• • Consequences
  • Emissions
  • Climate Change
  • Security Impacts
• • Energy Security
  • American Dependence
  • Source Reliability
  • Geographic Choke Points
• • Alternatives
  • Public Opinion
  • Consumption
  • Alternative Energy
  • Responses
• • News Clips
  • Press Releases
  • Blog

Policy Alternatives

While there is a solid -- and growing -- consensus in the United States that climate change is both real and a consequence of human activity, there remain significant challenges.

Addressing the security implications of climate change is simple in concept and difficult in execution. The policy responses are straightforward. The United States would be more secure if we reduced our carbon emissions and persuaded others to do the same. The best way to do so would be to invest in a dramatic expansion of alternative energy production capacity -- notably, wind, solar, and nuclear -- combined with a massive investment in shifting our transportation infrastructure from its reliance on internal combustion engines fueled by gasoline to electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Translating this concept into action is hampered by two sets of factors -- public opinion and the state of existing technology.

While there is a solid -- and growing -- consensus in the United States that climate change is both real and a consequence of human activity, there remain significant challenges. First, a large percentage of the public remains skeptical of the science despite the overwhelming evidence. Some of these skeptics are professional contrarians, but many are simply poorly informed individuals. The public education challenge remains significant. Second, many are concerned about the capacity of the federal government to address climate change fairly and effectively, and prefer not to enact policies that would expand the reach and power of Washington. Finally, there are many Americans who consider climate change a pressing issue, but who are worried about supporting a vigorous effort to address climate security because of the potential and real costs to themselves, their communities, and the nation.

The state of existing technology is also a challenge. Transitioning to alternative energy on a mass scale would be tremendously costly, and in the case of some economic sectors essentially impossible at the present time. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the future costs. Optimists argue that greater investment in alternative energy would generate economies of scale and more rapid innovation. Pessimists argue that much of the science of alternative energy is mature and that transformational developments are unlikely. Nuclear energy also raises a special set of concerns as memories of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl linger in the public consciousness.

As a practical matter, a dramatic shift away from the use of coal for electricity production would require a significant investment in nuclear power. But nuclear plants are large and expensive, raising challenges of both power transmission and financing. Nuclear plants also produce hazardous waste that must be safely stored for many centuries.

Transforming the transportation infrastructure could be even more daunting. There are over 250,000,000 motor vehicles on American roads.¹ Replacing or converting even a significant percentage of them would be a massive undertaking. Investing in additional electricity generation for batterypowered vehicles, or in a hydrogen distribution system would be even more expensive. As a consequence, changes are likely to be made at the margins over a period of decades, ensuring that unless we begin charting a new course immediately, our actions could occur too late to mitigate the worst consequence of climate change.

Join our Mailing List