US Defense dept warns of danger from climate change
11:00 am - March 5th 2010
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
In January this year the US Department of Defense, that bastion of socialists, published its Quadrennial Defense Review Report.
The report not only implicitly accepts climate change but also points to the dangers it poses to national security.
It’s worth reading how it expects climate change to impact the armed forces:
Crafting a Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy (pg84)
Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment.Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.
Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways.
First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters.
Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.
Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.
The review also offers examples of how the US Military has reduced its carbon foot-print and secured energy supplies
By 2016, the Air Force will be postured to cost-competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel via an alternative fuel blend that is greener than conventional petroleum fuel. Further, Air Force testing and standard-setting in this arena paves the way for the much larger commercial aviation sector to follow. The Army is in the midst of a significant transformation of its fleet of 70,000 non-tactical vehicles (NTVs), including the current deployment of more than 500 hybrids and the acquisition of 4,000 low-speed electric vehicles at domestic installations to help cut fossil fuel usage.
The Army is also exploring ways to exploit the opportunities for renewable power generation to support operational needs: for instance, the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS). The Navy commissioned the USS Makin Island, its first electric-drive surface combatant, and tested an F/A-18 engine on camelina-based biofuel in 2009—two key steps toward the vision of deploying a “green” carrier strike group using biofuel and nuclear power by 2016.
The Marine Corps has created an Expeditionary Energy Office to address operational energy risk, and its Energy Assessment Team has identified ways to achieve efficiencies in today’s highly energy-intensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to reduce logistics and related force protection requirements.
An LC reader wrote in to say: “With the Pentagon acknowledging the reality of global climate change in the latest Quadrennial Defense Review Report, this surely puts the neocons with their ‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people‘ at odds with their own Generals and Admirals.”
The full report is here.
A few weeks ago Left Foot Forward reported that a leading Navy commander said climate change could be “the tipping point to cause conflict”
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |  |
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
The US Defense Dept. are a bunch of tree-hugging hippie pinkos.
What is terrible is that the Pentagon, like everyone else, is preparing to adapt to a century of climate destabilisation, resource wars, refugee chaos – rather than working to do something to prevent climate change getting worse.
Looking back on this era, our kids will be horrified at us for this.
Looking back at the first months of 2010, the re-emergence of the idea that climate change is not happening at all, thanks to a PR campaign led by a load of neo-con crooks and their pig ignorant band of internet followers will be viewed with incredulity. We need to empathise a little less and condemn a little more.
That’s “peer reviewed” is it, Strategist?
*sniggers loudly*
Since when has anything the defence department warned us about ever been truthful or correct? Wasn’t it the Defence department that talked us into invading Iraq? They have no credibility.
@4 “They have no credibility”
Remarkably short sighted attitude. The US’s defense budget is as big as all others defense budgets combined: They do not fuck about too much.
And it wasn’t the “Defence Department” it was people in the Bush administration and some people in the Defense Department, it’s a lot more complicated than that.
@3 yes Hannibal, a statistically significant sample of your peers confirm that you are pig ignorant.
Well, Strategist, leaving aside the fact that “Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted”, I would put more trust in your version of peer review than I would the one engineered by warmists.
Personally I reckon we should take advantage of the fact the rebellious colonists have taken their eye of the ball where defence is concerned and reassert our sovereignity by force…
…what do you mean colonial ventures are not popular on this site?
More to the point, reading between the lines this sounds like the normal drive by defence industries to find ways round vulnerabilities and costs (in this case the need to have fuel and the cost of buying, transporting and securing it). Although this is badged under the banner of climate change (rather oddly I’d have thought – it opens up another possible front in the war over this in congressional defence subcommittees), I doubt there is anything in all of the muddled beauracratese cited above that is actually anything other than finding alternative ways to provide fuel. If they were serious about the environment, I doubt biofuels would be being pushed so heavily…
All that’s mentioned here is “climate change”, and everyone know’s that that’s happening and that it always will (and always has).
Man-made climate change is a different subject.
I welcome the Pentagon into the Circle of Climate Conspirators with open arms. Watch out, deniers, we’ve got a bigger budget now!
Is it really so hard to find a picture of rolling black smoke that is actually the problem instead of harmless STEAM coming off of COOLING TOWERS? A bad argument is worse than no argument, please stop making us look stupid.
I doubt the Conservatives were exactly pushing for Women in Submarines or Gays anywhere in the military either. Ever since Tailhook it is clear that the Top Brass have been cowed by threats from the Politically Correct.
Big deal.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Paul Tran
Liberal Conspiracy » US Defense dept warns of danger from climate …: Although they produce distinct types of cha… http://bit.ly/bL2GrQ
-
Eben Marks
Arch-hippies US Department of Defense warn about climate change http://is.gd/9KccA. Maybe they could give part of their budget towards it.
-
sunny hundal
@fatcouncillor @billyblofeld you may not like this either: http://bit.ly/8y7tS8 / http://bit.ly/9CZYiK / http://bit.ly/bL2GrQ
-
sunny hundal
@fenrir1 @OldHoborn if it's a myth – tell that to the commies from the US Dept of Defense http://bit.ly/bL2GrQ
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
