About Me

Name: Average Voter
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Saucing Up The Story

Posted by Average Voter on Sunday, November 01, 2009 10:28:47 AM
   You have to read the news carefully to see the slant, unless of course your reading the SF Chronicle. This artilce is about the military and their planning for possible rising sea levels and droughts.
 
   They start the article by presenting ficticous scenerious:
 
 An island in the Indian Ocean, vital to the U.S. military, disappears as the sea level rises. Rivers critical to India and Pakistan shrink, increasing military tensions in South Asia. Drought, famine and disease forces population shifts and political turmoil in the Middle East.
   U.S. defense and intelligence agencies, viewing these and other potential impacts of global warming, have concluded if they materialize it would become ever more likely global alliances will shift, the need to respond to massive relief efforts will increase and American forces will become entangled in more regional military conflicts.
   It is a bleak picture of national security that backers of a climate bill in Congress hope will draw in reluctant Republicans who have denounced the bill as an energy tax and jobs killer because it would shift the country away from fossil fuels by limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities.
 
   So, it is all laid out nice and neat for you. The military needs to be prepared for all of these possible scenarious and the republicans are to blame if they don't pass the cap and trade bill.
 
   The military, as a matter of protocol, must take into acount all kinds of scenarios. They must be able to respond to all kinds of problems ranging from military coups of friendly countries too yes, even climate change. They must be able to put training excercises together so they can be prepared for just those type of things. But that does not translate into passing bills in congress. If that were the case, we would need to pass legislation to build a defense sheild to protect the Earth from astroids? (Of course, that is now classified)   
 
   Further down in the article they point out the obligatory Republican who shares their climate change fears. Of course, the only one they could find is retired.

Former Republican Sen. John Warner, a longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a close ally of the military, has been touring the country to talk about climate change and national security.

"We are talking about energy insecurity, water and food shortages, and climate-driven social instability," says Warner. "We ignore these threats at the peril of our national security and at great risk to those in uniform."

Among the flash points:

_ Himalayan glaciers are likely to recede, producing fresh water shortages in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of China.

_ Receding Arctic ice could trigger a territorial conflict involving Russia, the United States, Canada and others.

_ Sea level rise in Bangladesh, and drought in other parts of the world could unleash a flood of cross-border "climate refugees" and violence.

_ The Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, an atoll only a few feet above sea level, likely would disappear, taking away a critical U.S. military staging area.

      Then, at the very end of the article, they allow the other side their perspective; two whole paragraphs.

At Wednesday's hearing, retired Army Major General Robert Scales, who said he had "deep reservations" about the science of climate change, worried that if fossil fuels were curtailed it would reduce the availability of diesel and jet fuel "that might reduce our ability to go to war."

On the prospects of global political and military instability from climate change, Scales said, "such unlikely events would cause enormous suffering and social dislocation. But the history record strongly suggests that such devastating humanitarian disasters rarely if ever result in large-scale wars."

      So, just in case you are wondering where the S.F. Chronicle stands on this debate, this article should about clear that up.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive