"Global climate change "represents a clear and present danger to the security and economy of the United States," according to a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate yesterday, and it therefore warrants the focused attention of U.S. intelligence agencies.
"For years, many of us have examined global warming as an environmental or economic issue," said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL "We also need to consider it as a security concern. Our bill begins this process by requiring a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the strategic challenges presented by the world's changing climate."
"In this legislation, we ask for the intelligence community to provide a strategic estimate of the risks posed by global climate change for countries or regions that are of particular economic or military significance to the United States or that are at serious risk of humanitarian suffering," Senator Durbin said. "This NIE will assess the political, social, agricultural, and economic challenges for countries and their likely impact."
The new bill is jointly sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
"Senator Durbin and I differ on policy initiatives designed to reduce the impact of climate change," said Sen. Hagel. "We do agree, however, on the need to assess potential impacts of the changing climate on U.S. national security interests so that our Nation can develop responsible, forward-thinking policies that ensure the continued safety and prosperity of the American people."
See their March 28 introductory statements and the text of the new bill (S. 1018) here.
Among the eleven "policy coordinating committees" at the National Security Council that were established by President Bush's National Security Presidential Directive 1 in February 2001 is one on "Global Environment." But this NSC committee has left no identifiable public trace on U.S. policy.
strong>Republished from the Secrecy News blog at http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy, a project of the Federation of American Scientists. Discuss the social, security and political implications of science and technology at the Science Policy group on Gather, at FAS.gather.com Visit the FAS website at http://www.fas.org/
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7643-2004Feb26_2.html
Do what ever you want to do. It's your karma.
David: "What might be the best way to approach that situation from the perspective of nations with means and resources (human, economic, technological) to act?
The absolutely best thing developed nations can do is to get very serious about renewable energy - very quickly. Not only does that curtail emissions, but it creates an entirely new economic arena, creating jobs, wealth, etc. It also would address security risks by reducing dependence on oil from parts of the world in which the U.S. is "unpopular," and it ends our "national vital interests" in the mideast.
What people like micky d. fail to comprehend is that the fix for global warming is also the best approach to the "war on terror" that we have. It is not just "liberals", who claim that our oil purchases from the mideast fund both sides in the war on terror.
Would there be a way to minimize the effects of climate change on those more vulnerable nations to avoid the following security threat from their disrupted populations?
Limiting the effects of climate change necessarily entails limiting climate change itself to the lower range of expected warming, rather than risking the higher range. Beyond that, developing renewable technology and then selling it to developing nations, especially nations like China and India, whose economies are fast approaching the U.S. for greenhouse gas emissions.
One other way to help developing nations is to do everything we can to help them realize that they only help themselves by limiting population growth, and helping then access the means for doing so.
If the world looks at the U.S. and sees real leadership on this issue, then it might improve our overall image, and we might regain the respect we once enjoyed. That should also help from a security perspective.
As it turns out, Lake Erie WAS dead. The Cuyahoga DID sponaneously combust every summer - and it was a nightmare back in those days to drive through Gary, Indiana because of the smokestack emissions.
Thanks to the "Dirty Tree-Hugging Hippie" movement of the 1960's and 1970's, Lake Erie is now considerably less polluted, the Cuyahoga is no longer the volatile sludge-pit it once was, and Gary, IN - while still unpleasant to drive through due to the interminable construction on the Borman Expy. - is no longer a threat to one's lungs.
So, little ones, go ahead and stick your heads back where the sun never shines. We "Dirty Tree-Hugging Hippies" will look out for your environmental welfare in spite of your determination otherwise.
Thanks for chiming in Micky. Your highly partisan approach is clearly not reality based- so that helps the rest of us understand the topic better by contrasting reality with your views. Perhaps I am lacking in civility to point that out, but in my defense I have been interested in this topic for 18 years and I am getting tired of the denial thing.
Sorry guys, Bush cannot claim credit for this Senate action because he does not want it to happen. The only thing he can think to do about global warming is to hand out ethanol supports to Iowa farmers so they will vote Republican. It was never about the environment because he figures "God will provide".
In all of the debates surrounding Global Warming, 99.9 % of the arguments on both sides of the issues are attributed to a source named " they say".
Why doesn't anyone actually name or quote an actual person who is doing the research ? Someone with a "Dr." or "Professor" in front of their name ?
I have my opinions on Global Warming and they are based a little bit on my own opinion and a lot on what I've read that was written by the actual scientists doing the research. It certainly would be nice to read an opinion on global warming that included actual science-based names .
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Summary):
Drafting Authors:
Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan Gregory,
Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann,
Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam
Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter Stott, Ronald J.
Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt
Draft Contributing Authors:
Julie Arblaster, Guy Brasseur, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Kenneth Denman, David W. Fahey, Piers Forster, Eystein Jansen,
Philip D. Jones, Reto Knutti, Hervé Le Treut, Peter Lemke, Gerald Meehl, Philip Mote, David Randall, Dáithí A. Stone, Kevin E.
Trenberth, Jürgen Willebrand, Francis Zwiers
Also:
James Lovelock, Alfred Russel Wallace, Svante Arrhenius, Vaclav Smil, ... with early and contemporary thoughts on the issue...
Also...
Peter Laut, L.R. Kump, C.L. Sabine, P.M. Cox, G. Walker, J.C. Comiso, G.R. Walther, G.R. Dickens, I.I. Mokhov, J.S. Dukes,
et al.
" There's a Sucker Born Every-Day"
Big Al, flies around in his personal -Green House Spewing Jet, while this hypocrite
tells me to start hanging clothes lines! C'MON!!!
Regarding WC Fields, the quote is "there's a sucker born every minute". But, I think there's a quote that aptly applies to you: "Ignorance is bliss".
this way everybody can drive, fly, a/c, suv, like Al, and have no guilt, "like Al".
No guilt, no depression, good therapy. Govt. will not have to reduce its use
of energy. Did you know that Al is a partner in a energy credits bussiness- conflict of intrest?? W.C.--??