Earth Day on the Hill: Food Security and Defense Policy

Political posturing seems to be a legislative strategy of choice on the Hill recently, as illustrated by Senator Lindsey Graham’s decision to walk away from climate change legislation until Senate Democrats agree to take immigration reform off the table. An unveiling of the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham climate change bill was planned for this Monday, but was postponed over the weekend after an announcement of Graham’s pull-out. Coincidently, his move to leverage climate change against the contentious issue of immigration reform during an election year came after a week of environmental promotion on the Hill, culminating in Earth Day festivities last Thursday and a climate rally on the National Mall on Sunday. My environmental experiences last week included attending a Senate hearing on food security and a staff lecture by retired Air Force General Charles Wald.

Global Food Security Policy


On Earth Day, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing titled “Promoting Global Food Security: Next Steps for Congress and the Administration.” Throughout the hearing, Senator Lugar emphasized the precedents set by the Lugar-Casey bill , a bipartisan measure also titled the “Global Food Security Act” that was introduced in the Senate last year. The act is intended to reauthorize the system of foreign food assistance and support strategies that promote food security in developing nations (particularly rural areas).

The witnesses for the panel included Jacob Lew, the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources from the Department of State, and Rajiv Shah, the current Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Lew assured that through the State Department’s Global Food Security initiative, the U.S. would invest in areas where it has a competitive advantage in order to best increase agricultural production, and thus, increase incomes. He emphasized that poverty and food insecurity creates a climate of political instability, which in turn threatens our own national security.

Shaw outlined a broader strategy for USAID’s efforts in food security, and emphasized that his agency’s broader strategy would include the promotion of country-led agricultural plants, core productivity improvements, sustainable production systems, market-led efforts to develop food systems, the inclusion of women in the agricultural process, and increased accountability of foreign governments in implementing the new policies. Many of the policies that were discussed in the hearing addressed core issues of food production in developing nations, and promised to implement systems of assistance that would be more sustainable on a national and local level.

However, one concerning facet of these food security initiatives was how the witnesses did not mention negative ramifications of the “Green Revolution” in places like India in the 1960s. In his opening statements, Shaw stated,

“It was a predecessor of mine, USAID Administrator William Gaud, who coined the term Green Revolution. That this term is known around the world is a testament to what U.S. leadership can mean… The global agricultural system is more interconnected today than it was during the first Green Revolution. What happened in global food markets in 2007-2008 showed just how vulnerable the poor are in the face of price shocks.”

Lew specifically noted that the Green Revolution (which was initiated by primarily U.S. organizations over forty years ago) increased agricultural production and incomes in the participating developing nations. While on the surface these claims are valid, the Green Revolution has been criticized for creating an unsustainable and unequal food system that is heavily dependent on pesticide use, fertilizers, technology transfers, and undiversified grain seed (usually from wealthier nations).

In the end, a system of food aid that replicates the conditions of the “Green Revolution” may ultimately create more food-insecure nations than before. Often, developing nations are forced to accept genetically modified seed donated from corporations in wealthier nations. While the seed may be engineered to provide crops with more nutrients or that can withstand harsh environments, the seed is often privately patented and designed to grow under unsustainable “monoculture” agricultural conditions. First, this transfer creates a system of dependency on technology from wealthier nations, and usually does not encourage local agricultural production technologies. Also, in the past, food security has been threatened when undiversified seed is used, because a single “superbug” or disease that infiltrates one plant can destroy a whole crop of genetically undiversified crops. Also, food programs often emphasize the production of only a few kinds of grain crops in a single area, as opposed to diversified agricultural operations that can sustain local populations. This can also threaten food security, as it results in a lack of access to different kinds of food, and can promote malnutrition in rural populations without access to diversified food sources.

National Security Policy: Energy and Climate Change

The next day I attended a lecture by General Wald, who was formerly the Deputy Commander for USEUCOM (U.S. European Command, in Stuttgart, Germany). His lecture addressed the intersection of climate change and national security in the context of defense policy. While his lecture started out with standard arguments for clean energy, one segment that struck me as interesting was when General Wald emphasized that staff should “rebrand” clean energy to suit different members’ agendas. In specific, he encouraged branding the use and implementation of clean energy as an issue of “national security” that could be approached from several different ways. Whether it is to reduce dependence on foreign oil (which can finance countries and institutions that in turn fund extremist organizations), create an infrastructure for national energy security and self-sufficiency, or to support cleaner technologies to reduce the threat of climate change; he emphasized the need to structure member’s agendas strategically to promote clean energy systems in Congress. He also mentioned an initiative called “Operation Free,” where a group of veterans implement these rebranding strategies by touring the country and encouraging “clean, domestic energy production” to protect America from the security threats of climate change and energy dependence.

Unfortunately, all of these reasons to support clean energy are still supported by the rhetoric of a “threat,” as opposed to encouraging a respect for the global commons. Despite the hawkish branding, this strategy in the end may help justify the means. Along with economic incentive in the right places, this kind of rhetoric may encourage defense agencies to continue to reconfigure their energy consumption, and with symbolic clout- the U.S. military is alone the single largest consumer of energy in the world. While this only constitutes 1% of domestic energy use , it is equivalent to the total energy consumption of the country of Nigeria, which has roughly one-half the population of the United States.

The dangerous side of branding:

In the end, the celebration of “Climate Week” stimulated interesting conversation from my position on the Hill. While much of the dialogue still falls within the framework of traditional policymaking, at least these concerns are on the agenda and are slowly being seen as issues that simultaneously affect our country and the world.