← The Lawfare Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript52 lines
- [00:01]
Podcast Announcer
The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of lawfare@patreon.com lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull and the Aftermath.
- [00:32]
Thumbtack Advertiser
Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home out indecision, overthinking, second guessing every choice you make in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done out beige on beige on beige in knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today I don't know about.
- [01:00]
Sleep Number Advertiser
You, but the number one thing I look forward to when I return from traveling is a good night's sleep in my own bed. That has never been more true than it is now that I have a sleep number smart bed. I get so sore after traveling on planes, but after literally one night in my sleep number smart bed, my body feels restored, rested and relaxed. The fact that my bed actually listens to my body and adjusts to my needs to keep me sleeping soundly all the way through the night is worth it alone. Not to mention, my husband and I never need to argue over firmness because we can each dial in our own sleep number setting. Why choose a sleep number smart bed? So you can choose your ideal comfort on either side. And now for a limited time, Sleep number smart beds start at $849. Price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Exclusively at a sleep number store near you. See store or sleepnumber.com for details.
- [01:54]
Expert on Climate Security
There's been bipartisan agreement for quite some time now that there are national security dynamics and risks associated with climate. It was during a Republican Congress in the first Trump administration that a definition of climate security was codified in the National Defense Authorization Act.
- [02:13]
Anna Hickey
It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Anna Hickey, associate Editor of communications with Aaron Sikorsky, Director of the center for Climate and Security.
- [02:22]
Expert on Climate Security
Climate security has to be broader than just the federal government in this environment, and that's why the sub national engagement is so critical, right? When we say climate security, what I really mean is keeping Americans safe and secure from climate hazards and so that they can thrive, right?
- [02:42]
Anna Hickey
Today we're talking about the omission of climate change from the annual threat assessment and how the Trump administration views climate security. So you're here to talk about the annual threat assessment. So first, can you just explain to our listeners what the annual threat assessment.
- [02:56]
Expert on Climate Security
Is so the intelligence community's annual threat assessment is a yearly report to Congress, unclassified. They do a classified version as well, but the one we'll talk about is unclassified to lay out what the intelligence community sees as the top priority threats facing the United States in the coming year. Right. It's their key warning document to Congress.
- [03:20]
Anna Hickey
Who is involved in writing it in the intelligence community.
- [03:24]
Expert on Climate Security
Sure. So the Director of National Intelligence presents it to Congress. So it represents the views of all 18 intelligence agencies that sit under her purview. It's usually led through the National Intelligence Council, but incorporates perspectives, like I said, from across all, all of the agencies.
- [03:44]
Anna Hickey
The reason I'm talking to you today is because, as you noted in your piece at the Council on strategic risks, the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment is the first in over a decade to omit climate change. So in your piece, you write that the IC and the ATA did not shrink from climate and environmental security threats throughout the first Trump administration. So what do you make of this omission in the second administration and what it says about how the intelligence community is operating in President Trump's second term?
- [04:11]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, I think I was disappointed to see it not included because I think it sends a signal that the politicization of the climate issue is extending further than it did in the last Trump administration. Right. I mean, during the first Trump administration, the President made no, no, no secret of the fact that he wasn't concerned about climate change. He didn't consider it a topic issue for the US but you continued to see reports come out of our intelligence agencies on the topic. Now, I think they've come in this time around even stronger on some of these issues, and they've lumped climate change in with what they call these, quote, unquote, other woke issues. Right. That we won't be spending time on the national security community. And so it makes me worried not to see it in there because I, you know, I have no way of knowing, and I think she was asked, even maybe asked about this in her testimony, but whether that was a directive from on high, you know, don't include climate. We're not focusing on it anymore. Or if it was a choice not to include it, because the analysts know this is not something the administration cares about. So there's some element of self censorship there.
- [05:27]
Anna Hickey
Yeah. In the Congressional briefings of the assessment, at least in the Senate briefing, Senator King from Maine questioned Tulsi Gabbard, the current Director of National Intelligence, about the omission. And I don't know if you watched it, but she responded that she did not recall whether or not she directed the omission. I was wondering if you did watch it, what you would make of her dodge of the answer or refusal to kind of directly answer the question.
- [05:52]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, it was a classic Washington dodge. Right. And to answer by not answering. And so, like I said, who knows exactly how it all happened? But what I do know is that by not including it, then it sends a strong message that this isn't a priority and this isn't something that the intelligence community should be worrying about or focused on for the coming year. I mean, I think that's the other thing that ATA does is it kind of lays out the agenda. Right. These are the top threats. These are the things we're focused on. This is where we're going to put our time and energy. And so things that aren't in there doesn't mean they don't get covered at all, but they maybe don't get the priority or the resources that they need in this case.
- [06:32]
Anna Hickey
And so why has climate change been included in previous threat assessments? I think to the average listener, they might not think of natural disasters as a national security risk, but what was the reasoning for it in the previous decade to include it in these ATAs?
- [06:46]
Expert on Climate Security
Right. Well, there's a range of ways in which climate change impacts US national security concerns. And what you saw in previous annual threat assessments was everything from discussing, you know, climate's impact on water and food security and key geographies around the world and what that might mean for risks of instability and conflict in different places, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring, where you saw food insecurity contribute to revolutions. Right. That overthrew leaders. The intelligence community has been interested in understanding how different factors can combine together to create risks and places we care about. And climate is increasingly one of those drivers of risk. But also there are the direct threats of the hazards themselves. Right. Whether they threaten military bases and installations that are along coastlines. Right. And getting inundated by strengthened storms, or they're in the deserts of California and they're being evacuated due to wildfires. There's huge questions around military readiness, military resilience, and climate hazards themselves. There's also the fact that militaries are deploying globally in response to these hazards. Right. Your countries are using militaries to fight wildfires, to respond to droughts, to rescue people from floods, and that is straining their capacity and their ability to focus on other issues like training or development. But even if you don't care about all of that, even if, you know you're someone who cares only about, say, China is the top competitor of the United States, and that's the number one thing we should be focused on. Right. You also have to bring a climate lens into that understanding of China's national interests globally. How is it positioning itself in a warming Arctic, for example? How is it trying to secure food for its vast population in the face of climate hazards itself? How is the Chinese military preparing to manage sea level rise at the islands it's created in the South China Sea? Right. So by omitting climate, you're just creating all of these blind spots. And the other thing I'll say is this has been. There's been bipartisan agreement for quite some time now that there are national security dynamics and risks associated with climate. It was during a Republican Congress in the first Trump administration that a definition of climate security was codified in the National Defense Authorization Act. Right. So this isn't about politics. It's about pragmatism of keeping the United States safe and giving the military room to maneuver in a changed world.
- [09:33]
Anna Hickey
And could you talk about whether or not there have been any other kind of consistent inclusions in the assessment that have, like, climate change kind of cropped up in every assessment year after year, or has climate change really been the only one that's been consistent over the past decade?
- [09:48]
Expert on Climate Security
There have been others. I mean, the main, you know, obviously, counterterrorism issues, competition with China, issues with Russia, Iran, North Korea, you know, the big national security concerns, but also things around global health security have been included in the ATA. Traditionally, warnings about pandemics pre 2020were in the ATA, and there was very little to nothing about global health issues in this ATA either. It seemed that kind of anything that isn't, quote, unquote, considered a traditional hard security threat was eliminated from this ata. And again, I think that's worrying. You've had previous directors of the CIA talk about what they call problems without passports. Right. Climate, health, other things that cross borders, and how it was really the intersection of those with more traditional security threats that pose real challenges for the US So I see this as a step.
- [10:48]
Anna Hickey
Backwards thinking about the national security apparatus within the US Government beyond just the intelligence community. Have you seen any indications from the DoD or any other agencies that this kind of omission of climate change is occurring across the government in the national security sector? Or is this just the first instance that you've really seen?
- [11:10]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, you're seeing it across government And President Trump made it very clear when he came into office that climate would no longer be a priority. And so everything from the elimination of usaid, which is where a lot of the forward looking programming to prevent climate security risks, particularly in already unstable or conflict affected states, all of that's gone. Work at the State Department to focus on climate security, from what I understand, is largely gone. The Defense Department. It's interesting, you know, publicly Secretary Hegseth likes to talk about this a lot. He talked about it in his confirmation hearing, saying that his secretary of the Navy would only be focused on shipbuilding, not on climate. You know, he even, I don't know, in some tweet in a recent month said something like, you know, the Pentagon won't be doing climate change crap anymore, but what that seems to primarily mean is they won't be doing things related to clean energy and building energy resilience that way. But I think things around resilience of bases, right. Investing to make sure that they're attuned to changing climate, other things like that, hopefully that will be able to continue because that's about protecting our troops, it's about protecting our capabilities and hopefully we'll see that move forward. But who knows? Again, like I said, when you have your leaders talking about how we don't do this anymore, even if the program still exists, will folks feel empowered to lean forward? Certainly, you know, we're seeing with US allies and partners around the world a worry that they definitely shouldn't talk about climate in a security context with this administration. So I think there is a chilling, a chilling effect, unfortunately. So even if at the, you know, at the like, civilian operational level, things can continue, the leadership that the US Was, was had on this issue is really gone.
- [13:18]
Anna Hickey
And when you talk about resilience and the military and national security apparatus against climate change, I mean, for me, what I think of is the bases in Florida or Texas or Louisiana, military bases that might be impacted by hurricanes and other natural disasters, because obviously, you know, hurricane season is fast, quick approaching. What other types of resilience did the military or other national security apparatus do either during the first Trump administration or the Biden administration that you kind of fear might be dropped in the next four years?
- [13:52]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, as I was just speaking about, one of the great things that we've seen previously with the military was real partnership with other countries, close allies in Europe or partners in Africa to help those militaries become more resilient to climate hazards as well. Right. And I think the US Military saw this as an opportunity to buy down future risk. If you make a military partner in, say, the Pacific more resilient to climate hazards, that means that partner can be there for you when you need them. Right. If you want to be able to use their runways, for example, or you want to be able to use their ports that they can handle whatever climate hazards come at them. I worry that that kind of leadership and partnership won't be there in the same way. There was a great report put out by the State Department a couple of years ago now that included kind of a range of new security threats, but it included a scenario around Taiwan, a conflict around Taiwan where due to a changed climate, you have an unseasonable or a strengthened typhoon that hits, that creates communication challenges for key actors, whether the United States or China, interrupts comms, maybe for one side or the other, interrupts supply lines for one side or the other, and creates real challenges around reassurance and deterrence and misperceptions of what one side's doing to the other. So again, it's an example of by bringing that climate lens and making sure you have the most up to date understanding about what type of hazards might exist in a region that you're able to make better contingency plans. Right. That may be needed in the case of a hot conflict, God forbid. Right. And so all of that kind of resilience and that systemic thinking about risk, I fear is not going to happen as much. There will still be reactive responses when hazards occur. But the kind of forward planning, and that's across government, it's not just DoD or Intel, it's kind of across all of the foreign security policy apparatus. And some of that was happening in the last administration. But that's hard. It's hard, you know, and so any of the progress that was made, you know, now we've, we've lost that.
- [16:15]
Anna Hickey
And thinking about the United States role in helping, like developing countries, militaries become more climate resilient, do you see the EU or even like China having the capacity to step in? Or was this something because of the size of the US Military? It was kind of singularly. The US could do that globally.
- [16:33]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah. I mean, there are definitely places where European countries or NATO countries might have partnerships, longtime partnerships where they can do this, I think like the UK and Kenya, for example, or maybe in Jordan. But no, no country can match the kind of reach of the US military. In particular, we've seen China in some places try to step in in the wake of the, you know, the pullout of US aid. So on the development front, but on the military front, they're certainly not there yet. So yeah, it's a real missed opportunity and it's a big loss that then has the potential to blow back to the United States because you think about places like sub Saharan Africa and the Sahel or in East Africa where investments in helping militaries manage climate risks helps them also deal with terrorism and extremism. Right? If you look at Kenya, for example, where their military has really done a lot of work to integrate climate into their engagements in Somalia and elsewhere to help manage drought and help plant trees and help local communities be resilient to hazards. When you don't have a partnership with the US pushing them forward to do that, they have fewer resources. It leaves more communities at risk and allows extremists to take advantage.
- [17:58]
Podcast Announcer
Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online. At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable, your data is a commodity. Anyone on the web can buy your private details and the data brokers make a profit off of your data. But this can lead to identity theft, phishing attempts, and harassment for you. But now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me. I'm active online. I also have enemies for some reason. There are these people out there who don't like me very much. So I have to be out there on the one hand, but my privacy is really important to me on the other. I've had online harassment, identity theft. There's a reason for all of that. There's this data about me that's all for sale. My name, contact information, Social Security number, home address, even information about my family members. And it can all be compiled by data brokers and sold online. Or at least it used to be. Now Delete Me keeps an eye out and gets the data brokers to delete sensitive data about me before people can use it against me. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare20 and use the promo code Lawfare20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com and/Lawfare20 and enter the code Lawfare20 at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare 20 code Lawfare20.
- [19:55]
Anna Hickey
What.
- [19:55]
Podcast Announcer
Does the future hold for business? Ask nine experts and you'll get ten answers. Bull market Bear market Rates will rise. Rates will fall. Inflation's up or down. Tariffs are in, they're out. Can someone please invent a crystal ball? Well, until someone does, more than 41,000 businesses are future proofing their business with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one cloud ERP bringing accounting, financial management, inventory, HR into one fluid platform with one unified business management suite. There's one source of truth giving you the visibility and control you need to make quick decisions, real time insights and forecasting. With that, you're peering into the future with actionable data. When you're closing the books in days, not weeks, you're spending less time looking backwards and more time on what's next. Okay, I'm going to be really honest with you, Lawfare not doing this level of business yet. We're a small nonprofit, but we're spunky and we're going for it. And if we were doing this volume, we would be right there with netsuite by Oracle. So whether your company is earning millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars, and if it is doing the latter, why aren't you donating some of that to Lawfare? NetSuite helps you respond to immediate challenges and seize your biggest opportunities. And speaking of opportunities, download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning at netsuite.com lawfare the guide is free to you at netsuite.com lawFare that's netsuite.com lawfair.
- [21:55]
Thumbtack Advertiser
The INS and outs of caring for your home Out Uncertainty Self doubt Stressing about not knowing where to start in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done Out Word art Sorry. Live Laugh lovers in knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download thumbtack today. Hey prime members, are you tired of ads interfering with your favorite podcasts? Good news. With Amazon Music, you have access to the largest catalog of ad free top podcasts included with your prime membership. To start listening, download the Amazon Music app for free or go to Amazon.com ADFreePodcasts that's Amazon.com ADFreeP Podcasts to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads.
- [22:46]
Bomba's Advertiser
This is a PSA or public sock announcement. Experts have declared Bomba's socks as the best way to warm up chilly feet. These pairs are super cushy, soft and designed for maximum coziness. Plus, for every pair purchased, another pair will be donated so someone in need of essential clothing can stay warm this winter. Go to bombas.com acast and use code acast for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M B-A-S.com acast and use code Acast at checkout.
- [23:19]
Anna Hickey
Obviously, we've seen a lot of grants and contracts, especially in the foreign aid sphere, get canceled in just the first few months of the second Trump administration. Have you seen any specific funding or grants towards this kind of partnership be canceled that you're specifically worried about, or is it just all caught up in the general foreign aid kind of slashing?
- [23:40]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, there were some programs at the Department of Defense that I'm worried about, and I think their fate is still a little unclear. You know, we'll see how it all, how it all falls out. You know, I don't want to, I don't want to put a target on anyone's back either. So for things that still exist.
- [24:00]
Anna Hickey
Understandable. And so kind of, obviously we're just in the very first few months, not necessarily the early days, but early months of the second administration, as the administration continues to lay out their priorities. Is there anything else you're watching to see how they kind of, I guess not address climate change? Are you going to be looking at it in the NDAA or any other assessments coming out from the national security apparatus?
- [24:26]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, every four years, the National Intelligence Council usually puts out a big report called Global Trends, which is an unclassified look at the next 20 years and the key threats facing the United States. Waiting to see if that, that will come out. It usually includes climate as a risk. So if it does come out, we'll see what it says. I think that will send a sign. We'll look at the national defense strategy as well as the national security strategy, if the White House does one and how they, I'm sure they're not going to talk about climate issues, but yeah, we'll see what happens in Congress as well. I mean, I think the other thing to watch is, right. A former defense official who worked on these issues in previous administrations likes to say physics always wins. We're going to continue to have climate extreme weather events right. In the near term. And so when those, we have the first major events at a U.S. military base. Right. Or here in the U.S. and that requires a military response. How does this administration react? I think we'll, we'll learn from that. And then, you know, what does it mean? I think a lot of the things that have been cut by the administration, we won't really see their full impact, you know, until months if not a few years into the future. But some of the cuts that have been made at noaa, for example, a place that the military relies on for a lot of data and information about climate, the impact of some of these climate security programs that were at usaid, when those have completely disappeared, we've already seen in Myanmar with the earthquake, which obviously is not a climate hazard. But normally the US Response would be led by a team, what's called a DART team, from usaid, and that hasn't happened this time around. So the US Is not on the ground in the way it normally would be to respond. So I think those are all things I'll be watching to see both what the Trump administration publishes in terms of reports, but then also how its actions take place on the ground and what that means for US national security.
- [26:43]
Anna Hickey
And I think there is for some Americans a kind of disconnect between the climate assistance and humanitarian assistance that the US Government provides to foreign countries, and then the benefit to our national security it can provide. So can you explain kind of why having like this DART team on the ground in Myanmar during this earthquake or during a hypothetical hurricane or monsoon, how that helps our national security?
- [27:08]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, the US Role in the world as a positive leader creates a lot of benefits for the United States. I mean, it creates soft power, right? We are a country traditionally that others have looked up to, and we can provide resources, right. Create partnerships that then, you know, especially when we're in a more geopolitically competitive world with China in particular, we become the partner of choice, right? Especially when you look at the Pacific or Southeast Asia, and we want those, those countries on side with the US and one of the ways we can do that is through responding to what they consider their top national security concern, which is climate. Right. And also, as I was talking about earlier, that when you can invest in resilience in those places, that provides a benefit to the U.S. if we, our military needs to use the space. Right. Or if we need to rely on that local community for support if we're deployed in the region. So those are some of the reasons. I mean, the other thing I would say is a lot of the work of USAID and climate resilience and food security resilience, which is related to climate, there are states across the US that provide that food aid or that house university programs that do the research that informs these interventions. And so that provides jobs and economic development, you know, in communities in the U.S. so we're very connected globally and losing that, you know hurts not just here in Washington, but it hurts all over the country.
- [28:45]
Anna Hickey
And is there anything Congress or Congressional Democrats, Republicans, if they prioritize climate change, could do to push the administration to start to think about climate change as a national security threat?
- [28:58]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, as I was saying earlier, there's been a lot in the National Defense authorization bill in recent years requiring reports or requiring climate considerations to be integrated into installation plans, for example. So Congress can do a lot in terms of, you know, creating those kind of requirements in the ndaa. Frankly, I don't have a lot of hope that that's going to happen given the current makeup. But it's possible they can also hold hearings, right? Ask questions. They can do what Senator King did in the ATA and ask a question about why climate was missing. I think that kind of pressure is important to help keep the issue on the table for this administration.
- [29:45]
Anna Hickey
And then you mentioned California earlier. And obviously states do not have the kind of national security apparatus that the United States federal government does. But do state governments have any ability to kind of promote climate resilience within their own, you know, National Guard? Or is that something that's still pretty monitored at the federal level?
- [30:07]
Expert on Climate Security
No, absolutely. And there's a big role, I think, for states and kind of sub national climate security. I mean, how do you build a safe and secure state and community? And the National Guard is a big role in that. There's a lot of interesting innovation that happens in California with their National Guard in terms of wildfire fighting and how they integrate with state and local officials. There's some interesting collaborations between National Guards and the west to help each other out, depending on who's facing certain hazards. So yeah, I think that's a huge resource that states have and actually it's a really interesting opportunity for some subnational diplomacy then too, because the state National Guards all participate in something called the State Partnership Program, where they have long relationships with foreign countries over many years where they've gone over and done trainings and exercises. And these days a lot of those trainings and exercises have been on extreme weather response, trading tips on fighting wildfires, trading tips on responding to drought. So I think that is a way to continue some of that international engagement on the topic, but with just different levels of of government here in the.
- [31:18]
Anna Hickey
US and then as we think about climate security for the United States, is there anything you're specifically looking at over the next four years to see how the Trump administration responds?
- [31:29]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, there's so much right Now, Right. I think looking at how they deal with domestic disaster response, you know, I think there's been some talk about getting rid of FEMA completely, which I think is a real risk and would put Americans at risk and also then put more of the burden potentially on the US Military and on the National Guard to be first in line to respond. So I think that's something I'll be watching closely. And what kind of resources is there? Politicization of where resources flow to states and local governments as well, I think will be something to keep a, keep a close eye on.
- [32:10]
Anna Hickey
And so thinking about climate change and its impacts, do you have anything off the top of your head about how climate change has specifically impacted the US Military's kind of ability to respond to different situations over the past few years, or is it pretty amorphous?
- [32:25]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, a couple examples I'll give you of the US and then maybe one, if you don't mind, from Canada and Australia, then two in the US So you had two major climate driven hazards in the Pacific last year. You had a typhoon, Typhoon Mawar that hit Guam, which decimated US Military facilities there, caused billions of dollars of damage. So interrupted, right. That capacity in a key AOR for the US Military that was really concerning. Another was in the Marshall Islands in Kwajalein Station. A rogue wave, a huge wave came over the base there and again decimated a lot of equipment and interrupted the ability of the base to operate. And that there they did an attribution study afterwards that the waves of that kind are driven by climate change. It was actually something that had been warned about before to the base. So those are a couple examples directly. You know, I have also heard examples in California with bases out in the desert that some of the atmospheric rivers that hit California last year washed out roads, cut off training. You know, weren't, weren't big disasters in that they caused, you know, huge amounts of damage to buildings and infrastructure, but they just made everything work a lot less efficiently on a base and slowed things down. The other thing I've watched in the US Too, is the impact that these hazards have, not just on physical things, but on troop morale. So with Hurricane Michael that hit Tyndall Air force base in 2019, that required a bunch of soldiers who were stationed there to move to another base to continue their training. And it wasn't clear how long that would be, whether it'd be temporary or not. They had to move their families, right, pull their kids out of school, and it ended up because it dragged on and they didn't get clear answers. They ended up separating from the military because of that. So the impact that these hazards have on troop morale. We know, I mean, there's tons of studies about the these hazards harming mental health of communities generally when they hit. Well, the same is true for U.S. troops. Right. And then the example I wanted to give you from Canada and Australia is both of those countries, their militaries have deployed a ton in response to wildfires. Two summers ago, the Canadian military deployed over 120 some days in a row to wildfires. And there are real concerns from top leadership of those militaries that this is taking away from training, it's impeding their ability to be prepared for contingencies in the Pacific, for example, and it's unsustainable and too costly in the long run.
- [35:14]
Anna Hickey
Yeah, I remember the smoke from those wildfires that summer in D.C. that was no joke.
- [35:20]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah.
- [35:21]
Anna Hickey
And I guess kind of wrapping up our conversation is do you have any final thoughts about how you're thinking about climate security over the next four years in this Trump administration?
- [35:30]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah, I mean, I think a couple things, and I've already alluded to this one is I think that climate security has to be broader than just the federal government in this environment. And that's why the subnational engagement is so critical. When we say climate security, what I really mean is keeping Americans safe and secure from climate hazards so that they can thrive. Right. And have economic development, have community resilience. And that can happen at the local level as well. And then I think it's about continuing to communicate the facts about the risks. Right. And the more we can provide concrete evidence of how much money it costs at this base, how many times the military is deploying, being able to tell those fact based stories of the impact, I think will hopefully help shape a healthier conversation. But I mean, we're in a really challenging moment right now and we've lost a lot of ground. And so I think we're going to face some really tough questions here in the next few years about how we address this risk. And we'll have fewer tools in our toolbox to do it, unfortunately.
- [36:48]
Anna Hickey
I think we'll end it there on that pessimistic note. But thank you so much for joining me. This was incredible conversation.
- [36:55]
Expert on Climate Security
Yeah. Thank you, Anna.
- [36:59]
Anna Hickey
The Lawfare podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts. Becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfirmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only for our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for our other podcasts, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Law Fair Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written work@lawfaremedia.org the podcast was edited by Jen Pachec. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.
- [37:41]
Expert on Climate Security
Foreign.
- [37:46]
Bomba's Advertiser
Hey, this is Jonathan Fields, host of the Good Life Project podcast. Boost Mobile Reminds me of what I love when someone reimagines what's possible. They have invested billions in building America's newest 5G network, becoming the country's fourth major carrier. They are doing things differently, offering a $25 monthly unlimited plan that never increases in price and letting you try their service risk free for 30 days. With blazing fast 5G and plans for all the latest dev, they're changing the game. Visit your nearest Boost Mobile store or find them online@boost mobile.com the Boost Mobile network, together with their roaming partners, covers 99% of the US population. 5G speeds not available in all areas.