Climate Change and National Security
What are the possible ramifications of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, desperate to find dry, arable land? Does that sound like it might constitute a threat to U.S. national security?
If you said “no,” you just might have what it takes to lead the White House Panel To Assess Climate Change.
The Washington Post reports: The White House is working to assemble a panel to assess whether climate change poses a national security threat, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post, a conclusion that federal intelligence agencies have affirmed several times since President Trump took office. The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security, which would be established by executive order, is being spearheaded by William Happer, a National Security Council senior director, who has said that carbon emissions linked to climate change should be viewed as an asset rather than a pollutant.
Happer notes: “I like to call this the CO2 anti-defamation league because the CO2 molecule has undergone decade after decade of abuse, for no reason. We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all. . . . We should be telling the scientific truth, that more CO2 is actually a benefit to the earth.”
I had the pleasure of interviewing ex-CIA Director James Woolsey for the national security chapter in my first book, Renewable Energy–Facts and Fantasies. Spoiler alert: our national intelligence and military communities are quite sure that climate change poses a threat; as discussed here, this is being established with greater certainty with each passing year.
Here’s something to consider: If you honestly want to conduct objective, scientific research on an important question, what’s the value in asking someone who thinks he already knows the answer?
Craig,
“what’s the value in asking someone who thinks he already knows the answer?”
Hmmmm,…..wise words indeed, but they also describe nearly every alarmist advocate of climate change!
Most politically inclined alarmist advocates distort scientific conjecture about the possible effects of climate change, in order to advance a political-ideological agend involving radical social reorganization.
To the frustration of these armchair doomsday pundits and would-be commissars, beachfront properties remain at premium prices and are highly sought after. It’s obvious very few voting citizens take these prophets of doom seriously, and even fewer are willing to be inconvenienced.
A bit like yourself Craig, as you rail against the evil oil companies, while filling up at your local gas station.
You know you can actually catch a train to Tesla’s factory in your state from Santa Barbara to Freemont Cal, and pick up your new Tesla EV?
Hmmm,…but you won’t will you ? Nor will you leave the pleasure of living in an affluent beachside town on the “American Riviera”.
Oh my goodness, a “National Security Treat” “flooding” , “hundreds of millions of climate refugees, desperate to find dry, arable land”, if you truly believe such absurd hyperbole you would have relocated to the Rockies long ago !
But you haven’t, because in your heart of hearts you know such a scenario is nonsense.
Just as you know that significant changes in technologies are transforming many of the theoretical disadvantages of carbon pollution into environmental and economic beneficial new industries.
The future of clean(er) technology can’t be restricted by stubborn adherence to old fashion political agenda, ideological doctrines or even rigid philosophical mantra.
Clean(er) technology can’t be prevented by such considerations without a cost being paid by the environment and economy. Governments shouldn’t choose any single technology at the expense of rival technologies.
The problem faced by ardent climate change fanatics is credibility. That problem will never go away as long as the advocates are more interested in espousing political agenda and telling others what to do and think, than leading by example.