(1) There is no scientific debate about global warming. The peer-reviewed literature--which is where such a debate would happen if did exist--has virtually no papers questioning the basic logic of global warming. This unanimity dates back to the early 1990s.
(2) The purely economic costs of global warming will vastly exceed the economic costs of preventing it. This point was first made widely understood via the Stern Review.
(3) The threat of global warming goes far beyond economic costs, to threaten the very security of our nation. Natural disasters have threatened the stability and even the existence of human societies for thousands of years. In addition to direct threats, the stresses placed on one society can lead military invasions of others, as well as less dramatic results--such as mass migrations or prolonged political instability--which can place intense burdens on the military, police, and other security-related state functions. Because global warming will increase the impact of natural disaster on all nations at the same time over a period of centuries, the security impacts will be unprecedented in human history.
(4) Existing policies provide vast subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Simply shifting those subsidies to clean energy--including conservation--would do an enormous amount to combat global warming. Thus, the debate has nothing to do with "free markets", since energy subsidies are widespread. The question is only who should be subsidized, and why.
(5) Government has repeatedly played a major role in the development and deployment of new technologies and infrastructure. Examples range from canals and railroads in the 18th and 19th century to auto-oriented transportation and the computer/electronics industry in the 20th Century. Government involvement in promoting the development of clean energy to reduce the threat of global warming is thus a very traditional type of activity.
(6) Even if there were uncertainty, the danger is so great that failing to take precautionary measures is a dereliction of duty to protect the national security. This principle was actually central to the Bush/Cheney misconduct of the war on terror, in the form of Cheney's "One Percent Docrtine":
If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.
Cheney's reasoning was flawed, because he ignored much more likely threats, because he was driven by guilt/denial and paranoia, and because was generally incapable of reality-testing. But to the extent that his logic had merit, it was much more applicable to global warming with the state of knowledge we already had back in the early 1990s. The entire foundation of the insurance industry is the principle that even improbably threats of disaster are well worth protecting against.
(7) Clean energy will be a necessity eventually, regardless of global warming.
There's only so much coal, oil and natural gas in the world. Eventually we're going to run out, even if global warming weren't a factor. Since these energy sources have other powerful downsides--pollution, resource wars, vulnerability to market and political manipulation, etc.--it makes sense to develop alternatives sooner, rather than later, even if global warming were not a concern.
On the flip, I dig deeper into just one of several reports in recent years that deals with just one of the points above--the national security impacts of global warming. The 2007 report from the non-profit CNA Corp. (Center for Naval Analysis), National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, included commentary and recommendations from an expert panel of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and general. Deatails on the flip.
In the online intro/interface to the report, CNA says:
Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions, according to a new study released by a blue-ribbon panel of retired admirals and generals from all branches of the armed services.
The study, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," explores ways projected climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states - the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.
The CNA Corporation brought together eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change. CNAC writers and researchers compiled the report under the board's direction and review.
The report includes several formal findings:
* Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.
* Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
* Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
* Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.
The report also made several specific recommendations:
* The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.
* The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
* The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
* The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.
* DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next thirty to forty years.
The review board of admirals and generals is as follows:
* General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.)
* Admiral Frank "Skip" Bowman, USN (Ret.)
* Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.)
* Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)
* General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
* Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.)
* Admiral Donald L. "Don" Pilling, USN (Ret.)
* Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.)
* Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
* General Charles F. "Chuck" Wald, USAF (Ret.)
* General Anthony C. "Tony" Zinni, USMC (Ret.)
* Ms. Sherri W. Goodman, Executive Director and CNA General Counsel
More info on them can be found here.
Expanding on the above, from the executive summary of the report itself, here are the findings, un-edited:
FINDINGS
Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.
The predicted effects of climate change over the coming decades include extreme weather events, drought, flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts, and the increased spread of life-threatening diseases. These conditions have the potential to disrupt our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure.
In the national and international security environment, climate change threatens to add new hostile and stressing factors. On the simplest level, it has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today. The consequences will likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope.
Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states.
Unlike most conventional security threats that involve a single entity acting in specific ways and points in time, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies.
The U.S. may be drawn more frequently into these situations, either alone or with allies, to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. The U.S. may also be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun, to avert further disaster and reconstitute a stable environment.
Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
The U.S. and Europe may experience mounting pressure to accept large numbers of immigrant and refugee populations as drought increases and food production declines in Latin America and Africa. Extreme weather events and natural disasters, as the U.S. experienced with Hurricane Katrina, may lead to increased missions for a number of U.S. agencies, including state and local governments, the Department of Homeland Security, and our already stretched military, including our Guard and Reserve forces.
Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.
As President Bush noted in his 2007 State of the Union speech, dependence on foreign oil leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists, and clean domestic energy alternatives help us confront the serious challenge of global climate change. Because the issues are linked, solutions to one affect the other. Technologies that improve energy efficiency also reduce carbon intensity and carbon emissions.
We constantly hear the groundless paranoid ravings of Five Deferments Cheney about national security--an issue that he clearly has zero qualifications to discuss. Imagine what it would be like if the above findings had gotten that much attention over the past 9 months. Would we be about to pass truly path-breaking global warming legislation? It's impossible to say, but the odds would be well worth considering.
Here are the recommendations, also unedited from the executive summary (Obviously, I'm really not that interested in protecting American overseas bases from the impacts of global warming. I'd much rather see us stop being a global empire, and return to the ideal of being a democratic republic. But I'm including everything here for the sake of completeness):
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MILITARY ADVISORY BOARD:
1. The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.
As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failing to act because a warning isn't precise enough is unacceptable. The intelligence community should incorporate climate consequences into its National Intelligence Estimate. The National Security Strategy should directly address the threat of climate change to our national security interests. The National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy should include appropriate guidance to military planners to assess risks to current and future missions caused by projected climate change. The next Quadrennial Defense Review should examine the capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events, pandemic disease events, and other related missions.
2. The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
Managing the security impacts of climate change requires two approaches: mitigating the effects we can control and adapting to those we cannot. The U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects from climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
3. The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
As President Bush noted in his State of the Union speech, "Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required." Climate forecasts indicate countries least able to adapt to the consequences of climate change are those that will be the most affected. The U.S. government should use its many instruments of national influence, including its regional commanders, to assist nations at risk build the capacity and resiliency to better cope with the effects of climate change. Doing so now can help avert humanitarian disasters later.
4. The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.
Numerous Department of Defense studies have found that combat forces would be more capable and less vulnerable by significantly reducing their fuel demand. Unfortunately, many of their recommendations have yet to be implemented. Doing so would have the added benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
5. The Department of Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.
Many critical defense installations are located on the coast, and several strategically important ones are on low-lying Pacific islands. Sea level rise and storm surges will threaten these facilities. Planning and action can make these installations more resilient. Lack of planning can compromise them or cause them to be inundated, compromising military readiness and capability.
Obviously, national security is not the only framework for arguing for swift and strong action on global warming. It's just one part of a broader mosaic--but it's a vitally crucial one, and one that ought to be very well known to every single American. Because the future of country and our world depends on it. |
