probable consequences of global climate variability and change on Arctic ecosystems is essential to guide the effective long-term management of Arctic natural resources and to address socioeconomic impacts of changing patterns in the use of natural resources.

3. Taking into account the limitations in existing data, United States efforts to protect the Arctic environment and to conserve its natural resources must be risk-based and proceed on the basis of the best available information.

4. The United States supports the application in the Arctic region of the general principles of international fisheries management outlined in the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 10, 1982, relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and similar instruments. The United States endorses the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the Arctic from destructive fishing practices and seeks to ensure an adequate enforcement presence to safeguard Arctic living marine resources.

5. With temperature increases in the Arctic region, contaminants currently locked in the ice and soils will be released into the air, water, and land. This trend, along with increased human activity within and below the Arctic, will result in increased introduction of contaminants into the Arctic, including both persistent pollutants (e.g., persistent organic pollutants and mercury) and airborne pollutants (e.g., soot).

6. Implementation: In carrying out this policy as it relates to environmental protection and conservation of natural resources, the Secretaries of State, the Interior, Commerce, and Homeland Security and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies, shall:

1. In cooperation with other nations, respond effectively to increased pollutants and other environmental challenges;

2. Continue to identify ways to conserve, protect, and sustainably manage Arctic species and ensure adequate enforcement presence to safeguard living marine resources, taking account of the changing ranges or distribution of some species in the Arctic. For species whose range includes areas both within and beyond United States jurisdiction, the United States shall continue to collaborate with other governments to ensure effective conservation and management;

3. Seek to develop ways to address changing and expanding commercial fisheries in the Arctic, including through consideration of international agreements or organizations to govern future Arctic fisheries;

4. Pursue marine ecosystem-based management in the Arctic; and

5. Intensify efforts to develop scientific information on the adverse effects of pollutants on human health and the environment and work with other nations to reduce the introduction of key pollutants into the Arctic.

The above is from the White House website. Below is the official response by Admiral Thad Allen:

"The new Arctic policy signed by the President today re-affirms our Nation's obligation to protect the Arctic domain, its environment, and those who work and live in it. The retreat of annual sea ice has created new areas of open water where the Coast Guard has statutory responsibilities. The new policy is recognition of changing conditions in the Arctic region and the implications for our Nation. This directive will guide our current operational activities in the region and guide the allocation of current and future resources to meet mission demands. We look forward to continuing to work closely with our interagency partners, the people of Alaska and the Arctic nations to ensure safe, secure, and sustainable activities in the Arctic region."

Some will note the timing and suggest a last effort for a lame duck President. I note the timing and ask what the hell took so long? While policy is a good thing, if the Obama administration intends to make effective use of any national policy towards the Arctic Ocean region, his first priority should be to build new Ice Breakers.

When I was in Durham last September for the Conversations with the Country the maritime services held to discuss the Cooperative Maritime Strategy, I sat next to Rear Admiral Fred M. Rosa, Jr. (PDF) Commander. Fifth Coast Guard District during the conference. Between one of the early sessions I asked him a number of questions about the Coast Guard, one of them being "How many Ice Breakers do we have left in service?" as part of a series of questions regarding Arctic policy (I may have framed the discussion in the context of an 'absence of an Arctic policy').

His answer was two and a half. USCGC Healy and USCGC Polar Sea still function as best they can, but USCGC Polar Star is not only very, very old but is in reserve status, and is underfunded and barely supported. Last I heard Polar Star was headed for retirement, but someone more familiar with the ship may have more information. While the President may be giving Arctic Policy some much needed attention, this is a whole lot of 'too little, too late' in my opinion, because ultimately his administration didn't fund replacement Ice Breakers that are an essential requirement to any policy in the Arctic.

One more important ship type that should be part of any economic stimulus package dedicated to building infrastructure in the United States, particularly in a time when climate change remains a topic worth scientific investment.