Global Warming is a National Security Issue
Congress is currently debating legislation that would finally begin
to address climate change and spark a paradigm shift toward clean
energy for our nation. There are lots of good reasons to pass this
bill: reducing global warming pollution, exerting international
leadership on the issue, boosting the economy with nearly million new
"green" jobs, breaking our addiction to oil and other dirty fossil
fuels. One of the most important reasons for acting now has to do with
bolstering our nation's security. This story by inside-the-Beltway
publication Politico makes the point:
"[F]or nearly two years, military and intelligence experts have been
issuing studies warning that climate change could put American military
personnel and national security at risk. Increasingly violent storms,
pandemics, drought and large-scale refugee problems, they say, will
destabilize regions and encourage terrorism. And American dependence
on foreign energy sources will only exacerbate the threats and increase
the likelihood of military action."
That's a big reason why Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham
(R-SC), both military veterans, are working together to pass a climate
and clean energy bill in the Senate. (This development is a game-changer, notes my colleague Dan Lashof.)
This also explains why national security experts and military
veterans of all political stripes are banding together to ensure that
Congress follows through on the mission. Right now, in fact, a squad
of vets is on the road, traversing the country on a 21-state,
biodiesel-fueled bus tour -- they are stopping in cities and towns all
over America to explain to people how our national security is tied to
tackling the climate crisis.
Learn more about the Veterans for American Power Tour on this website, which tracks both buses as they roll through various states over the next two weeks.
The coalition behind this campaign, which includes Operation Free, the Truman National Security Project, and VoteVets,
is also promoting the cause through a radio ad blitz in several
states. The ads feature veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
calling for an "American clean energy policy" and urging Senators to be
"heroes" by supporting climate legislation. The tag-line: "It's not
just a question of American energy; it's a question of American power."
Take a moment to listen to a sample radio ad. Also, keep up with the vets on the tour by checking out their regular video blogs along the way:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
By fighting about whether or not this is a man-made issue. It doesn't matter if it is man-made or natural, people. If it is happening, we should work towards either stopping what is causing it, work towards preventing it, or work towards preparing for it.
To do nothing except hope for the best is a losing strategy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
That is a great video Solar!
It's not mine, but I like to share it. It really changed how I view the whole debate.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
A question; What does your sentence mean?/"It doesn't matter if it is man-made or natural, people.
The syntax is irregular.
I was typing as if speaking to the reader. I probably could have phrased it better. I'll rephrase:
Listen, folks- It does not matter if it is man-made or natural.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
What if it isn't happening? We haven't seen an increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and many experts are predicting a cooling trend to last for the next couple.
Personally, I'm not convinced that there is any man-made climate change because of the level of dishonesty that is evident in the presentations by the likes of Al Bore...er, I mean Gore. Not to mention ample evidence that shows much higher levels of CO2 in our planet's history that are associated with lower global temperatures.
I refer you back to my post, and the link within it.
I highly recommend it.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
He assumes that the consequences in column B can't happen in column A. But couldn't a global depression lead to many of the of the social and political problems in column B? I think they could. Wars and people seeking refuge from their country's lack of resources could definitely be a result of global depression.
I think the better answer is for the folks who are covering up evidence to stop doing so. Then you can make informed choices rather buying lottery tickets. There's a reason they call the lottery a "tax on the stupid."
He accounts for that as well, rightly asserting that while there would be some problems, we both know that they would be much /much/ less pronounced.
You are stuck in row thinking. Period.
Besides, comparing his "lottery-ticket" analogy to actual lottery tickets is almost a cop-out.
He is illustrating that we have 2 choices, generally. Act, or don't act. Bickering about whether or not it is real places us firmly in column b, by default, due to inaction.
Are we really going to spend energy arguing about whether or not it is real when we could be preparing for a possible event?
Here is an analogy you'll probably accept: We keep a spare tire because one might go flat. We do not refuse to have a spare and instead argue about whether or not one will go out before getting a good spare.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
After your last comment I thought I must have missed something because you said he accounted for the worst case in column A. After watching it again, I am baffled, because I certainly didn't see it. Not only that, if more than just economic consequences are possible in column A/false, then they certainly are possible under column A/true, making column A the LESS attractive option, not the more attractive one.
Besides all that, the guy leaves out at least one other possibility. We COULD do more research and make an informed decision rather than basing action on piss poor " science ." That was the option that was left out with environmental extremists pushed for a ban on DDT, claiming that it contributed to cancer and killed off bird species, despite the fact that there was no proof of either claim. Now and estimated 300 - 800 million people suffer from malaria because their governments refuse to use DDT to eradicate malaria bearing mosquitoes despite the World Health Organization lifting the ban on DDT in 2006 citing the complete lack of any evidence of any negative side effects.
So they went with column A, and we're way worse off because of it. Not you and me, because we're not poor people living in a poor country. And DDT was pretty much eradicated here long before the ban because of the use of DDT, so it doesn't affect us directly. But there are millions of families destroyed every year because of "column A."
Now we could just act blindly following the blind lead of the blind Al Gore, who still demonizes DDT and has a picture of Rachel Carlson hanging in his office, or we could make an informed decision, recognize that the polar ice cap is expanding, not contracting, pay attention to the glaring "inaccuracies" or what the rest of the world calls lies in Al Gore's film and the science that backs it (like the stupid "Hockey Stick" graph) or we could do a little more research and make a decision that is better than column A or column B.
But, since politicians are the ones making the decisions, no matter what happens, we're screwed. Hell, even if climate change is a myth and we do nothing, it will probably costs us somehow.