Prominent newspaper highlights link between security and global warming

In an April 20 editorial, the Times cited a report released by 11 retired generals and admirals, together with a first-ever United Nations debate on the link between climate change and international conflict, as reasons for the U.S. Congress to enact legislation to curb and reverse America’s production and consumption of greenhouse gases.

The 68-page report was especially dire, arguing that global warming could be a “threat multiplier” escalating tensions in already fragile parts of the world, with rising sea levels threatening more than one billion people in Asia. In Africa, recurring heat waves could cause widespread shortages of food and water.

As a retired Marine general put it, “we will pay for this one way or the other” — either now, to control the emission of greenhouse gases, or later, in military engagements and “human lives.”

At the UN, a majority of nations voiced grave concerns about climate change, and many urged stricter worldwide controls on greenhouse gases. Among dissidents were the U.S. and China, accused by the Times as “using each other’s inaction as an excuse to do nothing.”

“With members of the military elite joining mayors, governors and business leaders in demanding action,” the Times said, “the Democrats in Congress have all the arguments they need to take the lead. “


when it comes to those who actually have to assess–and deal with–the risks associated with Global Warming, the response is that it’s a serious issue, it needs to be dealt with, and preferably by prevention (insofar as possible). The multinational insurers were some of the earliest corporations to get on the ball, while the agencies responsible for “emergency preparedness” in Australia and Holland recognized the problem before their respective governments did.

It goes to show that Global Warming is best analysed in the terms of risk assessment, in the sober light of actual consequences, rather that the flighty “100% certainty” of the armchair brigade.

Still, I wonder how long it’ll be before these retired generals are accused of whipping up hysteria for personal profit.

Dew wants to limit the global warming debate to insurers. Boy that sure sounds obvious to everybody. That’s just what everybody’s been saying - let the insurers decide our policies. Yeah, right! Read the article Dew. The generals are saying we can’t wait for 100% certainty, not that they’ve got 100% certainty. It doesn’t take a general to make the connection that global warming’s stresses upon the environment will lead to resource wars. They’re merely putting an informed stamp of approval on something that is already pretty predictable.