Slashdot Mirror
Panetta Labels Climate Change a National Security Threat
skipkent writes "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared global warming a national security threat [Wednesday] during a speech before an environmentalist group in Washington, D.C. 'The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,' Panetta told the Environmental Defense Fund last night. 'Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.'"
... starts now.
No one actually sees what is really happening to the climate any more, just what political advantage they can get from it. Because of that it has become just noise.
Now if you get less than 40 mpg they can throw in gitmo....
1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.
greenhouse effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...
1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW
any holes here ?
Considering all those unnecessary flights home he took and charged to the US taxpayer
Was this said on one of his weekly trips from D.C. back to California in a VC plane?
Passionately Indifferent
way its worded they want to kill the environment LOL....RAWR
... why the Secdef was addressing an environmental group? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to send an EPA bureaucrat?
He's saying what's been said many times before, e.g. this from 2009 about the Pentagons simulations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all
"Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change."
"The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year. "
TSA is keeping us safer. Lips moving.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Even if it's for the right cause, I can't help but find it weird that dealing with climate change in the US starts by the military declaring it a terrorist.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_awareness >>> The 1970 "Study of Critical Environmental Problems"[18] reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling". ------- So Global Warming is a phenomenon that the science community was aware of, as a theoretical possibility, as far back as 1970 (that's 42 years ago). ------ But it took several decades for prominent figures like Al Gore to go around popularizing the knowledge. ------ I'm glad Panetta has awoken to the danger. But you gotta admit that it took him and others a while to get to behind the conclusion that there is such a thing as "man-made climate change". ------ Some oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia still bury their head in the ground about this and go around arguing that "There is no such thing as man-made global warming. Its nothing more than bad science." ---- All that's left to hope is that more people become educated about global warming, and join in the effort to do something about it.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
There are all kinds of problems with the videos you presented. See here for a very clear step by step instructions and video showing what your videos are claiming to show, have results that have been fabricated:
Real CO2 in a bottle experiment
The problem is you and so many others not actually understanding the effects that CO2 really has, and only believing in a simplistic view of warming promoted by your cult leaders.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why the hell is the Secretary of the Department of Defense of the United States of America talking to a group of terrorists?
Now everybody can be accused of terrorism: We caught this man attempting a global warming attack by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, we had to put him down as he would not stop even after being caught, threatening the security of our agents.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Unlike this "terrorist" nonsense we've been enjoying freedom gropes for years about just so Red State defense contractors can get their pork.
When anyone who isn't a climate change "expert" voices skepticism on climate change, all the believers pile on, outraged, about how the person isn't qualified to be making such statements, how they're abusing their position/authority to sound like they know what they're talking about, &c.. (Remember Bjorn Lomburg?) So I'm sure we'll see the global-warmers express similar outrage about this, right?
And... "national security threat"? This is the same government agency that thinks that bearded malcontents hiding out in desert caves is a "national security threat." This is the same agency that spent decades fighting the "national security threat" posed by tiny little countries like Vietnam and Cuba going communist. I seem to remember an awful lot of progressives dismissing the lunacy of the War on Terror and the Cold War. So I'm sure they'll dismiss and mock this latest attempt by the U.S. military to imagine or invent new threats, right?
Right?
Liberty in your lifetime
In the U.S., EVERYTHING is a threat to national security, it is much easier to get military funding when your enemy is the bogeyman.
it will not happen. The reason is that many nations like China will take advantage of this to build up their own economy and hope that other nations do the heavy lifting. Worse, EU and liberals here fall for the trap of emissions PER CAPITA. It is the WORST IDEA EVER. China has not had a changing population, yet, their emissions went up nearly 10 fold over something like a 20 year period. It is about ECONOMIC OUTPUT and how you cheat at it. And yes, China CHEATS HEAVILY. So do many nations.
If we want this solved, America is the solution. We are the largest importers. At this time, we should put a tax on ALL GOODS, both local and imported, based on the CO2 (and later add other pollutants) that is emitted from an area. The CO2 should be measured by satellite and it should be a case of (co2 out - co2 in).
The important part is that the tax is then based as a % of CO2 PER GDP (unleveled) or a combination of CO2/GDP and CO2/land size (deals with farming which can add a lot of CO2).
If America was to do this, it would impact the world over. Basically, nations that have been working on lowering their emissions will have lower taxes. Those like China which continue to cheat, would have top taxes applied to them.
Ideally, ALL nations that care should do this. They will encourage all other nations to move quickly towards dropping their emissions.
Since the economy is fragile, the maximum tax should start low and build yearly. That gives nations time to adjust.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... not the manufactured data they were caught trying to pass off as fact before copenhagen.
I'm suspicious that what's really going on is the creation of a new industrial complex, much like 'cybersecurity' is creating a security industrial compex - for no other reason beyond robbing the people for the enrichment of the 1%.
a Gore-sucker
And that is human nature, and precisely why nothing ever gets done before it's too fucking late to make any difference whatsoever.
And THAT is human nature. The ability to believe dire warnings that benefit someone else without any proof whatsoever.
Man in inherently gullible, as you so aptly demonstrate. Those few simply asking for some small bit of proof are so often shouted down by the panicky mob insisting something "must be done" "for the children".
On the other hand the willing suspension of disbelief that is part of human nature makes it easier to enjoy movies so we have that going for us.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's the "War On Climate Change" ... get it right.
The only "obvious" solution is a complete government take over of all things that produce CO2 ... in other words ... socialism. People, Factories, Vehicles, ect ... all property of the state and may only be used if they give the ok, but not before they make you feel horrible about it.
Who cares that the US Debt:GDP has surpassed 1:1 and that true unemployment is well over 16% ... let’s focus on the climate and stop worrying about that whole economy thing.
If it's a "national security threat", that means more government money needs to be spent on it... Maybe they'll even declare the entire country a "disaster zone" at some point?
Nicely said!
I just get a kick out of the people that want to "Save the Planet" by making reasoned argument "Troll" but may have a device or two on this list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_power
Be Very Afraid: The Church of The Climate is getting it's own Armed Inquisitition.
Life Imitates Super Bowl Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo
The ability to believe dire warnings that benefit someone else without any proof whatsoever.
Right. In this case, it's the fossil fuel industries that have the most to lose. The oil/natural gas companies are the largest, wealthiest, most powerful legal entities on the planet.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/performers/companies/profits/
I don't respond to AC's.
The video you posted critiques only Al Gore's "experiement" and saying those results and those alone are bogus. Of course that assumes that the person who published that wesite is in fact telling the truth himself.
If you're going to be a skeptic, at least be consistanlty skeptical.
....only believing in a simplistic view of warming promoted by your cult leaders.
*dripping with condescending sarcasm* Yeah, you don't have an egenda either. It's good of you to be so objective.
Yes, there is an effect or at least a potential effect on national security, just like climate change has potential impacts on everything from where and how people live to agriculture to industry. In fact, the effects in all those areas will be more important and deeper than the effects on defense.
But to say it has a dramatic impact is just bullshit. Its effects will be gradual and we will see them as they happen and they will be slow enough for us to adjust gradually to the changing situation.
Meanwhile, there are other things that will dramatically affect defense: the emergence of China as a dominant international economic and military power, economic changes in Africa, population expansion, the proliferation of weapons technology, the potential to attack countries by sabotaging and surveilling their communications, control of shipping routes, new ideologies and religions, the fact that we can't afford to spend money on defense like we used to...
Most retarded "solution" I've ever heard of and I'm not even American... What you propose is Americans should pay significantly more for stuff that's really cheap because somebody tells you "CO2 is bad mmkay"? What exactly would that accomplish besides lowering your standard of living and state having more money to burn by their representatives for hookers and blackjack. And why would other countries follow suit is beyond me...
Logic, you fail at it.
Climate change/Global warming/Global freezing (whatever you want to call it) is a cash grabbing hoax and nothing more. This planet has been changing weather much more violently in the past and for that we actually have evidence, we don't have clear evidence people are responsible for whats happening now, neither that these changes are actually bad for the planet (CO2 happens to favor plants so its not like "its killing the planet ZOMG!!!!").
I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the environment, we all should be conscious about whats actually good and try to live with that in mind but giving somebody money to solve a problem you "believe in" is naive at best and religious at worse.
You're 100% right.
Unfortunately, most of the US looks like something out of the movie Idiocracy, now. People want to buy shit cheap. That's really all they care about.
I don't respond to AC's.
It would probably be workable if you also applied it to native products. To make exports competitive, you could give them back a credit for any exports (let the other countries enact similar taxes for their imports).
Of course, this is just another way of implementing something like Kyoto, but without all that pesky international co-operation :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Way to frame the world's politics into your own myopic worldviews, you redneck yankee merkin, you. Shit, if we frame everything into american politics, everybody else in the world is a leftist extremist. That why you keep starting wars on bloody everything? Now you have a lucrative, long-term business opportunity and you're still complaining.
So what if the USA ends up doing the heavy lifting on this one? You're still using way more than your fair share of resources like, oh, energy, and have for quite a while. Go on, learn how to do with less. Then sell the technology —of course you'll involve technology somehow, you're American— and get even richer. You should like free market enterprise, no? Or are you some sort of commie hippie or something?
Food quality is also overlooked, so we really need a parallel War on Food.
If you tax the consumer equally, that is domestic and imported goods have the same rate of tax per CO2, then you aren't actually impacting the producer just the domestic consumer. This will the drive domestic producer to sell or produce outside the domestic market to compensate for reduced demand/increased costs at market. You are only impacting the domestic buyer with a tax scheme like that. The domestic buyers then have an incentive to purchase the goods through a black market to lower the price, or to purchase abroad without the CO2 tax. You'll start to get the effect of inflation without prices increasing from the producer.
Schemes like this don't work. you either have to outlaw the uses of certain fuels, or require greater regulation at the production point which will directly raise costs too, but doesn't create the situation with taxes where the raised revenue does not go to reducing CO2, with taxes it just goes straight into the general fund and in essence gets wasted. Taxes are a terrible idea for lowering emissions, if you want to lower emissions you require it at the source.
Flooding in New York is most likely to come from a Tsunami caussed by that rock hanging by a thread in the Canary Islands.
The Alarmist In Chief recanted last week and said they were all exagerating, which was covered by, oh, wait, slashdot.
Maybe get him to read this:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/04/25/1325241/gaia-scientist-admits-mispredicting-rate-of-climate-change
Need Mercedes parts ?
Any person found to be emitting any amount of CO2 will be detained for permanent questioning under the Patriotic Clean Air and Water Anti-terrorism Act. Only government officials are allowed to emit CO2.
nuke the iceburgs...
If memory serves, climate change has been on the Pentagon's and US Army War College's radar for some time. I'd imagine the Navy ( one of the largest oceanographic researchers in the world ) is already planning for it.
I never though this day would come. Someone in Washington actually gets it. Now what they do with it is another story but I remain guardedly optimistic.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
You mean US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta... There are other countries, you know.
Great post, but completely irrelevant, as there are mountains of evidence for climate change. That you refuse to acknowledge them reflects on you, not on the science.
What makes you think PER CAPITA is a bad idea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Why is it okay for an average American citizen with their gas-guzzlers to emit 3X Greenhouse gases compared to an average Chinese citizen? Why do the Chinese have to sacrifice on their quality of life? Are Americans ready to do so?
American exceptionalism?
Is climate change happening? The people who will have to pay for the damages that could happen certainly have an opinion -
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004601.html
---Probably no sector is more conservative than the insurance industry, and I'm not referring to its political posturing. Insurance is, at its essence, a numbers game -- about risk management, probability theory, and certainty. And so it is noteworthy that the insurance industry's concern over climate change continues to grow, and that the warnings are becoming louder and clearer.--
With new weather patterns, exposures are changing and insurers need to act now, says the new Lloyd's report, titled Climate Change: Adapt or Bust
-- big pdf - http://www.lloyds.com/NR/rdonlyres/38782611-5ED3-4FDC-85A4-5DEAA88A2DA0/0/FINAL360climatechangereport.pdf
Hold on. If you apply a tax against imports, that is a tariff. If you apply it to imports AND LOCAL goods, then it is a regular sales tax. The first will be shot down by WTO, in spite of the fact that nations like China have over 400 tariffs (and are supposed to have less than 20). The second is LEGAL by ALL TREATIES. More importantly, we in America, will not feel pressure to lower our own emissions, UNLESS we have a tax that is going to go up. With this approach, it gives nations time to avoid the tax. They simply spend their money on dropping their own emissions and that way, they can continue to export.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
This issue has been investigated to death by the following organizations:
4.1 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
4.2 Science Assessment Panel
4.3 Pennsylvania State University
4.4 Independent Climate Change Email Review
4.5 United States Environmental Protection Agency report
4.6 Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
4.7 National Science Foundation
No scientific wrong doing has ever been found. The quotes that the tinfoil heads have used to show that "Phil Jones admitted manipulating data" were taken out of context and completely misunderstood. So please go take your willfull ignorance and hang out with the young earth creationists and the flat earthers, and stop interfering with the rest of us while we try to save our asses and your sorry ass from this building world disaster.
-- QED
Sorry for posting AC but can't be bothered anymore to figure out what my pass is.
Your propositions is not very feasible for a lot of reasons.
First of CO2 emissions are not found via satellite. Tonnage is calculated from statistics regarding industry. These calculations are not really precise, but ok. CO2 out, CO2 in? Do you understand how carbon sequestration actually works?
Oceans are huge carbon sinks. With your plan you are effectively proposing a land (or should it be sea?) grab by all nations to avoid taxation.
This is not even mentioning the different geographical conditions which very much affect the amount of CO2 can be sequestered.
Secondly, you do understand that this will undermine America's market position? Furthermore this kind of differentiated tax is impossible under a lot of trade agreements.
Also the political shitstorm is not to be snuffed at, especially when the market is the size of the one in the US.Not to mention how this would be very unfair towards all those countries that are not where you live.
I.e. who have not reaped the benefit of the rapid oil fueled industrialization. Should Kenian exports really be taxed because a lot of people still burn charcoal etc for cooking and light?
And lastly, what is probably going to get laughed at, but China has done more for renewable energy (especially solar) than most if not all Western countries in the last five years.
This is well known among policy makers and the like, but does not fit the narrative. Now I know people like to point out that A) China is still very much a big polluter and B) this is part of some geopolitical scheme in which they seek dominance.
Guess what, same holds for the US and Europe and pretty much every country or continent feeling righteous.
That doesn't make the fact go away that A) they are implementing and developing green tech at a much faster rate than any other country and B) that they bring this tech to developing countries.
So go on about how China is the bogeyman, but just maybe things are actually a little bit more complicated. Definitely when they still put out less than a post-manufacturing economy like the US.
And finally your scheme reduces the whole problem to a blame game. I think there is already enough of that in the climate change debate. Whichever position you might take on the blame issue, I think we can all agree that it is not very productive. See Durban COP.
Are you saying it isn't a disaster zone?
- Climate deniers elected to Congress
- Intelligent Design taught in schools
- Epidemics of preventable diseases rampant
- States permit chiropractors to openly practice
Looks like a disaster to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
If the DOD is concerned about the effects that CO2 will have on the atmosphere then they, as one of the largest consumers of energy in this federation, are in a unique position to actually do something about it.
Every US Navy ship of a certain minimum size should be nuclear powered. They've retired the last oil fired aircraft carrier not too long ago. As far as I know all the submarines in the fleet are nuclear powered. Now move that technology to the amphibious assault ships, frigates, destroyers, oilers, supply ships, hospital ships, and so on. Only the smallest vessels of the Navy should still run on oil.
When it comes to tanks, jeeps, helicopters, airplanes, and other vehicles where nuclear power would not be practical the DOD has the opportunity to invest in research in synthetic fuels. It appears that they are doing this but it's going to take a lot more research before the price can compete with petroleum fuels. Even if the process works the energy has to come from somewhere. That "somewhere' is likely going to be nuclear power.
The DOD has all kinds of large bases in this federation (and other nations) and these bases require all the infrastructure of a city. This includes needs for electricity. Because of things like radar, communications, heavy equipment, and other such necessities to run a military base the power needs are often much higher than your typical city. Also, to avoid panic and issues of warrior morale there should be a means to provide power to the surrounding community as well. A soldier is not going to be as effective if they know that the base is all lit up and running but his/her family is off base, in the dark, stuck in traffic, or whatever. In this case all military bases should have an on site nuclear power plant capable of powering the base and the community that surrounds it.
While I feel that nuclear power will play a very very large part in the future of our federation's security and independence I do see needs for investment into wind and solar power. I recall a Marine General talk about the "river of diesel" that has to flow into the small bases out in the battlefield. These places are where the trucks, tanks, and self propelled artillery go to get refueled, repaired, and take on a new crew. These vehicles need fuel. The people working at these bases need electricity for cooking, refrigeration, heating, cooling, lights, communications, and so on. Right now that mean diesel generators.
For every truck carrying diesel fuel there is a risk that some driver will lose his or her life to an attack. Reducing the need to bring in that fuel means fewer lives lost. It's not likely that they can remove the need for diesel fuel but they can reduce it by not running those generators. This could mean putting up solar panels and windmills for electricity. If the technology becomes more advanced then we might see nuclear reactors that fit on a 40 foot ISO trailer.
My point is that the DOD should not be complaining about the problem that carbon output has on the climate but should instead do everything in its power to remove their own need for fossil fuels. They are already doing some of this but this does not yet seem to be a priority. If it were a priority then there would no longer be a debate on whether the next generation destroyers would be nuclear powered or not. If carbon output were a priority then we should be reading about how every military base is building nuclear power plants, putting up solar panels, and seeking out the best spots for windmills on base.
Even if we got all these windmills, solar panels, and nuclear power plants the DOD will still be sucking up large amounts of petroleum to power existing aircraft, surface ships, trucks, tanks, and so on. This will likely continue for more than thirty years since that is the typical lifespan of a military design. With that in mind we need the DOD to speak up in favor of sources of petroleum that is domestic and from friendly nations. The DOD needs to speak up in favor
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
there are mountains of evidence for climate change
There sure are. Pretty much the entire history of the Earth.
What is less obvious is how much we are changing things, and in fact if higher levels of CO2 are really bad at all even IF they are making any kind of changes off the tangent of normal climatic change.
The lie is always so much easier to believe when peppered with a dash of truth...
As I said - gullible.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Right. In this case, it's the fossil fuel industries that have the most to lose.
Actually not true. They will be involved in energy distribution, whatever the form. Oil is just one form. The solar shingles I have been looking at for my house are from Dow...
The people with the most to lose are the ones like windmill and solar manufacturers that have bet the farm on one horse - and have been handsomely rewarded by fat government loans they skim from until going bankrupt. If we can't panic more people into spending WAY too much for energy solutions (which BTW hardly reduce the CO2 load anyway because of manufacturing) then THOSE companies will fold, and THAT means lots of Green money not going into politicians pockets.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can see why the EPA would need some law enforcement types at their disposal. Many times when a business is likely to be shut down and there is a lot of money on the line trouble might soon breakout. The reason some people resist the notion of global warming is simply that they are forced to understand that they will not have as nice a life as they have planned. Further, if they continue to live as they used to they will cause large numbers of people to starve and be ruined in poverty.
I can't believe you are falling for Bill Nye, a guy who repeatedly had weaker science shows than a someone who worked with a guy in a rat suit.
Note that Ol' Bill there never says WHY any of the things he lists as shortcomings are shortcomings - a thicker lid? Really?
The link I presented carefully laid out the full bill of materials used in the experiment. Bill never responded to a question at your link asking for the list of "appropriate" materials.
As far as open science goes, so far my link wins hands down.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3mm/year * 30 years = 90 mm total rise. 90mm / 25.4mm/inch = 3.54 inches
Sheesh.
posting AC because I moderated elsewhere
At this time, we should put a tax on ALL GOODS, both local and imported, based on the CO2 (and later add other pollutants) that is emitted from an area
Add a tax during an economy that's already weak. People start looking for ways to save money. That tree in the back yard could throw out a lot of heat this winter. Chop, chop, chop. Now what? Ban cutting trees on your property? Who's going to enforce that? An inspector? How's he going to get there? In his car. Vroom, vroom. Lovely plan you have there. OK, maybe people won't chop down the tree in the backyard. Remember when we were doing well? Well, hubby got laid off and we're squeezing by on Mom's salary. That green voluntary energy charge on the power bill made us feel really good when we were yuppies. That's gotta go. Oh, and the SUV guzzles gas; but it's paid for. I think you get the picture.
If you're going to be a skeptic, at least be consistanlty skeptical.
I am. I believe in people that show fully how I can replicate an experiment, not people that make hand-waving claims in a video with obvious cuts. Not people that refuse to reveal data and try to prevent publication of opposing viewpoints.
The video I linked to gave the full bill of materials used to create his experiment, and a set by step guide to what he did.
I've seen some commentary saying what he did was flawed but NEVER why, what step was wrong and why. Pretty odd as if there were actually a problem it's very easy to tag exactly what part of the experiment should be changed.
Otherwise the videos you linked to worked by changing the water vapor content and have nothing to do with CO2. I suppose we should Nuke the Unborn Gay Ocean for Christ? Although heads up, that might just increase water vapor too...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Several years ago the DoD listed it as one of the primary threats to national security for this century.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The reason is that many nations like China will take advantage of this to build up their own economy
Worse, EU and liberals here fall for the trap of emissions PER CAPITA. It is the WORST IDEA EVER. China has not had a changing population, yet, their emissions went up nearly 10 fold over something like a 20 year period
If emissions went up, and population was constant, then per capita emissions also went up. Why are you implying that per capita is therefore not a useful measure? It should also be noted that China's emissions have gone up because it is now manufacturing the majority of the world's stuff. If you want to control emissions based on manufacturing and economic output, then China is going to be given a huge share.
Anyway, the belief that everyone should have an equal share (per capita) is an ethical and moral issue. Some people believe that everyone should be entitled to an equal share. Some people believe that people of their own nationality or ethnicity should have a greater share of pollution rights than people who don't share a nationality or ethnicity. Climate change without the hot air - great book for people interested in the actual numbers - has this insight:
assuming that “something needs to be done” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who has a special responsibility to do something? As I said, that’s an ethical question. But I find it hard to imagine any system of ethics that denies that the responsibility falls especially on the countries ... whose emissions are
two, three, or four times the world average. Countries that are most able
to pay. Countries like Britain and the USA, for example.
It's a good point. It is not easy to construct a moral argument as to why people of one nationality or ethnicity should be allowed to pollute more than others. And since you can trade credits, the argument that it should be about GDP is invalid, because the high GDP nations can easily buy more credits from the low GDP nations.
Also, see this diagram of cumulative emissions.
If we assume that the climate has been damaged by human activity, and that someone needs to x it, who should pay? Some people say “the polluter should pay.” The preceding pictures showed who’s doing the polluting today. But it isn’t the rate of CO2 pollution that matters, it’s the cumulative total emissions; much of the emitted carbon dioxide (about one third of it) will hang around in the atmosphere for at least 50 or 100 years. If we accept the ethical idea that “the polluter should pay” then we should ask how big is each country’s historical footprint.
So, in terms of CO2 in the air right now, the USA, Western Europe and Russia are responsible for the vast majority of historic emissions because we have been digging up, drilling, and burning fossil fuels for longer.
Consider this thought experiment: residents of your city got into the habit of dumping rubbish in the city. The wealthy people dumped far more than the poor. Over time all this rubbish has accumulated and now someone needs to pay to have it cleaned up. Who should pay? Should all residents pay an equal amount, regardless of who actually dumped the rubbish? Should the poor pay? The rich? Should the people who actually dumped the rubbish be the ones that pay to clean it up? What about the people who are still dumping huge amounts of rubbish? Should they be paying more than the ones who dump very little?
Burning leaves and not recycling.
to the Heartland Institute's recent attempt towards demonizing the concept of global warming. I think Secretary Paneta's position may sounds a little extreme, regardless - but then again, I'm not in politics.
Did anybody happen to notice that the only link in this /. article is to a site whose focus is on denying the existence of global warming?
An odd place to find "news" I think.
finally, the US government will do more about it?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
This is akin to NASA saying that one of or their primary mission (I forget which) is outreach to muslims.
The CIA, FBI, NSA, etc are concerned with HUMANS not with the f'ing atmosphere. Leave that to the organizations that deal with that just as it's the state department's problem to worry about diplomacy and not f'ing NASA.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Its a war on ${topic_of_the_day}.
And of course this means suspending civil liberties, the Constitution and public discussion. We'll need to reinstate HUAC and drag all of you SUV drivers into congressional hearings before McCarthy Jr.
Have gnu, will travel.
China actually produces what you are buying, almost all of it. 90% of your seafood comes out of Asia.
I mean, your comment is borderline hilarious and insane.
As to taxing everything, why not? You already are taxing everything, just bring it up some more, see how that works out for you, when you can't actually afford anything. You already can't afford Chinese goods without the Chinese constantly loaning you the money to buy the products they, themselves create.
It's time for the Chinese gov't to stop printing the Yuan, stop buying up the USD and subsidising all this conspicuous consumption by all these other nations.
In fact if the Chinese can't just stop printing Yuan, they'd be better served just printing them and giving them away to their own people rather than buying US dollars and Euro and other crap with them. There, I said it, it's so ridiculous to do that, but it would make more sense than what they are doing now!
You can't handle the truth.
NO, you should NOT pass more laws banning the owning of weapons.
The real world contains real threats, and we need the ability to respond to those threats with real force. Arming the police is NOT sufficient, because they are NOT always around when you are in danger (in fact, usually not, since criminal elements are smart enough to avoid them).
The ability to respond with lethal force is a deterrent to violence. Forcibly disarming people makes them attractive targets, inviting predators to attack.
If you are so damn scared of guns, maybe you should take a class and arm yourself. Or don't, I don't care. But when your cowardice prompts you to take MY guns away, I will challenge you on it.
We need more dollars and legislation to maintain our strategic air supply.
And an 'air czar'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
*I'm still waiting for the first perfect day, you insensitive clod!*
You managed to incite me to trashing /. mod rules, and take out my rage on you via mod points...then I read this comment....Hmmmm...
Having dealt with those very issues you described, your comment invoked the disgust I felt at the time.
So, I replied instead.
Prior to this post of yours, the only thought that I had was, 'No fanatic like a new convert.'
My advice would be to back off your certainty a bit, and convert that energy to more research/learning before you "Ride, boldly ride!"
I think you may have had a few holes in your argument early on.
BTW, I somewhat agree with some of what you say, but not all of it. :-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
President Barak Obama and his Unelected (appointed) government. The motely crew includes Panetta and 'Hill-Billy' Rod-Ham Clinton.
On the plus-side however, the article gives some 'group-thing' to the Obama government. Therein lies a good pay-day.
Nasa, Noaa and the other 'science' agencies of the US Goberment are under much stress and even the National Academy of Sciences (not physical sciences but social sciences) laments that in short order the US earth science 'establishment' could look much like the landscape of the game Fallout: New Vegas, in as short as 3 years, given Congressional budgetary constraints. Not a happy ending at all this!
So, 'Climate Change' equals 'National Security Threat'.
Har -di Har Har.
So now, in order to be 're-electable' the Obama Reich and his Nationalist Socialist Workers Party (i.e. Democratic Party) pull the 'God did it' card and they must be bank-rolled, because no one else on the planet could ever in their cocaine fueled wildest excapades ever to so much destruction, so to combat God, and his 'acts of destruction', upon poor poor humanity.
Are you crying mercury tears? Not me!
President Barak Obama is the greatest threat to USA National Security!
May God damn this president, ... and I am an atheist for Gods sake!
LoL
It's amazing to me that you'd put down a guy who has worked tirelessly to promote science in a country that is failing at science.
Wrong, he's a Disney tool and Beakman is 10x the kid-scientist he ever was. Sorry if I don't agree that your corporate tool is some kind of science god.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not to be too controversial, but I am pretty sure that the DoD doesn't really care how much CO2 is in the atmosphere or whether climate change is real. What they care about is that if climate change does happen more rapidly as is projected with 95% confidence, then it will have consequences such as limiting food production, access to water and changing and in some cases more extreme weather patterns which our existing infrastructure is not suited to.
This means increased displacement of people, particularly migration from other countries, and other stresses on society which can lead to unpredictable outcomes, including at its worst civil war. What will you do if you can't get access to the food you want, or fuel you need to live? Especially when the guy next door does have food?
I am glad that the agency in charge of keeping the country safe is starting to think about the issues making sure the country are prepared and mitigating the risks in advance. Security is about much more than guns.
Lets stop thinking about whether climate change is real or not (it doesn't matter), and look constructively at given the risks that we see before us (that a huge collective of people has worked on to identify) what actions can we take to ensure the best outcomes for all of us.
Panetta, thy name is Pander.
I wish everyone in America carried a loaded gun. It would be a much more polite society. People would be far more careful with their words.
I have a much, much, much better idea: Start a forth branch of the Department of Defense whose mandate is to blanket the land with state of the art fission power plants that they build and then operate, selling the power produced, at very low rates, to local utilities. One of the beauties of this is that we could re-instate the universal draft, so every young man and woman would spend a few years serving their country without any of them having to risk getting shot. Obviously, part of this is the repudiation for "national security reasons" of the ban on breeder reactors.
Social Credit would solve everything...
Funny thing about Texas drought, it is not new. In fact, the current one we are experiencing is not the worst one in recent history. Lake Travis, providing water for the Austin region, was built as a result of a ten consecutive year drought. This was in the early 1900's – well before the hysteria over global warming began. So you might want to check your facts beyond the last ten years before you make statement like that.
Is the climate warming – maybe. It might also be on the verge of a massive cooling period as has been predicted. Bottom line is that no one knows. Oh, they can pull up the selective evidence to support their point of view, but they really don't know.
we can win
Are you kidding? Long past time that our government started framing the issue in this way since, in reality that's just exactly what it is.
While virulent teabagging " Nixon and Reagan were too far left / let's end-the- EPA ! " narcissists who compromised their rationality by coke-snorted their way through the 80s go apoplectic over some poor NAFTA-shafted Mexican coming over to trim their freaking hedges, the specter of massive uncontrolled global destabilization borne of crop failures, oceanic dead-zones and mass population migrations is hurtling towards reality.
Think carbon trading is going to cost you money? Try ponying up for perpetual, open-ended colossal military and intelligence efforts that dwarf the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts combined.
If the fundie freaks want to think they inhabit a child-like universe characterized by a perfect moral justice personally overseen by Santa-God then that's their business ....until they start trying to make everyone else live in their land of make-believe as Sen Inhofe (OK) in determined to do:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity/2012/03/09/james-inhofe-says-god-decreed-there-will-be-no-global-warming/
Inhofe:
Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that âoeas long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.â My point is, Godâ(TM)s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.
There's a strong argument to be made that democracy has already failed. It's possible that we've waited so long we cannot stop runaway greenhouse gas emissions.
No one really knows with certainty if the methane-sequestering perma-frost will go into a positive feedback loop or not.
Whatever the probability of that or some other unforeseen positive feedback loop accidentally being invoked, like the runaway acidification of the oceans wiping out marine life and toppling the food chain- the fact is we've - strike that - CONSERVATIVES - have brought us so close to what we knew to be the edge of disaster that it's now possibly nothing more than a matter of chance whether we live or die.
A system of government that permits its nation and people to be brought to the brink of a known, well understood and scientifically proven extinction process- save for luck- is pretty much the definition of a failed system of government. We may be in for a future in which our civil liberties and standard of living are simply going to be greatly curtailed, whether we like it or not.
The first organizing principle of any society is not democracy, not "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion" or any specific set of freedoms at all. It's survival.
Rest assured that whether we survive or not, we WILL implement a form of government that maximizes our chances of doing so at the expense of everything else. Have no doubt about that at all.
We need to act right now. Right this very second. Right this very election. We can do a lot worse than implementing the set of recommendations known as the Princeton Wedges.
http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/
This approach is distinguished by it's immediate implementability. It doesn't rely on any single silver bullet. It doesn't rely on merely possible future technological advances. The cost is bearable, even minimal and the benefits are not just ecological long term ones but also immediate economic ones.
It's time for America to man-up, get up, shake off the dreamlike, narcissistic just-so fairy-tales promulgated by the sociopathic and mentally enfeebled forces in our society and do what it
Catch 22. Think about this: The law of attraction from movies like "the secret" and a hypothetical fake environmental issue. Does the belief of millions in a fake environmental issue actually make it real? Don't be fooled. Your friend Ariel can help you fix the environment in real ways if you're concerned.
And so we did get another great election war! Bombs away!
Time for some freedom and democracy for the Climate dictatorship! USA has had enough thundering! Time for some payback!
The point of per capita is because the poor people in developing countries aspire to the same lifestyle as the ones in developed countries. This corresponds to energy consumption, as opposed to economic output.
The tax should be in terms of energy consumption, not economic output (manufacturing will always be more directly polluting than services, however service economies push out far more pollution into the world via lifestyle choices - cars, gas|oil burning power plants, plastic consumption, air travel, refrigeration of food ....).
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.