Food crisis could force wartime rations and vegetarian diet on Britons

The British people face wartime rations and a vegetarian diet in the event of a world food shortage, a new official assessment on the UK’s food security suggests today.

Even though the nation is 73 per cent self-sufficient in food production, higher than during the 1950s, the food chain is at risk from global influences such as a worldwide increase in population, climate change bringing extreme weather patterns, higher oil prices and more crops being grown for bio-fuel instead of food.

Supplies in future may also be disrupted by animal disease outbreaks, disruption of power supplies, trade disputes and interruptions for shipping and at ports.

The UK however has one of the highest cereal production capabilities in the world with seven tonnes grown per hectare, compared a world average of 3.3 tonnes per hectare.

In the event of an extreme event, cereal crops would be used to feed the nation and ensure that each person received sufficient daily calories.

But people would have to consume less — the average number of calories eaten per day in the early 1960s was about 2,100, whereas the most recent figure compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation is 2,800.

Even during the Second World War Britain did not have to rely wholly on domestic food production, but Hilary Benn, the Cabinet Minister with overall responsibility for food policy, has ordered officials to prepare for a scenario where the country could feed itself.

In the event of an extreme emergency the most dramatic consequence would be every person eating a predominantly vegetarian diet — more cereals, fruit and vegetables and less meat and poultry. Cereals used to feed farm animals would be shifted into human food production.

A paper setting out the food security assessment states that the food on offer would be “a highly restricted, if sufficiently nutritious diet”.

One of the biggest threats to the supply chain would be restrictions in trade of meat and poultry from Argentina and Brazil or of GM soya, the main commodity used to feed livestock in Britain.

The threat of climate change however will also require new growing techniques such as reduced water usage in agriculture.

In times of normal trading, however, the Government also wishes to ensure that the nation eats a healthier diet and is particularly concerned that low-income households are able to afford fresh fruit and vegetables.

Ministers are also anxious that consumers have confidence in the safety of food and further work is to be undertaken to help reduce the incidence of food poisoning caused by common bugs such as salmonellas, listeria, E.coli and campylobacter. Hygiene inspections at food outlets by local authority enforcement officers is likely to be stepped up.

Mr Benn today called for a radical rethink on the way the UK produces food. He also insisted that GM crops in future could help boost food production especially if some varieties were drought-resistant or required less water, fertilisers and pesticides.

He backed the need for GM crop trials to find out the facts about the new technology and to use the science to boost production.

“We need a radical rethink in how we produce and consume food. Globally we need to cut emissions and adapt to the changing climate that will alter what we can grow and where we can grow it. We must maintain the natural resources — soils, water and biodiversity — on which food production depends.”

“And because we live in an interconnected world — where the price of soya in Brazil affects the price of steak at the local supermarket — we need to look at global issues that affect food security here. That’s why we need to consider what food systems should look like in 20 years and what must happen to get there.”

He is anxious to engage the wider public in debate about the future of the country’s food security as well as how best to help people eat healthier diets and to ensure that new production techniques do not damage the UK’s natural resources.

A new UK food strategy is to be published before the end of the year.

Boulder & 'Julia': Can Boulder channel its inner Julia Child -- while being locavore and vegan?

When Julie Powell decided to cook her way through Julia Child's "Mastering the Art of French Cooking," she found her passion and changed her life.

How would Boulder's notoriously particular eaters -- many of whom view food through a environmental, health and political lens -- interpret one of Child's classic recipes, the bacon, cream and egg tart, Quiche Lorraine?

At Culinary School of the Rockies, appreciation for Julia Child's role in modern American cooking is a given. Office staffers are trying out Child's recipes and blogging about them a la Julie, and the school is offering a home cooking class -- nearly full at the time of this writing -- on Aug. 15 called "Brunch and Julia."

Chef Adam Dulye says American cooks have come back to essence of Child's approach -- sourcing impeccably fresh local ingredients and combining them in straightforward, flavorful ways.

"I think it's definitely back to simple is the way to go," he says. "Only three or four items on a plate. This is a pork chop (that) tastes like a pork chop."

Not the multi-ingredient, layers of exotic ingredients that were popular in the 1980s and 1990s.

Of Child's cooking, he says: "It's going to the market and cooking it. In Boulder, we have a great opportunity to do (Quiche Lorraine) from the ground up. There are people who mill flour, fresh eggs, a couple of dairies, John Long pork. Haystack puts out a firm goat cheese. Dulye might throw in a few of the last spring onions.

While Quiche Lorraine is likely to please locavores, for vegans it's pretty tough sledding. Matt Burns sous chef at Leaf Vegetarian Restaurant says the staff does make eggless egg dishes, but that quiche would be particularly challenging.

He says a custard might be approximated using tofu, soy milk and ground flax seed to help thicken it. Soy cheese and a soy bacon product completes the not-exactly appetizing picture.

"That's why we don't do it here," he says of making quiche at Leaf.

The one bright spot would be the crust, which can be made authentically with shortening, flour, salt and water.

The crust is the ingredient in Quiche Lorraine that causes consternation for Celiacs and others who eat gluten free. One option is to go crustless -- but that would be a timbale rather than a quiche. Another option is to make a crust of grated potatoes. Or you can try a pie crust created by local cookbook author Elana Amsterdam, who has just released her book, "The Gluten-Free Almond Flour Cookbook." As you might surmise from the cookbook's name, she would use almond flour -- she prefers blanched almond flour -- to make a crust, which she says is delicious and healthful.

Perhaps the best approach is not to attempt to recreate the substance of Child's cooking, but rather its spirit -- using high quality ingredients in a way that shows off their essence. Thus, better not for a vegan to try to make a quiche, whose defining quality is the happy marriage of egg and cream. For gluten free eaters, anything approaching French pastry is probably out of the question, although an almond crust is made from a food Child would recognize as opposed to, say, xanthan gum.

Above all, Dulye says, Child would want people to spend some time and care cooking whatever their beliefs or health require.

"To some degree, Julia would sit back and have a good laugh at some of the stuff we do in our kitchens," he says, listing the purchase of pre-made pie crust as an example. "She would say, 'Oh, they'll learn. They'll come around."

Dalai Lama voices concern over climate change

Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama who arrived Sunday in the Buddhists dominated town of Leh in Jammu and Kashmir on a three-week visit voiced his concern over climate change caused by global warming, which he said had started showing its "ill-effects on humanity".

The Dalai Lama, who is in Leh to interact with his disciples, was speaking to a group of prominent citizens of Leh.

The Buddhist spiritual leader said that allout efforts needed to be made to reverse the trend of global warming.

He was received by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who especially flew from Srinagar Saturday evening to receive the spiritual leader at Leh.

The Dalai Lama recalled his friendship with the chief minister's grandfather Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and father Farooq Abdullah.

China, Congress and Climate Change

This week brings two related and interesting stories on the prospects for domestic climate change legislation and progress in Copenhagen when the international community gathers in December to try to hammer out a post-Kyoto treaty on climate change. The first is that China’s top climate negotiator is “optimistic” that the international community will reach agreement on a new treaty in Copenhagen. It’s unclear what the basis for his optimism is given that he also reiterated in strong terms China’s opposition to limits on the amount of greenhouse gases China emits. I’m curious whether there are tea leaves to be read in the fact, though, that China is expressing not only optimisim but also some urgency about the need to tackle the climate change problem. Envoy Yu Quingtai also said that global warming is so “fearsome” that “we cannot afford to fail.”

The second story is that ten Senate Democrats from midwestern and southeastern states, including Ohio, Minnesota, West Virgina, Pennsylvania and Michigan, wrote a letter to President Obama saying that they will not support domestic climate legislation unless it provides protection to domestic industries that would be hurt be foreign competition in countries that do not limit greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, the letter appears not to demand that other countries (read: China) enact domestic carbon limits before the Senators will back any U.S. climate bill. But the letter does — in its very first sentence — support border adjustments, which are tariffs imposed on imports of goods from countries without domestic greenhouse gas limits based on the embedded carbon content of the goods (for a great analysis of the legality of such border adjustments see Cara’s post here). The House version of the Waxman-Markey climate bill also contains border adjustments.

The two stories highlight a major conundrum President Obama will face both in Copenhagen and with Congress in attempting to limit both international and domestic emissions. If the U.S. agrees to a treaty without limits on China, India and other rapidly growing economies the Senate will never ratify the treaty (remember that the Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto accord on the same grounds). Moreover, Congress appears unlikely to pass climate change legislation without a border tax adjustment, particularly if Obama comes home with a treaty that fails to commit China and India to binding emissions limits. But of course China, India and other trading partners without domestic greenhouse gas emissions limits will virulently object to border tariffs based on carbon content. Obama opposes the adjustments and has called them “protectionist” (see Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman’s defense of border adjustments here).

It’s not clear to me how Obama resolves this conundrum. He has recently praised China for its tough fuel economy standards and China has been selling its progress in producing solar and hydroelectric energy. But those steps forward would do little to alleviate concerns over U.S. domestic limits that would affect the steel, aluminum and cement industries.

Political climate for energy policies cools

Monday's National Clean Energy Summit 2.0 will bring a parade of celebrated public policy experts to Las Vegas to discuss greening the country's economy.

But as leaders including former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger encourage investments in alternative energy, their policy prescriptions could face serious headwinds from changing public opinions.

Recent surveys show Americans cooling to global warming, and they're even less keen on environmental policies they believe might raise power bills or imperil jobs. Those sentiments could mean a tougher road ahead for elected officials looking to fund investments in renewable power or install a carbon cap-and-trade system.

"Right now, Americans are more concerned about the economy than the environment," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll. "The politician who says, 'I'm going to cripple jobs and shut down factories' would be in trouble in this economy."

WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY

Here's what Gallup found: The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009, up from 35 percent a year ago. The most marked increase came among political independents, whose ranks of doubters swelled from 33 percent to 44 percent. Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, while Democratic skeptics stayed at around 20 percent.

What's more, fewer Americans believe the effects of global warming have started to occur: 53 percent see signs of a hotter planet, down from 61 percent in 2008. Global warming placed last among eight environmental concerns Gallup asked respondents to rank, with water pollution landing the top spot.

Another recent Gallup study found that, for the first time in 25 years of polling, more Americans care about economic growth than the environment. Just 42 percent of people surveyed said the environment takes precedence over growth, while 51 percent asserted expansion carries more weight. That reverses results from 2008, when 49 percent of respondents said the environment was paramount and 42 percent said economic growth came first. In 1985, the poll's first year, 61 percent placed a bigger priority on the environment, while 28 percent ranked economic growth highest.

All those results indicate trends that pose big challenges for the environmental movement, Gallup's researchers concluded. More pointedly, the findings signal potential trouble for policies designed to curb global warming.

"It's a conundrum. You can't just say to those interested in global warming that they need to do a better job of PR because they have been trying so hard," Newport said. "Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. He made a widely seen movie, and his book sold many copies. Yet, with all that, it hasn't worked. You would have to say that, somehow, they're not getting the message across."

Ask Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, why increasing numbers of Americans dispute global warming and place the economy ahead of the environment, and he'll say those findings are wrong.

"I don't accept their premise. I think the Gallup Poll is mistaken," said Weiss, whose organization will send its chief executive officer, former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, to Monday's clean energy confab. "I would want to look at their questions to see how they got to this place."

Weiss pointed to surveys that contradict Gallup's results. A Pew Environmental Group poll found that 77 percent of voters want lawmakers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and 55 percent said efforts to curb global warming will create jobs. Another poll from the National Wildlife Federation found that 55 percent of those polled strongly support a global warming plan that reduces pollution.

But it's not just Gallup that shows flagging concern about global warming. In a July Rasmussen poll, 56 percent said they didn't want to pay higher taxes or utility bills to generate clean energy and fight global warming. A January Pew poll placed global warming last among the top 20 priorities Americans have for 2009. Nos. 1 and 2? The economy and jobs. Even trade policy and lobbyists outranked global warming. And Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think-tank, pointed to a study from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association that showed 58 percent of respondents were unwilling to pay more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change.

'A HUGE AMOUNT OF SKEPTICISM'

Most observers say the economy is behind changing attitudes.

When people face immediate concerns such as job security, more-distant problems fade into the background, Newport said.

Studies show a strong historical correlation between economic prospects and support for environmental causes. When the economy surges, public support for green initiatives rises, said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow with the free-market advocate Cato Institute.

"We're in the midst of one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression, and people suspect environmental policies have price tags that are not inconsequential," Taylor said.

The public's interest in climate change also rises with extreme weather events, and the nation hasn't seen widespread, catastrophic weather since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Taylor added.

Ebell said he doesn't believe the recession or the weather are eroding public concern about global warming. Rather, he said, publicity over the high cost of green policies in Europe and other regions, as well as indications that those policies haven't yielded results and a 12-year string of stable global temperatures, are changing Americans' minds.

European countries have imposed gasoline taxes of $3 to $4 per gallon to curb consumption, Ebell noted, and the TaxPayers' Alliance in Great Britain estimated that the average British family spends more than $1,200 a year on green charges and levies. Despite such investments, a December report from the United Nations showed that greenhouse gas emissions have grown by almost 10 percent worldwide since 1990, if you control for the emissions-curbing collapse of the Soviet Union and ensuing economic decline in Eastern Europe.

More importantly, said Ebell, the planet's average temperature hasn't risen since 1997, despite a 5 percent gain in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the same period. Twelve years doesn't make for a long-term trend, Ebell said, but every year that goes by with no increase in average temperatures makes it harder to assert the climate is sensitive to carbon dioxide.

"I think there's a huge amount of skepticism among the public. They've heard all these claims, and now they've been informed that there isn't any recent warming," Ebell said. "The public, without having a lot of information about it, is pretty astute. I think the alarmists are having a hard time making the case for global warming simply because reality is against them and the public has figured it out." (The Competitive Enterprise Institute has taken flak for accepting funding from oil giant ExxonMobil. Ebell said the financing ended several years ago, and the funding source didn't affect the group's policy positions, which were in place before the nonprofit sought the money and have remained intact since the agreement concluded.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded that the science showing the greenhouse effect on Earth's climate is solid. He pointed to pictures from Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, which reveal the virtual disappearance of a glacier in the past 35 years.

Weiss added that ignoring the environment carries its own costs: The typical household energy bill has risen $1,100 in the past eight years, even without policies to fight global warming.

"Doing nothing has been very costly," he said.

Worse still, agreed Reid and Weiss, eschewing environmental policies hurts the economy. Prominent venture capitalists and executives from Fortune 500 companies such as General Electric say investing in green energy will boost the economy, creating millions of high-tech jobs. Even a policy as simple as retrofitting existing buildings and constructing new buildings according to green standards would bolster the construction sector, as well as reduce waste and pollution, Reid said.

"The country that makes the clean energy technologies of the future is going to be the one that dominates the world economy," Weiss said. "Right now, China, Germany and other economic competitors are ahead of us because we've had eight years of doing nothing. Americans know we must change the way we generate and use energy. The question isn't whether we're going to buy clean energy technologies. The question is whether we're going to buy clean energy technologies made in the United States and marketed overseas, or whether we'll buy them from China and bring them here."

STILL SOME SELLING TO DO

Bringing alternative power sources online and reining in greenhouse gases pose upfront costs, though, because the country's energy infrastructure was built around fossil fuels. Congress has appropriated more than $60 billion for clean energy initiatives in the past year, including $11 billion for a national "smart" electric grid, $5 billion for making homes more efficient and $2 billion to invest in advanced batteries.

Also, the federal Energy Information Administration released a report Wednesday that tallied up the costs of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the carbon cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives in May and goes to the Senate for a vote in the fall. The agency's analysis found that the bill would increase the cost of energy, pare economic output, curb purchasing power and cut $432 billion to $1.9 trillion from the nation's gross domestic product by 2030.

And that's where all those polls showing that Americans aren't certain those costs are worth it might begin to matter. With so many surveys revealing that Americans have little appetite for environmental policies that they think could stall economic growth or pinch consumers' budgets, policymakers still have some selling to do, observers say.

Politicians might just need to work harder at educating the public on why they think green policies are important, Newport said.

Other elected officials could end up changing their stands on those policies because, after all, a politician's biggest goal is to keep his job.

"Some people think politicians vote on the merits of an issue," Taylor said. "There might be one here or there who does that, but they're exceptions to the rule. For the most part, politicians are like businessmen, only they're in the business of earning votes. Virtually everything they do is with an eye on how many votes it will get them. And these sorts of surveys tell politicians that votes for cap-and-trade programs are extremely hazardous to their electoral health."

Members of Congress who represent blue states and hold leadership positions in their parties will be safer than those who hail from swing states and enjoy less seniority, Taylor predicted.

Reid vowed Friday to continue his push for clean energy policies, saying that a sound and healthy environment is critical to any prosperous economy, and the Gallup numbers show most Americans continue to believe that the seriousness of global warming has been correctly portrayed or even understated.

"We have a duty to all of our children to make sure we don't let temporary difficulties get in the way of making good choices for their future," he said.

An Underwater Fight Is Waged for the Health of San Francisco Bay

Chela Zabin will not soon forget when she first glimpsed the golden brown tentacle of the latest alien to settle in the fertile waters of San Francisco Bay.

Heidi Schumann for The New York Times

The broad-leaf kelp is used in miso soup.

“I had that moment of ‘Oh God, this is it, it’s here,’ ” said Dr. Zabin, a biologist with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. “I was really hoping I was wrong.”

The tentacle in question was that of an Asian kelp, Undaria pinnatifida, a flavorful and healthful ingredient in miso soup and an aggressive, costly intruder in waters from New Zealand to Monterey Bay.

The kelp, known as wakame (pronounced wa-KA-me), is on a list of “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species,” compiled by the Invasive Species Specialist Group. Since her discovery in May, Dr. Zabin and colleagues have pulled up nearly 140 pounds of kelp attached to pilings and boats in the San Francisco Marina alone.

Every year the damage wrought by aquatic invaders in the United States and the cost of controlling them is estimated at $9 billion, according to a 2003 study by a Cornell University professor, David Pimentel, whose research is considered the most comprehensive. The bill for controlling two closely-related invasive mussels — the zebra and the quagga — in the Great Lakes alone is $30 million annually, says the United States Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

Many scientists say that San Francisco Bay has more than 250 nonnative species, like European green crab, Asian zooplankton and other creatures and plants that outcompete native species for food, space and sunlight.

“Here you’ve got a veritable smorgasbord of habitats from shallow and muddy to deep water,” said Lars Anderson, a lead scientist with the United States Agriculture Department. The Oakland port ranks as the fourth busiest in the nation, and ships bring in tiny hitchhikers from across the globe to take up residence in the bay.

Most invasive aquatic species arrive stuck to hulls or as stowaways in ballast water. Wakame first arrived at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in 2000, Dr. Zabin and other scientists said. A year later it had moved south into Baja California and north as far as Monterey Bay, where scientists in scuba suits yanked it off boat hulls and marina moorings.

“It’s just like gardening, you can pull out all the weeds you want, but there will always be that little dandelion seed that will sprout and recolonize,” said Steve Lonhart, senior scientist at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The kelp, which can grow an inch a day, could spread as far north as Canada before the water becomes too cold to sustain it, Dr. Lonhart said.

Native to the Japan Sea, wakame has now spread to the Mediterranean and elsewhere along European coastlines, and to New Zealand, Australia and Argentina, where the fetid smell of rotting kelp has kept beachgoers from parts of the coast.

Wakame harms native kelp, mucks up marinas and the undersides of boats, and damages mariculture like oyster farming.

Money to help eradicate invasive species is difficult to come by on both state and federal levels, particularly in a state facing an unprecedented financial crisis and cuts to programs. “When there is a big wildfire, no one stops and asks, ‘Who is going to pay for this?’ They just fight the fire,” Dr. Anderson said. “We don’t have that kind of automatic response with invasive species.”

On weekends, Dr. Anderson trolls Tomales Bay, 50 miles north of here, in a sea kayak, looking for wakame’s wide leaves.

John Finger is owner of Hog Island Oyster Farm, which has beds in 160 acres of Tomales Bay. His beds yield 2.5 million oysters per year, worth $6 million, Mr. Finger said. Of wakame’s approach, he said, “It seems inevitable that it will show up here.”

Though wakame has not yet been spotted in the bay, Mr. Finger said he was pre-emptively training his staff on how to identify and remove the kelp. “This is just another sign of how small the world is,” he said.

Back in San Francisco, Dr. Zabin and colleagues from nonprofit groups and state and federal agencies have been pooling resources and volunteers, donning scuba and snorkeling equipment and filling black plastic trash bags with the kelp.

But before trucking it to the landfill, Dr. Zabin plans to ship some to Texas. “I got an e-mail from a guy who wants to use it to make biofuel,” Dr. Zabin said. “Maybe he could just come and vacuum it up.”

Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.

But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.

This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House.

Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill.

Mr. Kerry said he did not know whether he would succeed but had spoken with 30 undecided senators on the matter.

He did not identify those senators, but the list of undecided includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program.

“I’ve been making this argument for a number of years,” Mr. Kerry said, “but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” He said he had urged President Obama to make the case, too.

Mr. Kerry said the continuing conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” he said.

The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. The Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in February; the State Department will address the issue in its new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

“The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator.

Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.

A changing climate presents a range of challenges for the military. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms.

Another vulnerable installation is Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that serves as a logistics hub for American and British forces in the Middle East and sits a few feet above sea level.

demics, military and intelligence analysts say.