Ecological disruptions are a risk to national security
When the natural environment is stretched beyond its ability to meet basic human needs for food, clean air, drinkable water and shelter, it is not just a humanitarian concern for the world community. Research shows that these crises are a matter of national security for the U.S. and other countries.
The Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community have long paid close attention to the influence of climate change on national security. Although recent intelligence reports of the Trump administration have omitted any mention of climate change, prior intelligence reports have shown how climate change can generate flash points for global conflict, affect how troops and equipment work, and influence which defense locations are vulnerable.
The effects of ecological disruptions on national security get less attention. But they, too, can cause social and political instability, economic strife and strained international relations. Ecological disruptions occur when ecosystems that provide natural resources are compromised and can no longer meet basic human needs. Examples include overfishing, human disease and environmental crime.
Some 3.2 billion people worldwide rely on fisheries as a major source of protein. Overexploitation of ocean fisheries is a common root of international conflict.
From the 1950s to the 1970s, intermittent conflict broke out between British and Icelandic fishermen over the Icelandic cod fisheries, which had been depleted by overfishing. The Icelandic government sought to ban British trawlers from a broader area around the country's coast, but the British continued to fish. The result was standoffs between fishing boats and Icelandic gunboats, and even the intervention of the British Royal Navy.
These 'Cod Wars' broke diplomatic relations between Iceland and the United Kingdom for a time. Iceland even threatened to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and close a U.S. military base in Iceland. The U.K. ultimately agreed to abide by a 200-mile territorial limit on fishing around Iceland. Decades later, in 2012, the British government issued an apology and offered £1,000 each in compensation to 2,500 British fishermen for the loss of jobs and livelihoods that resulted from abiding by the 200-mile limit.
More recently, China's rampant overfishing of its own coastal waters has meant expanding fishing in the South China Sea and using fishing fleets to assert new territorial claims. Indonesia has responded by blowing up more than 40 Chinese vessels accused of fishing illegally in its waters and stealing more than US$4 billion per year in Indonesian profits.
The United States, Australia, New Zealand and Britain have stepped up naval patrols against illegal fishing in the waters of Pacific island nations. Conflicts have arisen with Chinese coast guard vessels that routinely escort fishing fleets entering other countries' waters without permission.
China's fishing fleets have also expanded their activities off the coasts of Africa and South America, depleting fish stocks and creating political instability in those regions, too. In 2024, the U.S. Coast Guard and Argentine navy began joint exercises to combat illegal Chinese fishing in the Atlantic Ocean.
The best-known examples of ecologically related public health crises that jeopardize national security involve what are called zoonotic diseases, which spread from animals to humans as a result of close contact between people and wildlife. More than 70% of the world's emerging infectious diseases – uncommon or newly identified infectious diseases – stem from contact with wild animals.
The risks of animal-to-human disease transmission are especially high for those who handle or eat wild meat.
A recent example is the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 global pandemic. Epidemiological and genetic studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 first spilled over to humans from wild animals sold in the Huanan live animal market in Wuhan, China. Although the specific animal that served as the original host is still under investigation, bats and other mammals are considered likely natural reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 because they harbor other coronaviruses with closely related genomes.
Following the zoonotic spillover event, the pathogen spread rapidly across the globe, killing more than 7 million people and causing acute disruptions not only to global markets and supply chains but also to social cohesion and political stability. Countries with high COVID-19 mortality rates had elevated levels of civil disorder and fatalities caused by political violence as the trust of citizens in the ability of governments to protect them eroded.
Many other zoonotic diseases caused by human-wildlife contact, such as Zika, Ebola, SARS and West Nile virus, have similarly generated international political and economic crises that have activated security measures within the U.S. government.
Illegal poaching and trade of wildlife and forest products is valued at $91 billion to $258 billion per year. That makes environmental crime one of the world's largest crime sectors, comparable with drug trafficking, at $344 billion, and human trafficking, at $157 billion.
Exorbitant black market prices for rare wildlife specimens and body parts provide funding for terrorist groups, drug cartels and criminal organizations.
Illegal logging helps finance terrorist groups such as Al-Shabaab in Somalia, where trade in charcoal has become a critical revenue source. Money from illegally cut trees turned into charcoal and sold to markets in the Middle East has funded al-Shabab-linked suicide bombings in Mogadishu, the 2013 Westgate mall attack in Nairobi that killed 67 Kenyan and non-Kenyan nationals, and the 2015 massacre of 147 university students in Garissa, Kenya.
Those and other terrorist activities funded through environmental crime have contributed to the destabilization of countries throughout the Horn of Africa.
These examples make clear how ecological disruptions to nature increase national security risks.
National security is not just a matter of military strength. It also depends on the ability of a nation to maintain productive and stable ecosystems, resilient biological communities and sustainable access to natural resources. Sovereign nations already develop and protect physical infrastructure that is essential to security, such as roads, communication networks and power grids. The natural world plays an equally vital role in social and political stability and, we believe, deserves more attention in planning for national security.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Bradley J. Cardinale, Penn State; Emmett Duffy, Smithsonian Institution, and Rod Schoonover, Georgetown University
Read more:
Water cooperation is essential when countries share lakes and rivers – yet it's been deteriorating in many places, with serious consequences
The US military has cared about climate change since the dawn of the Cold War – for good reason
Protecting the ocean: 5 essential reads on invasive species, overfishing and other threats to sea life
Bradley J. Cardinale has received funding from the US National Science Foundation, US Department of Energy, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and US Department of Agriculture.
Emmett Duffy has received funding from the US National Science Foundation, US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Lenfest Ocean Program.
Rod Schoonover does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The stock market is shifting its focus to the Fed from Trump: Morning Brief
President Trump's Truth Social posts aren't moving markets like they used to. At 8:04 a.m. ET Wednesday, the president posted on his social media platform, "OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME." A post like that would've moved markets a month ago, as stocks were swinging on any and every trade-related update from the president. But on Wednesday, futures tied to the major indexes barely budged after Trump's post. Instead, stocks found their direction from economic data. By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy At 8:30 a.m. ET, a cooler-than-expected reading of consumer prices for May sent futures higher as investors amped up bets that the Federal Reserve could cut interest rates at least twice this year. This marked the latest sign that markets have moved on from President Trump's trade war dictating every move. Instead, the focus is shifting back to the Federal Reserve and the path of the US economy. "For some period of time, tariffs were the only thing that mattered," Truist co-CIO Keith Lerner told Yahoo Finance on Wednesday. "And I think we're finding out [on Wednesday] a lot of other factors matter." The unwind of peak trade policy uncertainty certainly served as a catalyst to bring markets off their lows in April. But as the S&P 500 (^GSPC) has moved back to near-all-time highs over the past two weeks, strategists like Piper Sandler chief investment strategist Michael Kantrowitz have been highlighting that trade policy updates don't pack the same "oomph" as they did weeks ago. Measures like Bloomberg's Trade Policy Uncertainty Index, for instance, are well off their recent highs. The new reality for investors is that tariffs are here to stay. While the estimated effective tariff rate has fallen from a peak around 25%, it's still hovering near 15%. Wall Street strategists aren't raising their price targets on hopes that the effective tariff rate will return to 2.5%, but are instead betting that the US economy will remain resilient through the tariffs. This puts the focus back on the Fed, the trajectory of economic data, and hopes for more rate cuts from the central bank. Recession calls have faded over the past month as data has shown a labor market that is cooling but not rapidly deteriorating and inflation pressures continue to ease. This pushes the biggest market question back to the central bank and whether it will be able to ease policy this year for "good reasons," like cooling inflation, rather than a worsening labor market. "Combined with the solid May jobs report, the CPI data reduce the chances of a nasty bout of stagflation," Bank of America US economist Stephen Juneau wrote in a note to clients on Wednesday. "That means a lower risk of 'bad' cuts (due to a collapse in the labor market) but increased probability of "good" cuts (solid labor market and slowing inflation)." Whether or not the market's suspicion that things could be looking better for the Fed will be put to the test when Fed Chair Jerome Powell takes the podium on June 18 following the central bank's next policy decision. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


San Francisco Chronicle
7 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Most US adults say Trump's military parade is not a good use of money, a new poll finds
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Washington prepares for a military parade this weekend to honor the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, a new survey finds that U.S. adults are more likely to approve than disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to hold the festivities, which officials have said will cost tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. But about 6 in 10 Americans also say that Saturday's parade is 'not a good use' of government money, including the vast majority of people, 78%, who neither approve nor disapprove of the parade overall, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The survey found that about 4 in 10 U.S. adults 'somewhat' or 'strongly' approve of the parade, while about 3 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' disapprove. About 3 in 10 neither approve nor disapprove. Carol Sue Quillen, 69, of Live Oak, Florida, said she sees the parade as a way to honor the country's service members, who she said include her late father — an Air Force test pilot killed on a helicopter training mission when she was a baby — and her son-in-law, who serves in the special forces. 'I don't necessarily think we appreciate our military as much as we should,' said Quillen, a retiree who described herself as a Trump supporter — although she said the Republican president's personality 'can be a bit overwhelming.' 'All branches should be celebrated for what they do,' Quillen said. 'That just boosts morale.' Featuring hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers, the celebration on Saturday, which also happens to be Trump's birthday, has grown extensively in scope and size since Army planners started working on a festival two years ago to mark the military branch's anniversary. Besides a military parade — which Trump had unsuccessfully pushed for during his first term — there will also be concerts, fireworks, NFL players, fitness competitions and displays all over the National Mall for daylong festivities. The Army expects as many as 200,000 people could attend and says putting on the celebration will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million. Most Republicans, around two-thirds, approve of the event, and a similar share sees it as a good use of money, but about one-third say it's not a good use of government funds. Democrats overwhelmingly say the parade is not a good use of public money, as do independents. And while about half of Democrats disapprove of the parade, about half of independents neither approve nor disapprove, suggesting that they may have heard less about it or have less strong feelings about it generally. Matt Wheeler, 40, called the display 'extremely wasteful' and 'a bit of a performance' that 'just sends a bad message' in terms of the overt military display. 'The only other time I can think about this, it's been in old throwbacks to the USSR or things you see out of North Korea,' said Wheeler, who works in nonprofit fundraising in Los Angeles and described himself as a lifelong Democrat. 'It's a direction this administration is inclined to move in that isn't in line with what I thought our country really was.' Sam Walters, 45, who works in restaurants in Fort Worth, Texas, described himself as a former conservative who now has more libertarian leanings. Walters, who voted for Trump in last year's election, said he appreciated that Trump had 'really kind of stuck to his guns' concerning many of the issues on which he campaigned, assessing his second term so far as 'a pretty good job.' But when it comes to the military parade, Walters said he was concerned about why so much additional funding was needed for military-adjacent activities, given the country's overall defense spending price tag. 'When they're getting hundreds of billions a year for funding, more than for anything else, it seems kind of hard to justify them spending extra for that,' Walters said, referencing the parade. Americans are generally divided on whether the government is devoting too much money to the military. About 3 in 10 say the government is spending 'too much' on the military, while a similar share says the government is spending 'too little.' About 4 in 10 say the government is spending 'about the right amount.' Those numbers are largely unchanged from an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. About 4 in 10 Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, which is unchanged from an AP-NORC poll conducted last month. Approval of his handling of immigration, at 46%, continues to be higher than approval of his handling of the economy or trade negotiations with other countries, which both landed at 38%. (The poll was conducted from June 5-9.) Andrew Thomsen, 31, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, said that he has voted for Trump in general elections and that he would 'generally approve' of the direction in which the country is headed. Thomsen, who works in education, said that, while he appreciates any intent of the parade and associated events 'to celebrate those who have given of themselves to the service of our protection,' he wasn't a fan of attempts to show off U.S. military might. 'If it is a march of rows and rows of members from our different branches while showboating our tanks, missile systems, and other equipment to show how strong we are, then I don't support that,' he said. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points. ___


The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Air India flight with more than 240 aboard crashes at Ahmedabad
An Air India passenger flight with more than 240 people on board crashed Thursday shortly after taking off in the Indian city of Ahmedabad, according to the airline. The flight, AI171, was headed for England's London Gatwick Airport on a Boeing 787-7 aircraft. Of the 242 passengers and crew members on board, 169 were Indian nationals, 53 were British nationals, one was a Canadian national and 7 were Portuguese nationals, according to the Air India. Local news outlets showed images of smoke surrounding the crash site, according to The Associated Press, which reported that it appeared to be in a populated area near the airport. Firefighters responded to the crash, dousing the plane and surrounding building with water. Information was not immediately available on fatalities. India's health minister, Jagat Prakash Nadda, said 'many people' had been killed, calling the news 'extremely tragic.' Air India said those injured were taken to the nearest hospitals. 'The tragedy in Ahmedabad has stunned and saddened us. It is heartbreaking beyond words,' Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a post on social platform X. ' In this sad hour, my thoughts are with everyone affected by it.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also expressed his sympathies. 'The scenes emerging of a London-bound plane carrying many British nationals crashing in the Indian city of Ahmedabad are devastating,' he wrote on X. 'I am being kept updated as the situation develops, and my thoughts are with the passengers and their families at this deeply distressing time.'