“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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=1

Noeline Franklin (from Brindabella and the Miles Franklin family) emailed me exactly a year ago asking that on ANZAC day we might also remember the horses that went to war.

About 160,000 horses from Australia went to WWI.

Australia’s mounted soldiers included stockmen from the High Country – mostly volunteers who took their own horses.

The story goes, that at war’s end, many of these men were asked to shoot their horses. The horses could not come home.

For Noeline, the brumbies that now roam the High Country are their descendants and represent “the free spirit of our people and the horses who never returned”.

Many of the horses that went to war from Australia were known as ‘walers’. According to Michael Keenan’s ‘In Search of a Wild Brumby’: “The initial breed was English thoroughbred stallions joined to mares with genetic links to the draught horse. Over the decades the genetic pool was deliberately widened to produce a hardy horse, suitable for the unpredictable stresses in a battle environment. Such breeds as the Welsh pony, Timor pony and the wild brumby were introduced to refine what became known as the ‘classic waler’, with fine clean legs and bone, wide barrel-like chest, short back and a broad head. Unlike the thoroughbreds, the waler could hump weights for long distances, endure searing heat, survive on any available grass and, if called upon, unleash bursts of speed only marginally slower than their big cousins.”

There are now plans in place to rid most National parks of brumbies including horses identifed as ‘classic walers’ because they are considered ‘exotics’ and not a natural part of the Australian bush. The above picture is from the savethebrumbies.org website which describes the slaughter of over 600 brumbies in the Guy Fawkes River National Park six years ago.

I am writing from the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York. We wanted to alert you to a piece we recently published which might be of interest to your readership.

It is on the recent protests over natural resources in Papua — a topic of reasonable significance to Australians. You can find the piece at:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10484/

Thank you for your time.

Lee Hudson Teslik
Council on Foreign Relations

The following two graphs have been copied from the report:

The 1960s and 1970s also saw the rise of environmental activism and the birth of Greenpeace and WWF with people like Bob Hunter sailing off to war for whales.

As I see it a percentage of the population are natural ‘warriors’. Can environmental activism replace war for this percentage of the population?

Greenpeace has various events organised to commemorate the occasion.

“It was an unbelievable act and it was of course one of the dumbest things the French government has ever done,” according to New Zealand’s former deputy prime minister Geoffrey Palmer.

Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira died in the blast.

The Rainbow Warrior was to participate in protests against French nuclear testing on Muraroa atoll.

Since the bombing, Greenpeace has gone on to commit some pretty terrible acts of terrorism itself including the campaign to pressure Zambia’s President Mwanawasa to refuse the 26,000 tonnes of corn aid in 2002 because the corn was GM modified – while his people starved.

Anyway, the London News Review ran the following note on the 7 July 2005:

What the f*** do you think you’re doing?

This is London. We’ve dealt with your sort before. You don’t try and pull this on us.

Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you’re trying to do, it’s not going to work.

All you’ve done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don’t get rewarded for this kind of crap.

And if, as your MO indicates, you’re an al-Qaeda group, then you’re out of your tiny minds.

Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we’ve got news for you. We don’t much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We’ll deal with that ourselves. We’re London, and we’ve got our own way of doing things, and it doesn’t involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.

And that’s because we’re better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we’re going to go about our lives. We’re going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we’re going to work. And we’re going down the pub.

So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the f*** out of our city.

“Long-term hope for the world’s poor — in Africa, in Asia and elsewhere — will also depend on removing trade barriers and creating a more vibrant and open global economy. When coupled with good governance and sound domestic reform in developing countries, trade liberalisation is one of the key drivers for sustained global prosperity and ending poverty.

Reform of agriculture, which provides a living for so many of the poor in developing countries, is the key. The most telling statistic is that the amount of money the European Union and the US spend subsidising their farmers is four times more than the total amount of global aid provided to developing countries.

The World Bank estimates that real global trade reform under the Doha Round could increase the incomes of developing countries by $US350billion ($470 billion) — far more than can ever be provided through direct aid. Developed and developing countries alike must act together to remove trade barriers and secure a successful and ambitious conclusion to the Doha Round. The World Bank estimates that 140 million people around the world could be lifted out of poverty by 2015 if this occurs. That would be something to sing about.”

Tony Blair said publicly, in a speech towards the end of the summit, that the “plan of action” for Africa includes a “new deal on trade”.

But this new deal does not appear to have anything to do with reducing subsidies in Europe and the US, at least not according to the information at the G8 website:

“The G8 in return agreed a comprehensive plan to support Africa’s progress. This is set out in our separate statement today. We agreed:
1. to provide extra resources for Africa’s peacekeeping forces so that they can better deter, prevent and resolve conflicts in Africa;
2. to give enhanced support for greater democracy, effective governance and transparency, and to help fight corruption and return stolen assets;
3. to boost investment in health and education, and to take action to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB and other killer diseases; and
4. to stimulate growth, to improve the investment climate and to make trade work for Africa, including by helping to build Africa’s capacity to trade and working to mobilise the extra investment in infrastructure which is needed for business.

The G8 leaders agreed to back this plan with substantial extra resources for countries which have strong national development plans and are committed to good governance, democracy and transparency. We agreed that poor countries must decide and lead their own development strategies and economic policies.”

Freeing-up trade could have been a media focus over the last couple of days, instead terrorists diverted attention and the focus has been on death and destruction in London include pictures of a blown-up London bus.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3651 .

Yusuf concludes, “The nation that cheered for its cricket team even when captained by one Nasser Hussein deserves to feel secure in the knowledge that its Muslim citizens openly and publicly condemn the perpetrators of these attacks. Muslim Englishmen and women must echo the condemnation of terrorist acts and ideologies already expressed by prominent English Muslim scholars such as Tim Winter and the late Martin Lings. The time to speak is now. Muslims must speak out now.”

I remember a quote from Sri Chinmoy, “It is only human ignorance that wants to control the world. Human love wants to bind the world. Human truth wants to lead the world”.

Online Opinion enables people to ’speak out’ by publishing the spectrum of opinion on important public policy issues – including the environment.

It is hard to hate, when you are not ignorant.

The Scotsman is reporting 12 dead and 150 injured from the bombings in London.

The same newspaper quotes Paul Wilkinson, a terrorism expert from St Andrews University, saying “It is quite clear that a major terrorist attack has been carried out on London. The attack has all the trademarks of the al Qaeda network,” he said.

The timing of the incidents came on the opening day of the G8 summit in Scotland.

Tony Blair says the terrorist attack will not stop the meeting or change the agenda at the summit.

Information on the summit including agenda and summit papers can be found at
http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097073730902 .

Hunter was a journalist by training. He wanted to stop whaling and nuclear testing and in many ways succeeded with his brand new environment group Greenpeace where others had failed.

He wanted to “affect the attitude of millions”. He approached the issues from the perspective of a media war and unashamedly used propaganda.

In an insightful review of Greenpeace’s early years, Fred Pearce has written “Greenpeace was far from being the first green group to oppose whaling. But it was the first green group to ignore the scientific arguments about whale reproduction rates, population dynamics, and how large a sustainable cull might be, in favour of an undiluted ethical argument: save the whale.”

The media war was effectively reduced to the simple issue of whether or not “whales are good”.

On the issue of nuclear testing Hunter admitted “we painted a rather extravagant picture .. tidal waves, earthquakes, radioactive death clouds, decimated fisheries, deformed babies. We never said that’s what would happen, only that it could happen”.

I have previously written about attending People for Nuclear Disarmament rallies in the early 1980s. It is for relentlessly pursuing the French and their nuclear testing program in the Pacific that I would like to thank Bob Hunter.

Messages of condolence are being posted at an online BBC site.