New report from CNA, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - very interesting read would have liked more info on southern hemnisphere.
Climate Change
New report from CNA, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - very interesting read would have liked more info on southern hemnisphere.
Provided that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena, and even if it's human-caused, reversal of climate change is a fantasy. Preparing for climate change, on the other hand, and the secondary and tertiary effects of it is something we can prepare to deal with.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day and it said. "Global Warming it's the Sun stupid"
Political rhetoric from either side is embarrassing. The fact there is a political debate is disgusting. The scientific, peer reviewed, literature is substantial. I'm not talking your favorite politician who calls themselves a scientist. The fact is that global warming is real, human kind has caused it, and if it go's on unchecked it will be devastating to the world. I get my science from the National Academies of Science and rigorous peer reviewed literature. Not politicians or bumper stickers.
Think about the rhetoric surrounding Iraq. Would you think any other political football would be any different? In my experience the military mind (with the exception of "kill em all's") is crafted for critical analysis and swayed less by emotion than fact.
Much of the literature is available for free to be read online. Here is a link that should bring up a selection of climate change literature.
http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover....&GO.x=0&GO.y=0
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Thanks!
Selil,
Thanks for saying that. It is simply amazing how far we will go to avoid an issue on substance and turn it into a political free for all.
It is refreshing that the former Chief of Staff of the Army and President of AUSA sat on the advisory panel. The advisors were:
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.)
Chief findings were:
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.TomThe 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.
I don't care how many stars have signed on, I still think human-induced climate change is junk science. I formulated my opinion back in '98, when I got stuck with writing the Navy's position on the impacts of the Kyoto protocol on operations and I had to spend hours in brainingwashing sessions with IPCC reps. Their data was suspect then, and it's been spun even more since.
When you look at the recent "findings" coming out of talks in Europe, you'll see it was the diplomats driving the train, not the scientists. And there are plenty of well-respected climatologists who think the whole idea is bunk.
Rant aside, I do think the military has a responsibility for planning for the impacts of weather/climate events, regardless of the cause.
I like the idea of biodiesel with its lack of harmful emissions, renewable availability, its efficiency and it lubricates while it burns, prolonging engine life considerably. How much could be produced and how much it could offset fossil fuel remains to be seen but it has to be coming down the pike. The byproduct can still be eaten by cattle and humans, retaining much of its nutrient load, thus easing fossil fuel use for grain production for beef and human consumption. Canada has millions of idle prairie acres and no doubt a hyrid Canola plant could be easily developed to acclimate to that environment and mature faster. Ethonol is growing fast but I think biodiesel is better. I wonder if China and India are heeding the call for environmental stewardship?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks