US braces for global warring
Still any doubts about global warming? If so, read the extracts from “US braces for global warring”, the Sydney Morning Herald, April 10, 2007, below. Perhaps the best “security” response would be not to invest billions of dollars in new aircaft carriers and starwar systems, but in upgrading economies and social conditions in poorer countries. After all, the poorer countries contribute little or nothing to global warming.
Here are some extracts:
THE United States fears climate change could trigger new humanitarian crises and force countries to go to war over diminishing water and energy resources.
American politicians are so concerned about the threats posed by the effects of global warming, they are legislating to elevate it to an official defence issue, with the CIA and the Pentagon required to assess the national security implications of climate change.
Australia has also signalled its intention to broaden its treatment of the issue from one that is just environmental to one that draws on expertise from all arms of government, including defence and intelligence.
The US proposal, which its sponsors expect to pass through Congress with wide support, calls for the director of national intelligence to conduct the first-ever “national intelligence estimate” on global warming.
……….
The measure would also order the Pentagon to undertake a series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security, including “direct physical threats to the US posed by extreme weather events such as hurricanes”.
Experts say the increasing focus on global warming as a security issue could open new avenues of support for tougher efforts to limit greenhouse gases.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
If you have tens of thousands of constituents writing their Congressmen saying how concerned they are about America’s leprechaun problem, you get Congressmen standing up and making speeches deploring the leprechaun situation and introducing measures directing the Pentagon to investigate the national security implications of leprechauns. That’s just how democracy works. It has no bearing on whether there are leprechauns, how many leprechauns there are, and whether they really are wrecking the economy with those pots of gold.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
It is quite true, of course, that reactions of a government as such to supposed global warming are not proof for global warming per se. However, taken in context, one does not need that reaction to worry about climate change. European governments (of Germany, France, Britain) would be much better of economically by ignoring the warnings. After all, they depend heavily on heavy industries. But they take the warnings serious enough to invest billions in adjusting their economies. The risk of doing nothing and waiting until everything is “beyond doubt” simply is too great.
To dismiss advice of a large number of distinguished scientists, very competent in their fields, seems to me rather dangerous, considering what is at stake. What about Robert May (Australian, PRS, Scientific Advisor to the British government over years, at the forefront of the effort to get the Kyoto Protocol signed?;his sucessor as PRS; the chief of CSIRO climate research, etc.etc.).
As an extra note, not necessarily logically connected to what I just said: Among the governments trying to water down international recommendations on climate change are China and Saudi Arabia, not countries particularly well known as listening to their populations worried about the leprechaun threat, but also the US which you seem to suggest, is such a country, but in this case apparently ignored the pressure by its Congressmen, if it exists.
I am not an expert on global warming and have to take the advice of people more competent than I am. However, as a biologist I can see the warnings. My feeling is that models describing the future scenario are far from complete, but are likely to err on the positive side. What will happen may be much worse than predicted by existing models. I would be delighted if I were wrong, but don’t think it is a good idea to wait for the possible disaster doing nothing.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Yes, Global warming is a security issue! Countries like Iran have the perfect excuse to invest in “greener” nuclear “energy” (for both their electricity and more energy efficient weapons :)). There is also a huge dillemma with priority - Is Global warming the most urgent and dangerous global problem to solve? Garden variety tragedy of commons environmental problems, tsunamis, supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts etc. have been trivialised as “not the big one” as global problems go, without much expenditure on things like asteroid cataloguing, volcano/earthquake research, etc. I guess we’ll have to wait for the next big impact before it travels up our consciousness.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Historical evidence shows that asteroid impacts are not that frequent and may be millions of years away. Volcanoes are more frequent, and so of course are earthquakes. Research into these is important. Global warming is a certainty and human responsibility for it is (almost) a certainty (as you see, I am more cautious than most). Addressing consequences of climate change is the most urgent task at present (in my opinion).
I have no doubt that climate change is a security issue. The question is, what is the best response to it. Building one’s military power up even further in order to assure one’s comfortable living standards forever and keeping others down is one, aiming at a juster and equitable global system of the world economy is another. Again in my opinion, only the second option will provide lasting security for all.
April 12th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Global warming is a certainty and human responsibility for it is (almost) a certainty (as you see, I am more cautious than most).
Why be cautious? Neither I nor Chris are disagreeing with you even if you take the “almost” away.
Where there is clearly a lack of certainty is
A) Whether our heroic or otherwise attempts will prevent a calamitous series of events based on the CO2 etc. already there.
B) Whether climate change will not result in calamitous series of events even with “Business As Usual ™”, but rather inconvenient changes with equal measures of opportunities and threats.
Therefore I would guess that the probability that our attempts at mitigation will prevent the Earth breaching a threshold that BAU would have is about the same as the possibility of finding an asteroid that would hit the earth and successfully taking action to divert it.
Of course there are non-climatechange reasons why we might want to reduce fossil fuel use, and that’s fine, but the hype over climate change is seriously distorting disaster research funding in a non-ideal way.
April 14th, 2007 at 6:03 am
There are millions of fortunes and jackpots, but so are squanderers and crackpots, only more so: Having hoped and toiled their lifetimes to be winners, suddenly with a fortune in their hand they are trying to get rid of it in the shortest possible time ending up as loosers. So what? Yes, there is no general harm in it; instead it proves how silly man is. But the first and only time in history man is reaching the point where virtually every human being is able to enjoy the entire beauty and richness of the world, behold, all those guys are trying individually and united, amiably or greedy to spend it or destroy it. This ruinous trait is acting extremely fast (see above: winners and loosers), so let´s take intelligent countermeasures immediately. As the richness and the power of nature regarding life is being run down, time is running out. So let´s rush, spur your politician on! If he is a lame duck or ducking the problem, let´s replace him. It´s that easy! Besides we are having no choice - definitely in the strict sense of the word!
April 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Apparently, well informed people high in the US military believe that action must be taken now. I quote from a BBC News report 16.4.07:
Writing in the report, Gen Zinni, a former commander of US Central Command, says: “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”
He adds: “We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.
“Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.”
July 18th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Most parts of Europe and north America are too cold. Global warming is good for the people!
July 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Most parts of Europe and north America are too cold. Global warming is good for the people! Ich sage Deustchland ist viel zu kalt. Besser global warming (treibhaus effekt)!
July 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Most parts of Europe and north America are too cold. Global warming is good for the people! Ich sage Deustchland ist viel zu kalt. Besser global warming (treibhaus effekt)! Leave it to GOD!
October 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Wann alles ist endeckt, dann endeckt Mann Gott!!!
June 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
nelly fertado lyrics
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !