Military Admits Global Warming a Threat to National Security

August 9, 2009

(ChattahBox)—According to the New York Times, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are finally confronting the weighty challenges ahead and the threat to U.S. national security, presented by the deadly effects of the global warming of our planet from greenhouse gas emissions.

New reports sound the alarm on the impact global warming would have, on already strained military resources, in dealing with massive flooding, surging seas, drought, deadly storms, food shortages and worldwide political unrest, as the effects of increasing global warming take its toll on the environment.

This is the first time the military and intelligence agencies have considered global warming as part of national security and budget planning. Congress under the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, when both were senators, persuaded the Department of Defense to include the effects of global warming in its 2008 budget authorizations.

The Department of Defense is using scientific data and climate research programs run by, the Navy, Air Force, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to prepare its threat assessments on global warming. The National Intelligence Council issued its threat assessment of global warming last year, forecasting dire geopolitical problems that would prompt a military and humanitarian response from U.S. forces

The Pentagon plans to include a climate change assessment in its upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review and the issues will be addressed in the State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

Intelligence studies have focused on the regions of sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, as particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming. Droughts and food shortages from global warming have the potential to cause severe political unrest in shaky democracies around the world and spur on terrorist activities.

The present political conflict in Sudan is viewed as global warming related, caused by the severe drought in Darfur and the expanding desert to the North. And the scenario in Sudan could be repeated in other vulnerable regions in the years ahead, if global warming is left unabated.

Unless green house gasses are reduced to combat the acceleration of global warming, our future environment looks grim with the prospect of worldwide hunger, drought, flooding and political unrest. A recent government report shows that glaciers are melting and receding at an alarming rate.

Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, recently co-authored a report prepared by a military advisory board saying, “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.”


10 Responses to “Military Admits Global Warming a Threat to National Security”

  1. Heather on August 9th, 2009 3:36 pm

    This all seems problematic to me. First, the earths climate has changed many times in the past, so suddenly humans have decided that the climate should now remain static for our personal benefit?

    We know that areas now in the mid west of the United States were once at the bottoms of oceans, yet suddenly the ocean levels rising becomes a taboo; why because we built a city on the coast?

    This is also similar to our approuch to animal extinction. Extinction has occured on earth long before humans were here; in fact several species of humans have gone extinct!

    95% of all forms of life that have existed on earth are now exctinct. Yet once again man has decided that he will intervene in nature, to prevent species from going extinct.

    What now happens to the natural process of evolution, if mankind artifically interfers in the process of natural selection?

    I think perhaps we over estimate our position in the scheme of earthly events! I fear that in the long run it will be our attempting to dictate to nature, what nature does, that will be our greatest threat to life on this planet!

  2. James Vanus on August 9th, 2009 3:37 pm

    What of the increased crop yields that rising carbon-dioxide levels bring? Greenhouse agriculture favors about 1,000 ppm of carbon-dioxide. It’s not realistic that we can reach that optimum level of CO2 for agriculture but continued use of carbon fuels can certainly help feed the world’s rising population.

    Even if planet-wide use of carbon-based fuels continues at the present rate, we cannot hope to achieve the CO2 levels that existed in ages past. Somehow the earth survived those eras of abundant plant growth and warmer temperatures.

    All climate change brings risk and opportunity for all life forms.

  3. Military Admits Global Warming a Threat to National Security … on August 9th, 2009 4:18 pm

    […] Read more: Military Admits Global Warming a Threat to National Security … […]

  4. ED on August 9th, 2009 4:26 pm

    People often ask, “why are we now deciding to intervene in nature” but the opposite is true, protecting the climate means NOT engaging in a huge, unprecedented, massive intervention in nature, which is what business as usual has been doing and would do.

    People often ask, “but the Earth’s climate has changed in the past, so why worry this time?” and part of the reason is that the term “climate change” is misleading, making it sound like it’s only just “change” that is happening.

    What is in fact happening is change in greenhouse gases that is far, far, far more rapid than the rate that naturally happens. Not twice as fast, not 3 times faster, not even 5 or 10 or 20 times faster, but 50 to 100 times faster. To give one example, the level of CO2 has gone up by 30ppm (parts per million) during a 17 year period (about 1990 to 2006), but the fastest-ever (not the average but fastest) rate before the industrial revolution was for CO2 to increase by 30ppm over 1,000 years. Normally it increased every 1,000 years by much less than we’re more than that every 17 years..Do the math and the rate is 58 times faster than the previously fastest-ever during the last 800,000 years..humans have only been around the last 150,000 or so years, so this is 58 times more extreme than the most extreme changes in a period 5 times longer than the time we’ve been on earth.

    Hasn’t it ever, ever changed this fast or faster? Yes, if has, but you not only have to go back to tens of millions of years ago (and to when many of our huge cities now would be under water) but guess what? Those past times in Earth’s ancient history have been times of not regular extinctions but of massive die-offs, there have only been 5 mass extinctions in Earth’s history, and we do not want to cause a 6th, but if you look for times climate has changed at this lightening speed we’re now causing, you had. those kinds of catastrophes. Not smart to deliberately cause that again. Also the ocean’s acidity is already 30% higher than pre-industrial revolution (look up “ocean acidification”) thanks to the massive CO2 that we’re releasing, some of which goes into the oceans.

    Last point, it took the Earth tens to hundreds of millions of years to create the huge oil and other fossil deposits, so the earth and life had time to adjust to *slowly* changing (decreasing) CO2 levels. We have burned up close to 1/2 of all the oil in about the last 200 years. Do the math: we’re burned through HALF, in much less than 1/100 of 1% of the time the earth took to create it. That’s a dumb way to “blow through your inheritance” at such rates even if there were not climate dangers, and is doubly irresponsible to burn it at more than 10,000 the rate it was created when the entire earth history (not just 800,000 years but all of it) shows that whenever a massive sudden change happens in a very short amount of time, you have half of life die off, or 90% as in the Permian mass-extinction. It is both immoral and insanity to play Russian Roulette with the planet.

  5. Wanda on August 9th, 2009 4:41 pm

    Right along with global warming is global population growth. With 80 million new persons each year – most born in poverty – governments fall further behind in providing the basics for their people. Domestically, the U.S. is being impoverished by the millions of immigrants each year. Less democracy, less per capita weatlh while more poverty and more uneducated.

    Everything you need to know about immigration and what to do about it humorously told.

    (Roy Beck and NumbersUSA are the “gumball” heroes)

    Birth Control – Si!
    Amnesty – No!

  6. Shine on August 9th, 2009 4:52 pm

    This whole column is about a non-existent problem.
    CO2 is a natural trace grace and makes up less thatn .04% of the atmosphere and, further is capable of causing only a small portion of the observed [and completely natural] warming that occurred in the 1990’s and which has almost completely disappeared since about 2001 to the present.

    In the millions of years of geologic past CO2 has been as high as about 8000ppm [depending on which geologist you listen to] and the earth has survived just fine.

    More CO2 is boon to man and to agriculture. Leave it alone; we don’t need or want a cap and trade “tax” fiasco.

  7. Michael on August 9th, 2009 7:26 pm

    Food shortages (and other shortages) have caused many wars in mankind’s history. What I’m not seeing is a good case that seeking to curb CO2 emissions will produce a net gain for anyone. That’s assuming we can achieve a real reduction that would produce a real change in climate for the better. Given computer models are just educated guesses based on assumptions (often nothing more than uneducated guesses) that could be leaving out critical factors, why are we thinking any effort to combat global warming is going to work better than cash for clunkers?

  8. Shine on August 9th, 2009 9:31 pm

    “ED on August 9th, 2009 4:26 pm ”

    “We have burned up close to 1/2 of all the oil in about the last 200 years. Do the
    math: we’re burned through HALF, in much less than 1/100 of 1% of the time
    the earth took to create it.”

    Must say that i respectfully disagree with the accuracy of much of your post, and to illustrate my point, using your quote above for the first HALF of the hydrocarbons: If half the burning of projected HC’s accounts for, say, the increase of CO2 from 200ppm to 390ppm [net 190ppm due to HC] then burning the remaining half could only increase the atmospheric content by an additional equal amount, or another 190ppm, which, if added to today’s figure of 390, would only bring us to approximately 580ppm, a figure CONSIDERABLY below geologic historical maxima of CO2 and certainly nothing over which to be alarmed.

    Warming from CO2 is NOT a linear effect, but rather an approximately logarithmic function. Further increases have less and less effect on temperature.

  9. Arno Arrak on August 12th, 2009 12:31 pm

    Now it’s the military’s turn to knuckle under warmist agitators’ fairy tale. There is no anthropogenic global warming and the warming we have had is not caused by carbon dioxide. Satellites show that the supposed warming in the eighties and nineties – the “late twentieth century warming” did not happen. What did happen was a series of climate oscillations in synch with the warm (El Nino) and cool (La Nina) phases of the well-known ENSO oscillation until the 1998 super El Nino showed up.That super El Nino had nothing to do with carbon dioxide but was caused by Indian Ocean overflow. It was followed a short time later by the twenty-first century high where temperature stagnated at the El Nino maximum for six years. All this came to an end with a La Nina cooling in 2007 and we are presently in a cool phase of of ENSO. ENSO is taking over the climate as it did before the super El Nino showed up and carbon dioxide based predictions just don’t work, period. Carbon dioxide has been increasing all along and so have Hansen’s “projections” of 1988 which predict warming when there is cooling. He and all model makers who built carbon dioxide into their climate models are going nuts because of the incredible difference we now have between their predictions of warming and real world temperatures. They are trying to find excuses but there really is no excuse for belief in the warming power of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not warming the world now and has not done it for the last five hundred million years. And yet they are pushing laws to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and taxing us to finance this asinine enterprise. On top of that they have the temerity to demand that “deniers” should be brought in front of a Nuremberg-like tribunal and tried for “crimes against humanity.” I suggest that introducing laws to curb carbon dioxide emissions to fight an imaginary danger is not just a crime against humanity but a crime against civilization itself.

  10. J McPherson on December 17th, 2009 4:14 am

    Why has no one mentioned, considered, or even questioned how the military program HAARP, located in Alaska (and other similar secret projects by other countries) affect GLOBAL WARMING? HAARP uses extreme high energy microwave pulses to SUPERHEAT the upper atmosphere. Jesse Ventura recently did a program on HAARP, and also a separate program on GLOBAL WARMING. This connection between HAARP and (so called) GLOBAL WARMING should be addressed. It is not fossel fuels causing the problem, if there really is a problem. If it is true that GLOBAL WARMING is “man made”, the cause is not by the common man but by our military and other countries with similar projects.

    What happens to food in a microwave oven? It cooks! Do these high energy microwave pulses in raising and lowering the upper atmospere not also affect the world climate and GLOBAL WARMING?

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.