Perhaps now they'll listen: Pentagon adds climate change to national security debate
The Pentagon is taking a serious look at how global climate change will dramatically affect the national security of the United States in the coming decades. The Pentagon's reasoning is as follows: climate change is going to be about the biggest SNAFU imaginable and could "topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions," in the next two or three decades, the New York Times writes. The biggest danger areas: the Mid-East, South and SE Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Another potential danger zone: the Arcitc, where the melting ice cap is creating a new shipping channel "that must be defended." The military's response includes all sorts of war "games" exploring possible outcomes of droughts, floods and food shortages as well as studying things like alternative fuels.
This is not a new angle. In 2007, 11 retired senior generals issued a 63-page report that found that global warming "presents significant national security challenges to the United States." For some reason, James Woolsey was not interviewed for the article, even though he has been making the "national security = greener cars" case for years. We're sure not everyone will agree, but we think this is a good topic to remember the next time we're about to argue if EVs or hydrogen cars are the best way forward.
[Source: New York Times]
Photo by DVIDSHUB. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mike!!ekiM 8:13PM (8/10/2009)
Vast Expanses of Arctic Ice in Retreat
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090810/ap_on_sc/cn_canada_ice_retreats
Things are looking up though, although the US has been in a Drought for at least a Year, I just saw the National News actually report that fact last week.
And Texas is really getting Clobbered. This is just the start. Someone should do an analysis of the Economic Cost of the US drought. It's going to be Oil/Coal or Food. V8's or Food. Take your pick.
Reply
Chris 9:10PM (8/10/2009)
All the sudden for some, "military intelligence" is not the risible oxymoron of yesterday.
Intriguing that.
Reply
skierpage 10:44PM (8/10/2009)
Even during the Bush administration Global War On Terror focus, there were officials concerned about the effects of global warming, but that malevolent dick Cheney kept them from prominence. Here's a remark you wouldn't expect from Bush's s Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, in a 2008 New Yorker interview:
I asked McConnell if he believed that Al Qaeda was really the greatest threat America faces.
“No, no, no, not at all,” he said. “Terrorism can kill a lot of people, but it can’t fundamentally challenge the ability of the nation to exist. Fascism could have done that. Communism could have. I think our issue going forward is more engagement with the world in terms of keeping it on a reasonable path, so another ism doesn't come along and drive it to one extreme or the other. And we have to have some balance in terms of equitable distribution of wealth, containment of contagious disease, access to energy supplies, and development of free markets. There are national-security ramifications to global warming.”
Reply
Nick 12:30AM (8/11/2009)
The ultra right fools of this country, those that watch FauxNews and believe all its cr...p, those that believe 'god' gave them the right to exploit the planet..........you can show them DNA evidence, they still won't let go of their retarded convictions.
These people are no longer rational, they can't come up with a valid argument.
Reply
jpm 12:43AM (8/11/2009)
I would tend to agree. It seems as though the dems will slip into two parties at this point seeing as how republicans are making themselves more and more irrelevant these days.
oOOOo 4:11AM (8/12/2009)
Difficult to argue with articles of faith. Wars start that way.
Clearly, those with stars upon thars are unquestionably correct.
Justin 12:11AM (8/13/2009)
lmao @ you democrat party of treason & traitors, so ignorant to facts.
Global warming is caused by the sun, not man made.
John 6:47AM (8/11/2009)
Keeping an eye on the climate is a good thing for the military. If they do an honest job of it (not like the clowns at the UN IPCC) they will recognize that the climate goes through cycles and we are now facing a growing cold cycle. I would like to see them ready for that.
If the Progressive buffoons in Washington get their way and destroy the US economy with their Cap and Tax scam, then the military better also be ready to defend the US as the economy plunges into ruin.
We will need to pray though that attacks against the US will only occur on sunny or windy days when there is enough energy available to mount a defense.
Reply
Mark Kiernan 7:44AM (8/11/2009)
John I assume you have a PHD in climate science to make that statement? Or are you one of those people who claim to know more than people who have PHDs like Republican senators and congressmen.
Nick 10:28AM (8/11/2009)
@John
Thank you! I was looking for an example of a person to back up my claims: You really do believe ALL the garbage coming from FoxNews!
The earth going through a cooling phase? That is one of the most absurd ideas I've heard from the amateur global warming deniers. Look...temperatures have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution (in line with co2 production), the north pole is expected to be completely ice free within 10 years; permafrost is tawing, sea levels are rising.
But somewhere in the Midwest, average joe-the-plumber decided that the world is going through what he calls a 'cooling phase' and staunchly believes in it.
John 3:34PM (8/11/2009)
Nope, not a PHD. Just someone who has some common sense and knows how to read and sort out science from a hoax. I also have enough sense not to bother arguing with brainwashed greenies who will not open their eyes, nor will I insult people I have never met.
You can insult Fox News, Joe the Plumber, Republicans, Sara Palin, REAL climate scientists, or myself all you want. That doesn't change anything. Global Warming caused by man-made CO2 is a hoax and a lie, foisted upon us by those that would destroy our freedom.
If you want an antidote to the AGW Kool Aid, start here. http://www.climatedepot.com/
If you just want to insult people and ignore the real science, then go ahead and take your best shot.
MikeInNC 8:17AM (8/11/2009)
@Mark : Although you may think John and many Republicans are lacking in this argument there is a large body of scientists/climatologists that do not think this is a settled issue (anthropogenic change). Many of those in that group are not right or left wing, they are simply scientists. Real science is rarely 'settled' and never beyond question since that would be contrary to scientific study. Climate change isn't new. In fact climate change is the norm, not the exception so please, don't sit on your high horse without clothes. Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle know how to read.
-M
Reply
Mark Kiernan 9:33AM (8/11/2009)
If you want to trust "scientists" who are bought and paid for my companies like Exxon Mobile and opinions aspirated by Republican politicians that is your choice.
The vast majority of scientists say that climate change is caused by man and it is logical to see it. If you think we should sit on our hands until we have the 100% facts then it will be too late, but I guess such ideas will have to be held by certain people.
My deeper question is why people like Republicans hate the environment so much, and also the idea of energy efficiency (why be against clean energy or fossil fuel-less even if you don't believe in CC)?
Reply
malexy 11:33AM (8/11/2009)
Why does government (not just Repubs) not support efficiency, you ask. Because it is not good for many large businesses and it also cuts government revenues.
For example, replacing the lights in many large commercial buildings may have a payback of 3 to 7 years based on reduced electricity costs and consumption. The government (state & local) will obtain "up front" sales tax and other revenue based on the installation. However, since such a project has a "quick" payback, it means that government revenues are reduced somewhere else, notably sales tax on electricity. And, of course this reduction in tax revenues is "forever".
Similar considerations to automobiles. Hence, ongoing debate on how to replace loss in fuel tax revenues to continue support for transportation infrastructure.
MikeInNC 1:07PM (8/11/2009)
@Mark: you first sentence begs the question of who to trust. Scientists bought by companies or scientists bought by government grants. You seem to put all your eggs in one basket. I think both sides have valid points and dismissing one side because of a possible political affiliation, although it makes things easy, certainly doesn't exactly yield a wise decision.
Your last paragraph is absurd and nothing but completely false. Some of the strongest alt energy proponents I know are right wingers. I've been deeply interested in electric/air/fuel cell vehicles for years but I do realize that we have issues such as infrastructure and technological hurdles that have to be overcome to make those viable, consumer friendly and accessible but, I digress. My point is, don't throw a blanket decision over a block of the population because it saves valuable thinking cycles. There are bright people on both sides of the aisle that care about clean technology.
-M
Unknown 10:00AM (8/11/2009)
This is from the same guys who wanted to build a "Gay Bomb" ... but I digress
I would be a fool to think global warming doesn't happen. I live in a place that use to have a 2 mile thick ice sheet.
The kicker has always been.. Is it MANMADE?
Most people who agree think the government must CONTROL us to prevent us from destroying the world
Tell me if science found out that we could no more control global warming than we could a hurricane would you still want Cap and Trade , Wind , and other non coal power sources to prevent carbon?
How you answer that is how you really feel about the science
Reply
Byron Thomas 11:43AM (8/11/2009)
Here is quickie way to envision how much pollution fossil fuels (and therefore, all our energy usage, since they "substitute"). Next time you fill up your little car (or huge SUV), imagine taking that 11.4 gallons and just pouring it on your lawn, once a week.
I know CO2 is less directly toxic than benzene, heptane, etc. But just imagine.....
Unknown 2:38PM (8/11/2009)
Here is quickie way to envision how much pollution fossil fuels (and therefore, all our energy usage, since they "substitute"). Next time you fill up your little car (or huge SUV), imagine taking that 11.4 gallons and just pouring it on your lawn, once a week.
What has that got to do with global warming? This is not about pollution ... stay focused
I know CO2 is less directly toxic than benzene
Are you toxic? you expel CO2 ... Plants will Die without CO2 Do you envision the EPA controlling all sources of CO2?
Next time you fill up your little car (or huge SUV), imagine taking that 11.4 gallons and just pouring it on your lawn, once a week
Try that with your toilet ...same thing ... nearly any thing is bad if it is concentrated enough
oOOOo 4:22AM (8/12/2009)
Science? You mean the way the solar cycle is directly correlated with Earth's surface temperature? The science that doesn't justify and back-door government control of all economic activity? The science that recognizes that the human race is a natural inhabitant of this planet, not a plague to be eradicated? That science?
Or is science only real science when it agrees with the conclusion you feel is right?
Byron Thomas 11:36AM (8/11/2009)
There may be some scientific "naysers", because we can't all be on the same team and play a game...I'll give them that. Some honest scientists are making an ego driven bet, like we all do in LESS serious matters.
But of course the paid for right-wing anti GHG should be rightly despised. WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT? Why don't you want us to get off Mid-East conflicts with a $1gas tax to start TOMORROW?
Why did you buy Huge SUV's? Even after the Arab Oil Embargoes of 1973 and 1978? Didn't you get the message then? NO you didn't! Please stop being so selfish and defensive, and think of the future of our planet and its people. Love, Bill.
Reply