“Greed is so destructive It destroys everything” – Eartha Kitt

By Glen Reaux

“It’s really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal.  Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!”- Donald Trump, 2015.  In dealing with climate change, this is the basic approach that the Republican Party has been operating under since the study of global warming led to the conclusion that human endeavors were causing the Earth’s climate to change.  Unlike Trump’s ignorance as displayed by this now infamous quote, the Republican Party, out of greed has resulted to their usual tactics of attacking anything that their wealthy masters feel will negatively impact their wealth.  The first step in this tactic is to discredit the source.  To do this they have chosen to defame the science and stay on message until the lie overwhelms the populace. Fortunately for us, this time it’s not working.  Unlike the Republican Party, most people do believe in science, including the military.  Reports of global warming have been surfacing since the 1930s.  The scientific impetus towards affecting change as a positive initiative to address the problem did not begin to get traction until a 1979, U.S. National Academy of Sciences report found it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C temperature increase in global warming effectively dooming all life on this planet.  The “Pentagon Says Climate Change Is A National Security Threat Part I” is the conclusion of two Pentagon reports that have alarmed our military leaders.  This is proof that the Pentagon unlike its Commander In Chief does believe in science and in protecting the American Public from all enemies foreign, domestic and now we can add nature.  Part II details what needs to be done to save the planet and the Republican plan to save it.

The Pentagon has been funding climate change studies since 1945 when the US Office of Naval Research began unprecedented funding of scientific research, some of which became useful for understanding climate change ^{1}.  When an understanding of climate change and its impact on national security is imperative, the following statement made in 2012 by Donald Trump is not indicative of the understanding needed by a Commander In Chief to address the dangers at hand: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”  The military is not only dependent on science it employs tens of thousands of civilian scientists, scientific firms and also enlists scientists from all disciplines including environmental scientists.  The result of which began with a global warming threat analysis first published in 2003,  entitled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.”^{2}  These two paragraphs taken directly from the executive summary of the report would normally scare any sane person into understanding the danger at hand despite any ulterior motivations such as greed, party politics or prior perceived defensible arguments.

Executive Summary

There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations. Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With
inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment.

The research suggests that once temperature rises above some threshold, adverse weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit in a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200 years ago, or, at the extreme, could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago.

The summary from this 2003 report goes on to state the possible risk to national security and the possibility of war between nations caused by climate change.

As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.

In 2016, just months before Donald Trump became the Commander in Chief he had this to say about climate change:

“Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change. I’d be—received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change. They burn everything you could burn; they couldn’t care less. They have very—you know, their standards are nothing. But they—in the meantime, they can undercut us on price. So it’s very hard on our business.”

This statement possibly was made without any knowledge of the 2003, Pentagon Climate Change Scenario which report was so concerning to the Pentagon that a determination was made that not only was more study needed but step had to be taken to ensure that the military’s effectiveness in the face of climate change.  In January of 2016, the department issued Department of defense Directive 4715.21, Climate Change Adaptations and Resilience assigning many levels of DoD components for incorporating climate change considerations into planning for infrastructure and operations in order to assess and manage risks associated with the impacts of a changing climate.  In January of 2019, as required by law, the Pentagon conducted following report^{3}  which was released by the Pentagon.

Unlike the 2003 Scenario which was done by an outside contractor, the 2019 report was done in-house by the DoD.  The report is organized into three primary sections: 1.) Summary of Climate Change Effects and Resulting Vulnerabilities, 2.)  DoD Efforts to Increase Installation Resiliency  & Operational Viability, 3.) Conclusions.  This excerpt is taken directly from the report.

The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations. Our 2018 National Defense Strategy prioritizes long-term strategic competition with great power competitors by focusing the Department’s efforts and resources to: 1) build a more lethal force, 2) strengthen alliances and attract new partners, and 3) reform the Department’s processes.

To achieve these goals, DoD must be able to adapt current and future operations to address the impacts of a variety of threats and conditions, including those from weather and natural events. To that end, DoD factors in the effects of the environment into its mission planning and execution to build resilience.

The report identified and provides detailed recurrent flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires and thawing permafrost as contributors to the risk of 79 military installations listed in the report and to that of national security.  As a direct result of climate change, the report concluded the following:

About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought. About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. It is important to note that areas subject to wildfire may then experience serious mudslides or erosion when rains follow fires. Impacts are dispersed around the country. Not surprisingly, impacts vary by region for coastal flooding, with greater impacts to the East coast and Hawaii than the West coast. Desertification vulnerabilities are limited to the sites on the list with arid soils; these are in California, New Mexico, and Nevada. Drought vulnerabilities are more widely dispersed across the country. Wildfire and recurrent flooding impacts are the most widely dispersed.

Just two months before the January 2019, Pentagon Report was released, as required under a 1990 federal law the multi-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program released its quadrennial 1,656-page report “The Fourth National Climate Assessment.”^{4} This evidence in the report is 180^o opposite of the policy positions of the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE).  To put it simply, the EPA and the DOE believed their fearless leader when he stated “I’m not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point. And you know, in the early, in the 1920s, people talked about global cooling…They thought the Earth was cooling. Now, it’s global warming…But the problem we have, and if you look at our energy costs, and all of the things that we’re doing to solve a problem that I don’t think in any major fashion exists.” But, should we expect anything more considering the backgrounds of EPA chief Andrew Wheeler and DOE Secretary Rick Perry former governor of Texas.  Both of these appointees have proven track records of support the petrochemical industry at-all-costs.

The U.S. Global Change Research Project produced the “Fourth National Climate Assessment” which is a report compiled by the scientists from 13 government agencies.  Some of the agencies involved in producing the report are NASA, DOE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The National Academy of Sciences, The Department of Agriculture, The National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense.  Some of the most important information is provided in these highlights.

Despite the overwhelming evidence provided in this November 2018 report and that of the Pentagon January 2019, report, so-called-President Trump tweeted this on January 20, 2019 “Be careful and try staying in your house. Large parts of the Country are suffering from tremendous amounts of snow and near record setting cold. Amazing how big this system is. Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!”   What is even more distressing was his 7:29 am tweet of  March 12, 2019: “Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” @foxandfriends Wow!

In a February 4, 2019, article published on this site titled “Which is More Dangerous, Ignorance or Climate Change”^{5}  a detailed analysis of the Trump DOE and EPA and their policies is provided.

http://www.xplicitnews.org/2019/02/04/ignorance-is-bliss-not-climate-change/

Evidence is detailed in the article linking the Trump administration energy and environmental policies to large campaign donors from the coal and petroleum industries.  His cuts in regulations and funding to both agencies favor the businesses of his donors while destroying environmental protections.  His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty is also bad news for attempts to halt climate change, our national security and American troops across the globe.

Since the Pentagon now believes that climate change is a national security threat, has undeniable proof and has begun to take steps to prepare for the effects of climate change upon our military’s operations, is it possible that our generals can convince their Commander In Chief to support our troops when facing this new enemy?  Can they convince him of the threat to national security?  Is he as ignorant as he appears?  Or, is Trump pleasing his petroleum and coal industry donors and magnates more important to this billionaire than the lives of our troops, the security of our nation and its people?  Either way, his bullshit is a lot to deal with: “Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.” – Donald J. Trump, 2014

Part II The Republican plan to save the planet.

https://www.gofundme.com/xplicit-news

Linked Sources and Documentation

1. S. Office of Naval Research: https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
2. An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, link: https://www.iatp.org/documents/abrupt-climate-change-scenario-and-its-implications-united-states-national-security
3. Report on the Effects of A Climate Change to the Department of Defense, link: https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/01/18/new-pentagon-report-the-effects-of-a-changing-climate-are-a-national-security-issue/ 
4. The Fourth National Climate Assessment, link: https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/climate-science-special-report-fourth-national-climate-assessment-nca4-volume-i
5. Which is More Dangerous, Ignorance or Climate Change: http://www.xplicitnews.org/2019/02/04/ignorance-is-bliss-not-climate-change/

Copyright © 2019, Glen Reaux, all rights reserved