How should the U.S. government and army respond to the national security challenges posed by climate change? While it's been pretty much accepted that risks exist, there hasn't been much discussion of exactly what they are or what to do about them.

A recent report from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has a stab at setting out some of the options for Washington - not just in terms of countering threats from global warming, but also exploiting the opportunities for improving military relations and averting terrorism.

"The security dimension comes from more extreme weather events that could exceed civilian capacity and require military mobilisation," Joshua Busby, assistant professor at the University of Texas and author of "Climate Change and National Security: An Agenda for Action", told reporters.

Besides disasters that could lead to civil disorder inside the United States, his report warns that extreme weather events, like hurricanes, could severely damage U.S. military bases, both at home and overseas. They could also cause humanitarian crises in impoverished neighbouring countries, such as Haiti, provoking refugee flows or even state failure.

Another risk lies in international tensions over territorial waters as summer sea ice in the Arctic disappears. Countries, including Canada and Russia, are already trying to lay claim to the North Pole and its resources.

In addition, the report highlights how some of the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change are also of national security concern to the United States.

Take Indonesia, which could be further destabilised by droughts or storms. The report warns that "if the government provided a weak response to a future weather disaster, this could encourage separatists or radicals to challenge the state or launch attacks on Western interests".

The same goes for Africa, where migration due to climate change and weak governments could leave "'ungoverned spaces' where terrorists can organise".

So how to go about preventing or minimising the chances of these negative outcomes?

Busby recommends that Washington should pursue "no regrets" policies that would bring benefits even if the consequences of climate change are less harmful than expected.

CFR's Stephen E. Flynn has already argued that investing in U.S. infrastructure and disaster response capacity, to the tune of around $295 billion per year for five years, would boost the economy as well as reducing the possibility of catastrophic damage from diseases, terrorism and "natural" disasters.

And Busby proposes that the Department of Defense organise annual regional conferences for militaries around the world on natural hazards and disaster preparedness. At the very least, these meetings could improve military ties and help inform the U.S. army about non-environmental threats, the report says.

It adds that the administration should appoint environmental security and climate change champions in top-level positions, beginning with the Pentagon and including a special advisor to the president.

There are other recommendations that will be of particular interest to aid workers: firstly, that the U.S. government should launch a "Climate Change and Natural Disaster Risk Reduction" initiative on a similar scale to President Bush's emergency AIDS plan; and secondly, that it should create a multi-agency "African Risk Reduction Pool", with an annual budget of $100 million, which would be spearheaded by the new U.S. military headquarters devoted solely to Africa, AFRICOM.

Busby says AFRICOM could develop new ways of incorporating climate and environmental concerns into conflict prevention, and act as a model for co-ordinating government agencies that could be replicated in other regions.

While this is still only a proposal, it could set alarm bells ringing among humanitarians, as well as African politicians and citizens - who have been pretty lukewarm about AFRICOM from the start.

"An inter-agency initiative could blunt the perception that all the U.S. cares about with respect to Africa is capturing and killing terrorists," says Busby. "But the downside is that, by bringing in other agencies, they could be seen as coming under the military umbrella."

There's little doubt the Department of Defense already views preventing and responding to humanitarian crises as a key pillar of its strategy to boost stability and security in Africa (see this Q&A on the AFRICOM website).

And in fact, since July 2000, high-level military and civilian representatives from both continents have met regularly to discuss cooperation in disaster response under a project called Golden Spear.

As the CFR report highlights, climate change and its consequences are adding weight to the view that humanitarian emergencies are a matter of military concern - whether from the perspective of civil unrest, conflicts within and between states, or terrorism.

This is only likely to make it harder for aid agencies to protect their humanitarian space, particularly in regions of high strategic importance to Washington and other major world powers.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.