• Aug 10th 2009 at 7:50PM
  • 32
The Pentagon is taking a serious look at how global climate change will dramatically affect the national security of the United States in the coming decades. The Pentagon's reasoning is as follows: climate change is going to be about the biggest SNAFU imaginable and could "topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions," in the next two or three decades, the New York Times writes. The biggest danger areas: the Mid-East, South and SE Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Another potential danger zone: the Arcitc, where the melting ice cap is creating a new shipping channel "that must be defended." The military's response includes all sorts of war "games" exploring possible outcomes of droughts, floods and food shortages as well as studying things like alternative fuels.

This is not a new angle. In 2007, 11 retired senior generals issued a 63-page report that found that global warming "presents significant national security challenges to the United States." For some reason, James Woolsey was not interviewed for the article, even though he has been making the "national security = greener cars" case for years. We're sure not everyone will agree, but we think this is a good topic to remember the next time we're about to argue if EVs or hydrogen cars are the best way forward.

[Source: New York Times]
Photo by DVIDSHUB. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 6 Years Ago
      I took up smoking in the 90's as many noted scientist said it did not cause lung cancer. Turns out they were just after a pay day. Oh well, I will just die quietly. Live and let die was Phillip Morris motto and now is also mine.

      I don't know but do imagine that the cigarette issue was probably 80% who con cured lung cancer is significantly linked to smoking.

      I will error on the side of the majority (80%) of the scientists of the National Academy of Science this time on GW.

      It is to bad that the human population as a whole as to pay for the head in the sand people on GW. At least with smoking (minus second hand smoke damage) the people that stuck there heads in the sand received lung cancer. On the bright side they could sue cigarette manufacturers for their own stupidity.

      Wonder if I can sue Fox News or CNBC if one of my relatives die of GW.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I hardly ever use Fox News, but I keep reading here and there that only a small number of "scientists" buy into the global warming belief set. That a number of the leaders of the stop civilization now movement are ... dentists.

        Could you perhaps link to the 80% true believer claim so that we could perhaps learn something other than that disagreement exists?

        (Why do I keep having the feeling that somewhere a bunch of KGB pensioners are meeting over drinks and laughing themselves silly at what one of their plots 40 years ago hath, eventually anyway, wrought?)
        • 6 Years Ago
        You make a great point Ray, and I hope you soon give up smoking, it's still not too late to get a benefit from quitting.

        But, when I was a kid, I went to the library, and pulled out some OLD Science Books from the 1940's. Guess What? They KNEW THEN Smoking caused Cancer. That has always haunted me, They Knew, but could not stop, the Tobacco Propaganda.

      • 6 Years Ago
      Arnold has been one of the greatest proponents of cleantech but he is critized by the GOP for his stance. Other Republicans (like the governor of Florida) have acted against their party, why is this? Is it because they are trouble makers or because they want the best for their state and the world.

      I am not trying to pick a fight but the GOP has been the greatest problem in the US to progress since they abandoned their true beliefs in the 1990s. The GOP was the ones who setup the EPA (only to ignore it in the 2000s). They are anti-science when it comes to CC or the creation of the world, so I am sorry but until they show some maturity their opinion counts as little when it comes how best we can protect the world.

      Their hands are covered in oil, and oil doesn't wash off so easily.
      • 6 Years Ago
      All the sudden for some, "military intelligence" is not the risible oxymoron of yesterday.

      Intriguing that.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This is from the same guys who wanted to build a "Gay Bomb" ... but I digress

      I would be a fool to think global warming doesn't happen. I live in a place that use to have a 2 mile thick ice sheet.

      The kicker has always been.. Is it MANMADE?

      Most people who agree think the government must CONTROL us to prevent us from destroying the world

      Tell me if science found out that we could no more control global warming than we could a hurricane would you still want Cap and Trade , Wind , and other non coal power sources to prevent carbon?

      How you answer that is how you really feel about the science
        • 6 Years Ago
        Here is quickie way to envision how much pollution fossil fuels (and therefore, all our energy usage, since they "substitute"). Next time you fill up your little car (or huge SUV), imagine taking that 11.4 gallons and just pouring it on your lawn, once a week.

        What has that got to do with global warming? This is not about pollution ... stay focused

        I know CO2 is less directly toxic than benzene

        Are you toxic? you expel CO2 ... Plants will Die without CO2 Do you envision the EPA controlling all sources of CO2?

        Next time you fill up your little car (or huge SUV), imagine taking that 11.4 gallons and just pouring it on your lawn, once a week

        Try that with your toilet ...same thing ... nearly any thing is bad if it is concentrated enough
        • 6 Years Ago
        Science? You mean the way the solar cycle is directly correlated with Earth's surface temperature? The science that doesn't justify and back-door government control of all economic activity? The science that recognizes that the human race is a natural inhabitant of this planet, not a plague to be eradicated? That science?

        Or is science only real science when it agrees with the conclusion you feel is right?
        • 6 Years Ago
        Here is quickie way to envision how much pollution fossil fuels (and therefore, all our energy usage, since they "substitute"). Next time you fill up your little car (or huge SUV), imagine taking that 11.4 gallons and just pouring it on your lawn, once a week.

        I know CO2 is less directly toxic than benzene, heptane, etc. But just imagine.....
      • 6 Years Ago
      So many typical brainwashed arguments for AGW. 'The majority of scientists...', 'scientific evidence shows...', 'scientists paid for by the oil companies...' ' the ice caps are melting', 'the sea is rising' etc. etc. etc. No matter what new news occurs in the world, people keep repeating these decade old lies from Al Gore.

      Do yourself a favor folks and just suspend belief in any of this for one month. Find two websites that reflect a high amount of current SCIENCE (not just opinion) about AGW. One for and one against. Read and read and read until you think you understand what is being demonstrated by each side. Focus on research and evidence, not just claims and politics. Don't dismiss anyone because of their beliefs. Act like the future of your freedom and security and that of your children and grandchildren depends on it.

      I can't help you with a useful site that is pro-AGW, but you may want to start with
      http://www.realclimate.org/ and search there for real evidence. It won't be easy because there is none, just computer models.

      On the anti-AGW side, start with http://www.climatedepot.com/

        • 6 Years Ago
        The problem with GW and AGW deniers is a fundamental lack of understanding for the scientific method, and a tendency to project their own behaviour and state of mind on others. I.e. they assume that people "believe" in AGW because they've been impressed by Al Gore or some other prominent green figure, and that they either get their views from biased sources or select only those studies that support their position, because that's what they themselves do. Not to mention that their arguments are frequently America-centric, as is the whole AGW denier movement. Because you know, other countries and international organizations don't do climate science at all.

        They can't comprehend that people who are really interested in the matter, if they look at published studies from all over the world with scientific scrutiny, can only come to one conclusion: Global warming is real, and human acticities contribute to it. To what extent is not fully clear, neither are the consequences. Please note that "not fully clear" in this context means somewhere between "dire" and "downright catastrophic".

        The brainwashed is you.
        • 6 Years Ago
        John: the ice caps are melting', 'the sea is rising' etc. etc. etc. No matter what new news occurs in the world, people keep repeating these decade old lies from Al Gore.

        Are you so deep into the Anti-Global-Warming BS you can't see with your own eyes? The SouthWest, soon to be a US desert, Texas in Drought, the US in Drought, the World in Drought. All Glaciers In Retreat. And you point to an Oil/Coal funded URL for me to look at? It's time to break out of your delusion. It's you that believe anything you are told from the well funded right wing crackpot media.

        I don't need Al to tell me anything, I'm watching In REAL TIME the destruction of the earth. You're one of the last ones still being fooled, while the people who fund your anti-climate-change sites, go on Global Buying Spree for Land and Water. Are you unaware of that as well?
      • 6 Years Ago
      John, your focus on Al Gore gives you away. I've never read his book or seen his movie, it's unrelated to the science. Please explain


      (Al Gore doesn't appear in it anywhere.) There's no side; rather there's a consensus throughout the scientific community, and there's a critical minority without a working model or comprehensive theory.

      climatedepot.com seems to be another a ranting site re-reporting editorials and the occasional scientific paper. The latest is the paper by Robert Essenhigh (a mechanical engineer) that fails to explain where CO2 goes.

      Meanwhile here's some new news. MIT's center concludes "Increases global warming projections ... High odds of warming over 5°C (9°F) if no action" and "UK Met Office: World temperatures are set to rise much faster than expected as a result of climate change over the next ten years".
      • 6 Years Ago
      If you want to trust "scientists" who are bought and paid for my companies like Exxon Mobile and opinions aspirated by Republican politicians that is your choice.

      The vast majority of scientists say that climate change is caused by man and it is logical to see it. If you think we should sit on our hands until we have the 100% facts then it will be too late, but I guess such ideas will have to be held by certain people.

      My deeper question is why people like Republicans hate the environment so much, and also the idea of energy efficiency (why be against clean energy or fossil fuel-less even if you don't believe in CC)?
        • 6 Years Ago
        @Mark: you first sentence begs the question of who to trust. Scientists bought by companies or scientists bought by government grants. You seem to put all your eggs in one basket. I think both sides have valid points and dismissing one side because of a possible political affiliation, although it makes things easy, certainly doesn't exactly yield a wise decision.

        Your last paragraph is absurd and nothing but completely false. Some of the strongest alt energy proponents I know are right wingers. I've been deeply interested in electric/air/fuel cell vehicles for years but I do realize that we have issues such as infrastructure and technological hurdles that have to be overcome to make those viable, consumer friendly and accessible but, I digress. My point is, don't throw a blanket decision over a block of the population because it saves valuable thinking cycles. There are bright people on both sides of the aisle that care about clean technology.

        • 6 Years Ago
        Why does government (not just Repubs) not support efficiency, you ask. Because it is not good for many large businesses and it also cuts government revenues.

        For example, replacing the lights in many large commercial buildings may have a payback of 3 to 7 years based on reduced electricity costs and consumption. The government (state & local) will obtain "up front" sales tax and other revenue based on the installation. However, since such a project has a "quick" payback, it means that government revenues are reduced somewhere else, notably sales tax on electricity. And, of course this reduction in tax revenues is "forever".

        Similar considerations to automobiles. Hence, ongoing debate on how to replace loss in fuel tax revenues to continue support for transportation infrastructure.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Vast Expanses of Arctic Ice in Retreat

      Things are looking up though, although the US has been in a Drought for at least a Year, I just saw the National News actually report that fact last week.

      And Texas is really getting Clobbered. This is just the start. Someone should do an analysis of the Economic Cost of the US drought. It's going to be Oil/Coal or Food. V8's or Food. Take your pick.
      • 6 Years Ago
      @Mark : Although you may think John and many Republicans are lacking in this argument there is a large body of scientists/climatologists that do not think this is a settled issue (anthropogenic change). Many of those in that group are not right or left wing, they are simply scientists. Real science is rarely 'settled' and never beyond question since that would be contrary to scientific study. Climate change isn't new. In fact climate change is the norm, not the exception so please, don't sit on your high horse without clothes. Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle know how to read.

      • 6 Years Ago
      This is what's really going on. The Big Money is paying to keep you stupid( Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck and Fox "News" ), while they buy up land and water:

      "It's no wonder: The economic valuation of land and water has increased in concurrence with both price commodities and the ravages of climate change, whose droughts, wildfires and other extreme environmental events are quickly shrinking what's left of the planet's arable land and clean water."

        • 6 Years Ago
        Thanks, I'll put Tomlinson down as another hooker for the oil/coal industry. His article written in January looks crazy in August.

        Do you live in the US? Why don't you talk to a Texas Farmer, or someone in Southern California about global warming. Or, someone in Northern California, where their ice pack is melting and that's where they get their water supply. The US is in a National Drought. This is the problem with the Republican Party, they've lost control of their message. They've been bought out by Corporate America and to stay elected they've got to do the Oil and Coal industry bidding. In spite of evidence we can see with our very eyes, they continue to come up with crackpot theories about sunspots and cycles.

        But, US farmers had better take a look at California and Texas, ignore Climate Change and you too could be Bankrupt. People who like to eat food should take a look too, most food comes from someone's farm. [ China also has drought conditions. ]

        I invite the Republican Party to come back to the Reality Based Universe, but, I don't see how that will be possible with Limbaugh, O'Rielly, and Hannity controlling the party's direction.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Even during the Bush administration Global War On Terror focus, there were officials concerned about the effects of global warming, but that malevolent dick Cheney kept them from prominence. Here's a remark you wouldn't expect from Bush's s Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, in a 2008 New Yorker interview:

      I asked McConnell if he believed that Al Qaeda was really the greatest threat America faces.

      “No, no, no, not at all,” he said. “Terrorism can kill a lot of people, but it can’t fundamentally challenge the ability of the nation to exist. Fascism could have done that. Communism could have. I think our issue going forward is more engagement with the world in terms of keeping it on a reasonable path, so another ism doesn't come along and drive it to one extreme or the other. And we have to have some balance in terms of equitable distribution of wealth, containment of contagious disease, access to energy supplies, and development of free markets. There are national-security ramifications to global warming.”
      • 6 Years Ago
      The ultra right fools of this country, those that watch FauxNews and believe all its cr...p, those that believe 'god' gave them the right to exploit the planet..........you can show them DNA evidence, they still won't let go of their retarded convictions.

      These people are no longer rational, they can't come up with a valid argument.
        • 6 Years Ago
        lmao @ you democrat party of treason & traitors, so ignorant to facts.

        Global warming is caused by the sun, not man made.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Difficult to argue with articles of faith. Wars start that way.

        Clearly, those with stars upon thars are unquestionably correct.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I would tend to agree. It seems as though the dems will slip into two parties at this point seeing as how republicans are making themselves more and more irrelevant these days.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X