The Military's Latest Enemy: Climate Change

Lasrick writes A surprising report from the Pentagon last month places climate change squarely among the seemingly endless concerns of the US military. Although a Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented the report in an editorial (subtitled 'Hagel wants to retool the military to stop glaciers from melting'), the report itself is straightforward and addresses practical military issues such as land management of bases and training facilities. "So, this plan is not really about mobilizing against melting glaciers; it's more like making sure our ships have viable facilities from which to launch bombs against ISIS. And the report doesn't just focus on home, though. It casts a wider eye towards how a changing climate will affect defense missions in the future."

Comments

The Pentagon is more important than climate change

[MillionthMonkey]

Why are we spending so much money on satellites? We could have bought a couple Cold War fighter jets that will never be used and that explode on liftoff!

Nothing new, CC identified as threat long ago ...

[perpenso]

Nothing new here. Climate Change was identified as a global destabilization factor long ago by the US military. Crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc leading to mass migrations and the conflict and strife that will arise our of these migrations.

Many potential impacts of climate change

[AeroMed45N]

It was my sense that the military was examining several factors that can impact their mission and ability to meet that mission over the coming decades. This includes not only the recognized increase in regional conflicts due to displacement of people by flooding and/or changes in food supplies due to climatic changes in rainfall patterns. It also includes thinking about the predictions for ocean rising and that impact on the bases that support the military around the world - naval bases, and airfields near current sea levels aren't something that one moves in a couple of years.

And lastly, thinking about how the impact on troops and equipment might change - will there be more fighting in high heat locations? Heavy rain? What will be the impacts on availability of fuel sources and on supply chains?

The military is a huge "ship" that takes much time to turn. Looking out a few decades and postulating what might be needed is not a bad exercise. They would be soundly criticized later if they hadn't. But it is interesting that the main military supports on the right are also the main body of climate change deniers, which puts the military in a dicey political environment. They need to prepare, but carefully.

Is anyone surprised that a Rupert Murdoch owned paper decided to misrepresent what the military was doing about climate change?

Re:Many potential impacts of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

The military is a huge "ship" that takes much time to turn.

And that, right there, is why the military needs to be cut to a fraction of its current size.

When World War II broke out, the US military was tiny - compared with its enemies', or with itself at any later time. Yet that was the war that established American world dominance. You don't win a major war by having the biggest army at the start, you win it by having the biggest economy. A military establishment that drains that economy is actually counter-productive to national security. (Just ask the Former Soviet Union.)

Climate change will eventually be accepted by all

[ad454]

All that is needed would be for new "climate change industrial complex" consisting of industries with huge growth potentials from climate change after-effects (such as dike/levee builders, water management including reclaimation & desalination, fertilisers for new growing regions with marginal soil, mega construction for displaced infrastructure, etc.) to make more money then the coal and petroleum industries. It may not sound like much, but many trillions of dollars will be needed for this.

Then they will be able to give/bribe more money to politicians, who will the universally accept climate change as fact and change the public perception.

Until then there is enough money from a new "climate change industrial complex", public doubt will remain.

Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha

[dotancohen]

Why are we spending so much money on satellites? We could have bought a couple Cold War fighter jets that will never be used and that explode on liftoff!

Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'. It packs more lies, ridicule, non sequiturs, and manipulation into three minutes than I've even seen before. Are people really expected watch that and then form their own opinions? If that is how Americans get their news, it explains so much about American ignorance, xenophobia, and thirst for war.

Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha

[dywolf]

and that idiot just got re-elected to the senate, where he will now be in charge of the Environment and Public Works Committe, giving him direct oversight of the EPA, an agency he wants to kill.

he is the single worst science denier in the congress now that Broun is gone.
he thinks Michael Cricton is a climate expert. no seriously, he called him as a "expert" witness at a committee hearing.
he thinks the earth hasnt warmed. at all. in fact he says its the world's greatest hoax.
he thinks scientists are secretive liars engaged in a conspiracy and wants to "shine a light” on scientist’s activities.
he said that AGW is a myth because...the bible:

The Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’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."

The man is dangerous....who who is more foolish?
the fool? or the fools that all voted overwhelmingly for him?