How is Global Warming a Homeland Security Issue?

There she goes again. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano just can’t speak in public without destroying any remaining confidence Americans have left in her agency. CNS News reports that at a conference devoted to “environmental justice”, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Department of Homeland Security would be creating the “Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force” to mitigate the affects of global warming on security and response operations. No…really.

According to CNS, Napolitano said the task force would examine: 1) “How will FEMA work with state and local partners to plan for increased flooding or wildfire or hurricane activity that is more serious than we’ve seen before?” 2) “What assistance can the Coast Guard bring to bear to assist remote villages in, for example, Alaska which already have been negatively affected by changes up in the Arctic?” 3) “How can we focus on how climate change is going to affect our rural citizenry including those who live along our boarders both northern and southern?”, and 4) how will the Coast Guard or border services react to rising water levels. 

We were first warned of these coming priorities in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, released in February, which was intended to be a strategic outline for the department but instead discussed global warming, while barely mentioning the U.S. Coast Guard. Of course, these new priorities don’t mean better resources for the Coast Guard or anyone at the department. The distracting initiative is merely a stunt aimed at President Obama’s leftist base.

If it worries you that the department created in 2002 has not only lost considerable focus on securing our nation, but become an outpost for misguided political musings, you are not alone. Secretary Napolitano has time and time again proven that she fails to understand the immediate threats facing Americans and will waste breath and resources on liberal dogma rather than warning our enemies of our continued vigilance, and demonstrating it to them.

In April 2009, Napolitano’s department issued a report that warned of “right wing extremism” praying on returning veterans joining and planning harm against the nation they just finished serving. At the time, American Legion National Commander David Rehbein didn’t demand an apology, but instead correctly assessed the problem: “Trying to monitor a group of several million veterans is frankly going to cost them a lot of time and resources, they don’t have, that they could better spend monitoring already identified groups.” Exactly.

The current leadership at DHS spends so much time placating politically-correct leftists, they are guaranteed to not be using every available minute and resource afforded to them to prevent terrorism, respond to disasters and protect us from obvious Islamist plots.

But let’s pretend that global warming does indeed pose an imminent national security threat, do the goals of this “task force” even make sense? No.

First, it’s built on the faulty premise that we are facing increased hurricane activity, flooding and wildfires due to global warming. Casual or not, the numbers simply don’t add up. In fact, we’ve had two consecutive hurricane seasons that were historically quiet. But again, pretending the premise is correct, wouldn’t the department be prepared for a greater-than-average number of response activities simply based on resource potential rather than adding some political cause to it all?

This alone proves that the intent of the “task force” is to make a silly political statement; otherwise Secretary Napolitano currently has her department vastly unprepared for no valid reason.

Secondly, the Coast Guard can already offer the specific assistance to Americans with which it is mandated. If our neighbors in the Arctic region are experiencing any of the issues that liberals attach to global warming — i.e. land loss, water-levels rising, extreme temperatures — what exactly would be the Coast Guard’s new mission? They perform rescue operations, but surely Napolitano doesn’t expect water levels to rise so fast that Alaskans can’t slowly back away?

An already stretched-too-thin Coast Guard should, again, always be planning for a greater-than-average number of events, but not adding to which events they respond to based on political whim. As for their infrastructure, Coast Guard headquarters are hopefully prepared for most coastal weather activity regardless of cause, and their vessels hopefully remain floating on water, despite its rise.

President Obama has also reallocated considerable resources at NASA, from its original mission of human exploration to global warming research. And other agencies like the Departments of Energy, Commerce and the EPA are also diverting considerable taxpayer dollars to fight global warming and increase economic burdens on our country while ignoring other urgent and pressing priorities. But the misplaced focus of DHS is particularly worrisome given its critical mandate.

Secretary Napolitano dismissed the Times Square bomber as a “one-off”, which of course turned out to be false as we learned of his connection to Islamist terror networks. Napolitano also said the “system worked” after the Christmas Day attack, when we later learned the system was lucky and again, we had an attacker tied to a large Islamist network.

While belittling the Islamist threat against America, Napolitano increased intrusive security measures across the nation and then acted with shock when the public noticed the illogical disconnection. Simply put, Napolitano has said nothing to make Americans feel safer, and far too often, does the exact opposite.

DHS is currently spending considerable time assigning politically convenient causes to potential events rather than operating on known threats. It’s time for Secretary Napolitano to start demonstrating she has some basic understanding of the mission of her department, and that she is carrying out in a competent way, before Americans aren’t the only ones who recognize her misplaced priorities.

MrBook's picture

Wow, really?

Global Warming is very much a national security issue. The rise in temperature represents a direct threat to our food supply. Further it threatens to destabilize our neighbors to the south, leading to an increased level of immigration (legal and illegal). It also contributes to food crises abroad, which can destabilize countries and create fertile ground for radicals to take power (which comes back to hurt us).

SolarSanitizer's picture

Are you serious?

Let's say, for a moment, that AGW or even climate change is not complete horse pucky... For the sake of argument.

There is a rise in CO2. So, the planet gets hotter, evaporating more seawater. Which makes it more moist. Then we have a veritable greenhouse.

Q: What are the ideal conditions in which to grow plants?

A: In a hot, moist greenhouse with lots of CO2 for the plants to convert during photosynthesis.

WOW! That would be horrible! How we be able to grow crops in such perfect conditions?!

Do you never think anything through? I mean, ever?

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

MrBook's picture

That is an overly simplistic view of the effects of global warming .

As the globe warms climate patters change. Land that was once good for growing crops becomes bad for growing crops. Then there is the destruction caused by increased storm activity. Coastal areas damaged by rising sea levels (look where most of the major population centres in the USA are).

Then there are the results of those changes. As areas become unable to sustain the crop level that they once did people are not just going to shrug and starve to death (would you?)... rather they are going to start moving to "where the food is", and legal barriers (such as national borders) will be obstacles to overcome.

There are other changes as well... Changes in the oceans temperature impact the survivability of the species that live there (and which a good portion of the planet depends on for food.

And there is the increased acidification of the ocean that comes with a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the impact that has on other species within the ocean... which again impacts the food supply and the planets oxygen production.

SolarSanitizer's picture

"Land that was once good for growing crops becomes bad for growing crops."

And land which was once not good for growing crops becomes good. Nature balances herself out as proven during the previous climate shifts. Pandemonium didn't ensue all the other times the climate shifted, why should we believe this time will be any different?

"Then there is the destruction caused by increased storm activity."

That is unprovable. Pure conjecture and fear-mongering.

"Coastal areas damaged by rising sea levels (look where most of the major population centres in the USA are)."

Those areas caused most of the problem, assuming AGW is real. Perhaps that is how nature will balance out the loss of food production. All global maps showing CO2 concentration show that highly populated, first-world areas as the major polluters. I say wash the urban areas out to sea. It'd be good for humanity.

"Then there are the results of those changes. As areas become unable to sustain the crop level that they once did people are not just going to shrug and starve to death (would you?)"

Those who aren't prepared will suffer the consequences. Don't forget that many in rural areas are plenty prepared for such eventualities. You go ahead and rely on the government, though. They did such a fine job getting water to the stadium in New Orleans during Katrina, why would it be any different for the rest of the dependent if there are wide-spread floods. Your choice, not mine. Your problem, not mine.

"Changes in the oceans temperature impact the survivability of the species that live there (and which a good portion of the planet depends on for food."

Convection will regulate the ocean's temperature just fine. Just as it always has. More evidence-free fear-mongering.

"And there is the increased acidification of the ocean that comes with a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the impact that has on other species within the ocean... which again impacts the food supply and the planets oxygen production."

This is the silliest statement yet. With the amount of plankton in the ocean, it is ridiculous to think that CO2 levels can or will increase in the water. This is not to mention how water hardness is buffered quite well by calcium and salts within the water itself. Additionally, the very action of the waves allows the water to release CO2 dissolves within the water, exactly like CO2 is released from soda when it's surface is disturbed. The only difference between the two is the flavor of the liquid.

It takes a willing act of self-delusion to believe all this pseudo-scientific malarky you are peddling.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

MrBook's picture

Just because the temperature rises does not mean that the good farming land has migrated north a bit (even if it did, that would still be bad for the USA... as it would mean that the crop growing area has moved north into Canada, reducing our food supply). Pandemonium did occur when the climate shifted, we can see the extinction patters in the fossil record.

As the average temperature continues to increase effects that feed on that energy become more intense... storms being a primary example of this.

You can say that drowning the coast will be a way to balance things out... but the people living on the coast are hardly going to sit about and drown or starve, they are going to move inland looking for food and safety (like all those people living in San Fran to the west of you). Plus those are major shipping centres, and manufacturing centres... drown them and you lose access to that infrastructure.

Are those rural areas really prepared? Without access to oil and manufactured goods modern farming comes to an end. Then there are all the people from the urban areas who are going to head into the rural areas looking for food and shelter.

Yet the ocean temperature is rising (which is causing the ocean itself to expand). The ocean is not there to regulate the planets temperature and maintain it in some state, it just reacts to the amount of energy it absorbs. The currents will still flow, but they cannot magically reduce the amount of heat they contain.

Yet the ocean has become more acidic (~0.1 pH over the last 100+ years). Waves, calcium, salts, and the rest are constant... only the level of CO2 is increasing. For the pH level to remain stable the factors that counter acidification would have to increase at a similar rate, but only the CO2 level is increasing.

SolarSanitizer's picture

But, perhaps. Who knows.

Yes, there are extinction patterns. There are also migration patterns and patterns showing flourishing life. If your argument requires partial-blindness in order to be believed, you might want to rethink (if you thought in the first place, which is debatable) your position.

And they are shifting slowly. Well slow enough to adapt. Even life in the sea can easily adapt to slow Ph level changes. Your argument is broken.

That's right, they'll migrate. Just like the animals who don't want to die. And?

Farming is possible, and sustainable even without modern techniques. This has been the case for five thousand years. Your argument is broken.

Ocean temperature. A few degrees of change is hardly catastrophic. Relax...

-0.1 Ph in a hundred years?! BFD, really. All of the life in the ocean can easily withstand 50times that in one-twentieth the time span.

Your argument is broken.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

MrBook's picture

As the average temperature increases the primary growing temperatures will shift northwards.

And there have been some rather drastic extinctions as well... plus the current climate shift is occurring at a very rapid pace.

They will migrate... but what about those who are living in the locations where the migrants are going to go to?

Farming has been somewhat sustainable... but not for the population levels that we have right now. A drastic reduction in the food supply will have long term implications for our nation and our civilization.

And yet we already see the results of warming climate, and the impact that it has on the species that we rely on for food.

The ocean can withstand a great deal of pH change... but the species living in the ocean are not as lucky. Increased acidification also decreases the ability of the ocean to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, which leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere... and raising the overall temperature.

SolarSanitizer's picture

You said "...will shift northwards" Unless you have a crystal ball, how can you say for sure? (Please talk about how the computer models explain this.)

When you say "very rapid pace", how rapid are you talking about, exactly.

Those who live where people are migrating to, will have to just accept them or be called bigots (See the northern migration over our southern border for reference).

Oh, it isn't sustainable for urban areas? Ouch. That sucks for them, doesn't it? I wish them (and you?) lotsa luck.

We see it and are doing just fine. Imagine that.

The ocean AND the life contained within it can easily withstand wide Ph shifts. Much larger than you were talking about and in a much shorter timespan. It is when Ph snaps a few points either way that it causes stress to ocean life. They are not nearly as delicate as you erroneously believe. You should seriously consult a marine biologist on this point.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

MrBook's picture

Why would the zones shift southward into warmer climates?

We have seen a significant spike in temperatures over the last 100+ years, and that spike shows no signs of abating.

So could your town, which is a bit further north, handle an increased population of 50k? how about 100k?

You say "sucks to be them" as though they are just going to sit there and starve or drown. If our system becomes unable to provide food to dense urban areas those people are going to leave seeking food. They are going to head into the rural areas and get the food they find there.

We are sorta doing find... so far. The USA has remained largely untouched by climate change due to our technology and our food base. Other countries are not as lucky (persistent droughts in Africa, the forest fires and drought in Russia, the flooding in Pakistan, the flooding in Australia, etc...).

So if I asked a Marine Biologist "Does the increasing acidification of the oceans present a threat to the species that reside there?" they will say that it doesn't?

SolarSanitizer's picture

"Why would the zones shift southward into warmer climates?"

Huh? I don't know. Did I say they would? Are you awake?

"We have seen a significant spike in temperatures over the last 100+ years, and that spike shows no signs of abating."

That is easily explained. It does not necessarily mean that the actual temperature is rising. A lot of that is a result of poor measuring equipment placement and measuring equipment falling into disrepair. You know this as well as anyone. I have no idea why you do not take such things into account-- Unless you are only interested in pushing a narrative.

"So could your town, which is a bit further north, handle an increased population of 50k? how about 100k?"

No. The city limits of Sonora encompass a small area. My county, however, could easily support a million people, but they better bring tents and be ready for camping in the Stanislaus National Forest. :)

"You say "sucks to be them" as though they are just going to sit there and starve or drown. If our system becomes unable to provide food to dense urban areas those people are going to leave seeking food. They are going to head into the rural areas and get the food they find there."

I'm sure they'll like the fresh air and clean water they find. Good for them. Sadly, they will surely lament the lack of Starbucks, poor cellphone coverage, and free wifi.

"We are sorta doing find... so far. The USA has remained largely untouched by climate change due to our technology and our food base. Other countries are not as lucky (persistent droughts in Africa, the forest fires and drought in Russia, the flooding in Pakistan, the flooding in Australia, etc...)"

Seasonal effects. Or are you trying to rely on the anecdotal as the foundation for your argument again?

"So if I asked a Marine Biologist "Does the increasing acidification of the oceans present a threat to the species that reside there?" they will say that it doesn't?"

Yes. Ask him/her if what I said was true. That if the Ph in the ocean shifted a few points in as many years, would everything die off to the point that it would be detrimental to those who derive their sustenance from the ocean's bounty. Then, for you, eat crow.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

 

randomness