{crossposted at Operation Free}
On August 6, 2001, President George W. Bush famously received an intelligence briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Thirty-six days later, al Qaeda terrorists did just that.
Scientists tell us we have a 10-year window -- if even that -- before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable and irreversible. The threat is real, and time is not on our side.
Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things. Here are a few you need to know: Atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have risen 38% in the industrial era, from 280 to 385 parts per million (ppm). Scientists have warned that anything above 450 ppm -- a warming of 2 degrees Celsius -- will result in an unacceptable risk of catastrophic climate change.
The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.
Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and -- yes -- even to American national security.
Climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us.
The individual data points may sometimes be murky. But the pattern they create is irrefutably clear: We don't know if Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change, but we do know that we are rapidly heading for a world where climate change causes worse Katrinas. We don't know with certainty whether climate change pushed Darfur over the edge, but we do know that it will cause more tension just like we've seen in Darfur.
Once you accept the science, it's clear that such massive environmental change will create dislocation, destruction, chaos, and conflict. And history teaches us that we are deluding ourselves if we think that we are insulated from world events.
The people of the tiny coastal village of Newtok, Alaska offer a harbinger of the challenges ahead. Citizens there recently voted to move their village nine miles inland because melting ice shelves made their old home too dangerous.
But don't take my word for it. Anyone who doubts the reality of climate change should go to Alaska and see the melting permafrost for themselves, or listen to the state's two U.S. senators tell worrisome stories about climate change's current -- not future -- impact on their state.
Anyone who doubts the threat should talk to the 11 retired American admirals and generals who warned in 2007 that "Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national-security challenges for the United States."
You can even ask the security planners in the Bush Administration, whose final national-defense strategy document recognized climate change among key trends that will shape U.S. defense policy in the coming years.
Or ask the National Intelligence Council -- the U.S. intelligence community's think-tank -- which has concluded that "global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national-security interests over the next 20 years."
Former CENTCOM Commander Anthony Zinni, no radical tree-hugger, put it simply: "We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
Nowhere is the connection between climate and security more direct than in South Asia -- home to al Qaeda. Scientists now warn that the Himalayan glaciers which supply fresh water to a billion people in the region could disappear completely by 2035. Think about what this means: Water from the Himalayans flows through India and Pakistan. India's rivers are not only vital to its agriculture but are also critical to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming to avoid famine.
At a moment when the U.S. government is scrambling to ratchet down tensions and preparing to invest billions of dollars to strengthen Pakistan's capacity to deliver for its people -- climate change could work so powerfully in the opposite direction.
Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible.
The bottom line is that failure to tackle climate change risks much more than a ravaged environment: It risks a much more dangerous world, and a gravely threatened America.
Unfortunately, not everyone in Washington appreciates the stakes. It's tragic that we live at a time when if one were to dismiss the threat of terrorism, you'd be sent home in the next election. But there are no similar political consequences if you dismiss the science or the threat of climate change.
This winter, delegates from 192 nations will gather in Copenhagen to create a new global climate treaty. Between now and then, the United States Congress is expected to act on climate legislation.
The decisions we make in coming months will determine whether we meet this challenge head-on and prevail or if we are to suffer the worst consequences of a warming planet.
This time we have to connect the dots before we face catastrophe.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
Mark Engler: Climate Disobedience: Is a New "Seattle" in the Making?
In 2007, a group of Greenpeace activists in Britain sent tremors through an emerging global movement determined to use direct action to combat the depredations of climate change.
Here is a nice video on Youtube that addresses the climate change deniers/liars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
A stellar scientific report replete with hip-hop music background...
I don't know which is worse, that someone would quote such crap as a scientific report, or that millions of our citizens are so poorly educated as to consider such a production as anything beyond pop-culture entertainment.
With all due respect, Mr. Kerry, don't look at just the last few decades. Read the geologic climate record. We are nearing the end of an interglacial warming cycle, and similar to those in the past, there are rapid transitions in temperature during these cycles.
The real INCOVENIENT TRUTH is that the earth has often been much warmer than it is today. Our species has arisen during times that climatically are pretty moderate when looked at in the context of earth's history. The future - that of further warming followed by another glaciation cycle is pretty much inescapable. Our fate as a species will be ruled largely by solar radition intensity, extraterrestrial impacts, supervolcanos, and viruses - all beyond our control. The negative consequences to mankind from human induced global warming and polar melting pale in comparison to what will occur from natural climate cycles and other events.
In the 1960s the American Museum of Natural History had a display on the soon coming rising sea levels, with models of New York City under water. It never happened. Then in the 1970 the same climatologists claimed a global cooling was coming. It never happened.
==========================
It's no surprise that the spinmeisters would link the so-called global warming to national security.
If anyone is interested in a real national security threat, people should read-up on Electro Magnetic Pulses (EMPs). Any nation with a nuclear device can launch it in international waters; detonate it in the atmosphere over the United States and fry- most of our electrics systems.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3621581&c=AME&s=TOP
I always wonder how conservatism got to the point where they are corporatists... smaller government = super rich and a bunch of slaves ?? how is it that conservatives can justify being in the pockets of insurance companies to their own detriment?
for the record... I am not for cap and trade either... our reasons differ though, I do not see our government as some giant conspiricy... just ordinary greedy people... republicans AND democrats.
one thing I do know is that we have lost our way somewhere... we have let the self centered and greedy determine our whole way of life... everything is about money.
Somehow I don't think it ought to be.
now the conservative/republicans can do nothing to stop global warming and have another war to scare the american people.
But there's a better way - a drive toward reduced driving. Automobiles emit CO2 also, just like coal fired power plants, and reducing US driving by 20% would have a substantial impact. But how do you do that? By encouraging people to stop commuting 60 miles round trip every day to go to an office and sit behind a computer. Encourage satellite offices by increased broadband technology that can link people - even with video - across the country. Offer corporate tax breaks for those companies with active satellite office/home office plans. Build more public transporation. ENFORCE SPEED LIMITS for crying out loud. Use tax incentives to encourage people to drive high mileage cars (which would also be a shot in the arm for the auto industry).
This is an effective, politically winning topic. Who doesn't like the idea of not driving so much and saving all that imported oil? To heck with the current cap and trade stuff - exchange that for some health care votes and change gears on energy to "stop driving your cars."