| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
I know, it's an oxymoron, and we have a recent example of the problem.
The effects of global warming, the study said, could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water. All could lead to direct involvement by the United States military."Stabilize climate changes". What are these folks smoking!?The report recommends that climate change be integrated into the nation’s security strategies and says the United States “should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.”
In March, a report from the Global Business Network, which advises intelligence agencies and the Pentagon on occasion, concluded, among other things, that rising seas and more powerful storms could eventually generate unrest as crowded regions like Bangladesh’s sinking delta become less habitable.Even if the seas fell and storms weakened we would have all of this and more. None of this is avoidable, especially not by following some brain dead nostrum about trivial reductions in GHGs.One of the authors of the report, Peter Schwartz, a consultant who studies climate risks and other trends for the Defense Department and other clients, said the climate system, jogged by a century-long buildup of heat-trapping gases, was likely to rock between extremes that could wreak havoc in poor countries with fragile societies.
“Just look at Somalia in the early 1990s,” Mr. Schwartz said. “You had disruption driven by drought, leading to the collapse of a society, humanitarian relief efforts, and then disastrous U.S. military intervention. That event is prototypical of the future.”
“Picture that in Central America or the Caribbean, which are just as likely,” he said. “This is not distant, this is now. And we need to be preparing.”
“The evidence is fairly clear that sharp downward deviations from normal rainfall in fragile societies elevate the risk of major conflict,” said Marc Levy of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, which recently published a study on the relationship between climate and civil war.As world population rises to half again its current size there will be lots and lots of trouble. There will be "large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water" even if the climate becomes more benign - whatever that means. These problems are already happening and have done so for all of recorded history.Given that climate models project drops in rainfall in such places in a warming world, Mr. Levy said, “It seems irresponsible not to take into account the possibility that a world with climate change will be a more violent world when making judgments about how tolerable such a world might be.”
If I was not already disdainful of politicians and their minions in "think tanks", universities and elsewhere I would certainly become so in observing the current kerfuffle about climate. If these perfectly ordinary events which can always be anticipated though not predicted with any useful precision might lead to "disastrous U.S. military intervention" then the problem is clear. Eighty-six the military intervention meme. It isn't an intelligent response.
Every time in the past million years or so that the CO2 levels have risen to 300 ppm, an ice age has followed. That's 100,000 years of cold. Every. Single. Time.
Now, are you saying that ignoring GHGs is the way to go? That would strike me as a "brain dead" strategy. But don't fret -- we are seeing the end of cheap fossil fuels, so as oil prices go up, the Market will seek alternatives... thus reducing CO2 emissions. The smart money is already looking in that direction.
Posted by: Mark at April 16, 2007 03:20 AMThe post doesn't say to ignore CO2, it says that trivial reductions in GHGs are useless. Reading for comprehension is a useful skill. Try it.
Posted by: back40 at April 16, 2007 06:13 AMSo trivial reductions appear useless. Perhaps you have a better course of action. Adaptation is necessary, but what if we can at least mitigate the problem and keep the worst from happening? Are you saying we shouldn't even try? And as for reading comprehension, did you understand what these military types were saying? What you call "kerfluffle," these people call "threat multipliers."
General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.)
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
Chairman, Military Advisory Board
Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.)
Former Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Former Deputy Administrator-Naval Reactors, National Nuclear Security Administration
Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.)
Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force
Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)
Former President, National Defense University; Former Chief of Naval Research and Commander, Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command
General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command
Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe
Admiral Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.)
Former Vice Chief of Naval Operations
Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and Former U.S. Ambassador to China
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command
General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.)
Former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)
General Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
------------
I think I'll take their word over yours.
"what if we can at least mitigate the problem and keep the worst from happening?"
It's a preposterous idea that will not come to pass. More importantly, the threats will still be there, always have been there, always will be there, climate change or not. Population growth alone gives you threat multiplication. Climate change adds nothing. These folks are just rent seeking using the current fad for climate hysteria as an excuse.
The climate will continue to change. It will be many decades before technological progress advances and systems are deployed world wide. Get real.
Posted by: back40 at April 17, 2007 05:33 AMUnfortunately, I tend to agree we are populating ourselves to death, and pretty much all the other problems stem from that. The climate will continue to change, as you say, no matter what we do. Peak Oil will raise its ugly head over the next few years. Peak Oil and climate change together will push our civilization to the edge like never before. People will do what they've always done -- mainly, fight over resources. Worldwide depression? WWIII? We'll see...
This is a time for each person to make some hard choices. If you live in a city, should you move to a smaller community? Will you prepare for the worst, or will you choose to deal with things as they come? I'm sure many will simply deny these problems exist until it's too late, and of course will shift blame to the government (Why didn't our leaders DO SOMETHING?). Of course, the government has to protect the economy at all costs, even though that economy - and our culture - is based on an unsustainable paradigm (cheap oil). So, to "get real," I believe our human population is in for some rough times ahead. A major culling of the herd.
I still don't think we should sit on our hands and do nothing, though. If human civilization is to survive, we had better come up with a new paradigm, fast. Time is running out...
Posted by: Mark at April 19, 2007 05:41 AM