New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Not All Military Bases Plan for Warming, Watchdog Finds

The Defense Department recognizes the risks posed by climate change, but needs to do more to protect its facilities

Fort Irwin military base.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Defense Department may be aware of the risks of climate change, but it still needs to do a better job of preparing its facilities for the effects of a warmer planet, federal watchdogs warned in a report published yesterday.

One major issue: Individual military bases have taken an inconsistent approach to the threat of global warming.

Investigators at the Government Accountability Office found that of the 23 installations they surveyed, eight had not followed DOD guidance in planning for extreme weather and climate change.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"For example, Fort Irwin, California, worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve stormwater drainage after intense flash flooding caused significant damage to base infrastructure," the GAO investigators wrote. "By contrast, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, did not include such considerations in its plans, although it is located in an area subject to tropical storms and where further sea level rise is anticipated."

GAO also raised concerns that military officials often modeled their climate preparations based on past experiences, rather than future projections of global warming.

"While 15 of the 23 installations we visited or contacted had integrated some consideration of extreme weather or climate change effects into their planning documents, only two of these installations had taken steps to fully assess the weather and climate risks to the installation or develop plans to address identified risks," the investigators wrote.

While it identified shortcomings, the new report is the latest sign the U.S. military and intelligence community views climate change as a growing threat, even if President Trump does not.

Multiple congressional hearings this year have put that split on public display.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, for example, in January told a key Senate committee that climate change poses a significant risk to national security, despite Trump's past claims that global warming is a hoax (Climatewire, Jan. 30).

Top Defense officials have also warned lawmakers of specific climate threats, such as Russia's movement of weapons into a warming Arctic, even as the White House has pursued a plan to conduct an "adversarial" review of the science linking global warming to security risks (Climatewire, April 18).

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe