NRC Report Links Climate Change To National Security

WOOFYGOOFY writes "The NY Times and Voice Of America are reporting on a study by the U.S. National Research Council (PDF) which was released Friday linking global climate change to national security. The report, which was developed at the request of the C.I.A., characterizes the threats posed by climate change as 'similar to and in many cases greater than those posed by terrorist attacks. 'Climate-driven crises could lead to internal instability or international conflict and might force the United States to provide humanitarian assistance or, in some cases, military force to protect vital energy, economic or other interests, the study said.' If the effect of unaddressed climate change is the functional equivalent of terrorist attacks on the nation, does the Executive Branch, as a matter of national security, have a duty and a right to begin to act unilaterally against climate change irrespective of what Congress currently believes?"

Comments

Re:Similar to the threat of terrorist attacks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the real threat is from the ones pushing for draconian measures to combat climate change. It's necessary for their agenda.

Re:In the long run possibly...NO Change Possible?

[BoRegardless]

Sea level has risen 150 feet in the last 20,000 years or so. What God given rule says it will not go up another mere 5 feet regardless of man?

What happens if man's efforts consuming 10% of the productive output of the nations of the world produce no effective change?
What happens if the national effort causes the US to go into a depression that causes a population die off & collapse of average incomes?
What if changes the bureaucrats (who always know the right thing to do) make the climate change worse?
How long will it take to make significant change?
Can the developed nations change and overcome the effect of underdeveloped nations?
What happens when the United Nations tries to tell every country what to do? Does everyone lose their national sovereignty?

Re:Greater threat than the terrorist attacks

[hairyfeet]

Except these things are solvable WITHOUT killing the economy, if you can get rid of the damned NIMBYs and the tree huggers that scream "You may kill the (insert some bug you never heard of)!"..how? Desalinization. We can set up desalinization plants and turn the oceans into the biggest source of fresh water in history, then you can use that to either make the deserts into fields or you can build huge hydroponics towers that crank out food like nobody's business. All it takes is the will, if we could make it to the moon in a decade with frankly primitive tech we can do this with tech that already exists. Hell they already have a pilot plant in the UK that is making pure gasoline out of fricking seawater, we combine that tech with desalinization plants and the two biggest problems, food and fuel, could become solvable.

But as we have seen trying to build everything from nuclear plants to even windmills the fucking NIMBYs and treehuggers will cockblock you at every turn, you can't get a damned thing built in this fricking country anymore. hell the Chinese will have TWENTY FIVE nuclear reactors built before we can get a single one through all the damned committees and political bullshit!

I have a feeling they want to list it as a national security problem for that exact reason, so they can tell the NIMBYs and treehuggers to STFU and actually get shit built in this country again. Like it or not there are facts one simply has to accept 1.- We HAVE to have ever growing amounts of power, without power our standard of living is gonna go right down the shitter, 2.- Ditto on fuel, this country is just too damned big for limited range electrics to do the job without having a trillion dollar overhaul of our road system to embed power transfer lines, and we just don't have the money to undertake that massive of an overhaul at this time, and 3.- We have to have food that everyone can afford, without food you have riots and upheaval.

So I'd say this problem is solvable if we can get the fucking leeches like Al Gore and the damned NIMBYs out of the way, because horseshit like carbon credits only torpedo what little manufacturing we have in the USA (since China and India have already stated they won't play our carbon three card monty) and like it or not when you build shit you are gonna be dealing with some kind of insect or animal, since there pretty much isn't a single inch on the planet that don't have bugs or critters. If the NIMBYs and treehuggers would have been around during the early twentieth century we wouldn't have a single power plant or dam or reactor in this country as they would have cockblocked. So while I may not agree that it should be labeled a national security matter, as that bring in eminent domain and a bunch of other nasty power grabs, i can at least see why they would want to take that route.