The Climate and National Security
Published: August 17, 2009
One would think that by now most people would have figured out that
climate change represents a grave threat to the planet. One would
also have expected from Congress a plausible strategy for reducing
the greenhouse gas emissions that lie at the root of the problem.
That has not happened. The House has passed a climate bill that is
not as strong as needed, but is a start. There are doubts about whether
the Senate will pass any bill, given the reflexive opposition of most
Republicans and unfounded fears among many Democrats that rising energy
costs will cripple local industries.
The problem, when it comes to motivating politicians, is that the
dangers from global warming — drought, famine, rising seas — appear to
be decades off. But the only way to prevent them is with sacrifices in
the here and now: with smaller cars, bigger investments in new energy
sources, higher electricity bills that will inevitably result once we
put a price on carbon.
Mainstream scientists warn that the longer the world waits, the
sooner it will reach a tipping point beyond which even draconian
measures may not be enough. Under one scenario, atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases, now about 380 parts per million,
should not be allowed to exceed 450 parts per million. But keeping
emissions below that threshold will require stabilizing them by 2015 or
2020, and actually reducing them by at least 60 percent by 2050.
That is why Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change — no alarmist — has warned that “what we do in
the next two or three years will determine our future.” And he said that
two years ago.
Advocates of early action have talked about green jobs, about keeping
America competitive in the quest for new technologies, and about one
generation’s moral obligation to the next. Those are all sound
arguments. They have not been enough to fully engage the public, or
overcome the lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry.
Proponents of climate change legislation have now settled on a new
strategy: warning that global warming poses a serious threat to national
security. Climate- induced crises like drought, starvation, disease and
mass migration, they argue, could unleash regional conflicts and draw in
America’s armed forces, either to help keep the peace or to defend
allies or supply routes.
This is increasingly the accepted wisdom among the national security
establishment. A 2007 report published by the CNA Corporation, a
Pentagon-funded think tank, spoke ominously of climate change as a
“threat multiplier” that could lead to wide conflict over resources.
This line of argument could also be pretty good politics — especially
on Capitol Hill, where many politicians will do anything for the
Pentagon. Both Senator John Kerry, an advocate of strong climate change
legislation, and former Senator John Warner, a former chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, say they have begun to stress the national
security argument to senators who are still undecided about how they
will vote on climate change legislation.
One can only hope that these arguments turn the tide in the Senate.
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Warner and like- minded military leaders must keep
pressing their case, with help from the Pentagon and the White House.
National security is hardly the only reason to address global warming,
but at this point anything that advances the cause is welcome.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 18, 2009, on
page A22 of the New York edition.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times
Company To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.nytimes.com |