shaped our leaders. challenges they face. and the legacies they have left behind. order your copy today. ispan's "the presidents," now available as a hardcover or e-book at c-span.org/the presidents. john conger is the director for the center for climate and security, here to talk what the national security impacts of climate change. first, what is your group? for: micro is the group comment insecurity, a small think tank. we are focused solely on joint attention to the national security applications of climate change and try to get people to take action to address them. greta: you worked at the pentagon and you have worked on this issue. explain what you are doing then. john: when i worked at the pentagonjohn:, i had oversight over installation and environment and energy policy. there, andmy duties

overseeing all of these spaces, the implications of climate change was one of the issues we had to deal with. i have responsibility within that context. greta: what were you doing? john: we do planning, strategy, and the context of climate change. we started pulling together guidance on how one would deal with it, like flooding, natural resources, that sort of thing. greta: what do you think, given your experience, is the most pressing issue of climate change for national security sec. if iro: -- security? john: had to put it into categories, there's the implications of how to change for how the dod does its job, one of the flooding issues it faces, one of the extreme weather impacts -- what are the extreme weather impacts? the largest extreme impact we have seen is when you get stronger hurricanes, or abnormal

weather in such a way that a debilitating base and takes it off line for number of days. that has serious readiness publications and cost applications. greta: give us an example. hurricane fall, michael hit a base in the panhandle of florida. it wasn't currently strong hurricane -- it was an incredibly strong hurricane. they essentially flat in the base. they did over $3 billion worth of damage. the base was taken off-line. they flew out as many aircraft as they cut in advance of the storm, but there were some that were in the condition to fly, and those were damaged at the base. the point is that that kind of storm, which we see more and more of, with more impact, that has implications. was that example. cap lejeune in north carolina to damage from hurricane florence.

that was $3 billion plus with a damage. record floods of the missouri river inundated an air force base recently. that did another $1 billion plus for the damage. greta: how long did it take for the basis to get back up? john: it is hard to say they are even completely up and running. , a couple ofes them are back. camp lejeune, about $3 billion worth of damage, but it's a much larger base. they will need that money. the marine corps is a smaller service. the financial hit is bigger for them. greta: we want to get our viewers involved. a special line this morning for active military.

what about the larger impact of conflicthange, causing and strife around the world. what are the national security iflications of that? john: you take a step back, i normally think of it in a few different categories. you have how impact today's jobs, what kind of jobs you will have the future, and that is an arctic issue. that there's the whole geopolitical situation. as you have climate structures around the world, shortages of water, food. sea level rise pushing people away from the coast. create stresscts on a country. if you have a country that has limited governance capacity, they have either a government that is less competent and able to do with these problems, you get instability.

that can sometimes lead to conflict. how has the top administration treated this issue? john: it's interesting. the current administration gets a bad rap a lot of the time for how it deals with climate change. how has the top administration treated this i would say that the military has continued to look at this problem. that's because the military looks at climate change as a mission impact. their first job and primary job is going to make and a competent of their mission. whatever piece of the puzzle we are talking about, operations, or planning for conflict around the world, they're going to look at it all in the context of mission. they have continued to do that. you will see that the military looks at it as a resilient issue. how do i deal with this problem when it happens, rather than have you stop it? that i woulddset

say the administration is more comfortable with. the military is continue to do that. let's go to david who is in pasadena. a republican. hi. you are probably familiar with ipc see -- ipcc, they are the suppose it experts on the warning. we are told that this is man-made global warming and it is man-made production of carbon dioxide that is causing all of this. i have in front of me a charge -- insteadcc, the of global warming, it confirms global cooling for the past 17 years. the interesting thing about the so-called settled science is is this global cooling is going on at the same time of an increase in co2. we are told the settled science

is saying that co2 increase global warming go hand-in-hand, but the evidence from the experts on this say it is the other way around. we have global cooling going on in the 17 year period of time, while we have an increase in co2. we are told we have to make massive changes in our lifestyle, whether we drive cars, where we live, all of these things have to change. settled the so-called science disagrees, with what the evidence is being purported here. gone i love that you have and dug out the charts. they will be glad to hear that someone is reading their data. i don't know that it is helpful for a nonscientist to talk to nonscientists in the hopes to come to some scientific revelation. the national climate assessment put up by the federal government, released by this administration and its scientists, have said that yes,

it is settled that the preponderance of the evidence shows that there is more carbon in the atmosphere, yes, it is caused by humans, and yes, it is causing global warming. it's a complex system. the world is not just about one temperature gauge. there are sea levels rising, you can see the arctic ice is melting. there are a whole host of implications. talking about the science and how you will change your life and how you change your carbon emissions is not with the military is doing. the military is dealing with how they see things having -- happening at their bases. naval base, norfolk they are concerned about the impact of extreme weather and the sea level rising. they are looking at how they will do with today's problem, not merely some projection in the future. the navy is looking at how they change their operations and how they plan for an arctic with no ice. the ice is receiving even now. russia and china are moving forces north.

china has more icebreakers than we do. the are looking at geopolitical implications that they see today. it's a real world debate. >> alex in brooklyn, new york. >> hi, just a comment. all, climate change is one of the greatest threats to our future and national security. more work and effort has to be done to find a thatasive message approaches climate change from a national security and free-market perspective. it seems like that might unify more of the nation around the science, which is complex, but undoubtedly points to grave costs and security concerns for the country. john: we certainly see those costs coming forward and those implications. i talked about the impact of

extreme weather. we are seeing more and more billion-dollar weather events. those two.seeing they are starting to think about how they make the bases more resilient to the impacts, and as the sea level rises, it takes less of a storm to have that kind of him -- financial impact of their bases and operational impacts. i don't know that the military needs to be convinced anymore. their budget reflects this. their policies and guidance we fight this. they're taking this -- reflect this. they're taking this into account moving forward. greta: john, tysons corner, a democrat. >> this is all a hoax. i worked with the department of defense. i have been for 20 years. i was at the pentagon. i was at fort belvoir in virginia. installations all

of the country. bad weather will happen in the florida panhandle and east coast in north carolina periodically. it will happen. it is been that way for centuries. it won't stop because we're using electric cars. the whole thing is a myth. at the pentagon, too. we can all work at the pentagon. i worked at the pentagon from 2009-2017 and in the 90's as well. i understand your perspective. there is bad weather. what we are seeing is there and -- is there is an increase in larger impact storms. larger dollar storms. what we're also noting is that with warmer waters, you get more energy in the storm, which can be higher winds or more water.

storms overe record and over again, you start to wonder if there's something different going on. i don't think it takes a scientist to see that the arctic ice is melting and that there is more trade going through the arctic. the russians are certainly reacting. the chinese are certainly reacting. we have be prepared to deal with that. the navy in norfolk is seeing the sea level rise. they have to do something about it. they are raising their peers, because they are having impacts. years budget alone, they are asking for $40 million to raise flood walls around their drydocks. they are concerned that when they cut open a ship, like a submarine, to do maintenance, and it is open to the air and storm, they get a big it's going to do damage to a multibillion-dollar piece of equipment. that to expecting happen and they are planning for it.

they're looking to protect themselves. this is about resilience. not about electric cars or emissions or anything like that. it's about how you deal with the impacts happening today. and how are they going to be able to be resilient to the impact that will happen in the near term, not the far term. ohn is an active military. john, are you active or retired? >> active, soon to be retired. you do not have to believe in laws ofnce, but the science will dictate what happens. whether people believe the sea levels are rising or not, they will rise. they will flood places. people will die. if enough people die off in the world over time, the company missions will be lower. it will fix itself. it will come to a homeostasis. regardless of whether you believe it or not, it is going to happen. i think that's fair

enough. what we see is the dod is trying to prepare for this. whether it involves getting their bases ready to deal with flooding or more extreme weather events. if it means they are making investments in the right places, so i'll give you an example. the strategic -- the strategic that's headquarters, often air force base, they had over $1 billion for the damage. they just built their new strategic headquarters on a hill. it didn't take the same damage as the rest of the base. that's smart planning. some of it is, how do you take the money you were are you going to spend, and spend it in such a way that you don't lose your investment? in bethlehem, pennsylvania. a democrat. >> good morning. i have a question. i'm a nurse.

when i studied the body, the body produces co2. co2 is in the lungs, and the lungs transform it into oxygen. co2 how do the lungs take and transform that into oxygen? is there something we can learn in cutting down pollution by studying the lungs? thank you. john: thanks for the question. science isand clearly part of the formula that we will be dealing with here as we go forward. i am talking mostly about problems that the military sees today. obviously, if you're going to stop that pattern from happening, you will think about how do i have cleaner emissions?

you will have to innovate. the projections and the path we are on is relatively unsustainable when you think about what the results will be in the long run. greta: i want to get your reaction to senator elizabeth warren at a recent senate armed services committee hearing, freshening outgoing air force secretary heather wilson about how prepared that range is for climate change. >> how would you rate air force installations as a whole in terms of their climate resiliency? >> it varies a lot. i could not give you a green, yellow, or read chart on that. i know we have significant infrastructure challenges overall from a number of factors. >> i see that the air force is requesting nearly $5 billion in emergency funds to rebuild air force bases in florida and nebraska that were damaged by natural disasters.

important thatry the air force and other military services continue to incorporate climate change in their planning , so that when disaster strikes, the impact on operations is minimal. a readinessrly issue. thank you for your work on this. greta: john conger? john: i think that's absolutely right. secretary wilson categorized it correctly. they're willing to be resilient, they fight from their bases, the air force does, so how do you and sure the impacts are minimized? they have a sharks -- smart strategy, they fighter planes out when a hurricane is coming. unfortunately, when the hurricane struck recently, they ,an only fly 60% of the f-22's so they had to store the other 40% in hangers, and most of them were damaged. that is a challenge that they will run into.

how have to think about they can come up for future events, minimize the damage to expensive assets and infrastructure. greta: there is bipartisan legislation to do with protecting military ins tallations. it's the readiness act by senators schatz iran. what is that mothers -- schatz and moran>? what does it do? john: it would tell the military that base by days, assess what their vulnerability is to climate change, and come up with ways to mitigate that vulnerability. there is not one problem or answer. everybody has different issues. proximity to the coast, elevation, different issues with drought or wildfire. they have to think about it base-by-base. and they have to think about what they have to do. the example with the navy at the norfolk shipyard is a great

example of when they are, right now, asking for money to lift their floodwalls up, that is a local project based on a local risk and local tolerability. you will have projects -- vulnerability. the goal will be to make the military more resilient against these impacts. greta: remind viewers with each of administration presidential committee on private security is doing. john: that committee does not exist yet. it was a proposal inside the national security council. they wanted to take an adversarial review of dod and intelligence committee assessments of the applications of, change. the wasson -- climate change. the washington post reported there was some pushback on that. now they are talking about quashing the assessment. pushing tovers undermine the science the dod is

using to make their assessments. you should do more peer-reviewed science and added to the body of knowledge. that's at it to the body of science. i don't know if this committee conclusion.o that >> this is kevin. my statement is basically in yeah, climateing, change is a serious issue for not only the military, but the general population. i view it as an accidental issue. it should -- existential issue. it should have top priority. going back to the gentleman that called a few calls go saying he works for dod, i work for the dod as well, and if we are going to say it's a hoax or anything, we can have our political views, but there is a lot of science to back up the fact that climate change is a real thing that really impacts the military and

the military is taking it very seriously. whether or not our politicians are taking it seriously, or the political discussion around it is serious, our military happens to be taking it very seriously. that was my statement. greta: -- john: i would make a couple of points. one, think about it from a military perspective. if they had 90% and percent of their intelligence -- 97% of their intelligence analysts say there is a minefield in front of them and the percent say it's a hoax, would you walk through the field? you would prepare for the threat.

>> john conger is the director of the center for climate and security. thank you. narrator: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, a discussion of oil pipeline safety and energy infrastructure with the alliance for energy infrastructure founder. then we talk about the future of green jobs with the e2 executive director. and we discussed hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism with kristin clark of the lawyers committee under the law. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion.