“THE Pentagon and the [US] State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents…” according to John Broder writing in yesterday’s New York Times.
“Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.”
The same article explains the planning, at least in part, is about reviewing critical military installations and their vulnerabilty to rising seas and storms – both natural hazards. This would seem all very sensible.
But Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, is apparently hoping to use the issue to push through the cap n trade legislation. He has even claimed the war in southern Sudan is a result of global warming.
No doubt the actual article by Mr Broder is a useful part of this campaign it begins: WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.
The article suggests a need for military intervention as a consequence of global warming.
Here we have alarmists starting to sound like neo-conservatives. Is this the sort of the thing the New York Times would normally advocate or even condone?
Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security
August 8, 2009. John Broder. New York Times.