Home national security
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts

Why Climate Change is a Clear and Present Danger: The Facts About Global Warming

Add Comment Edit
According to climate scientist Andrew Emory Dessler we have a "robust understanding" of climate change that makes it hard to refute anthropogenic global warming. This article summarizes what we know about climate science.

Dessler is a climate scientist and Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. He is an expert in atmospheric chemistry, climate change and climate change policy. He has been studying the atmosphere since 1988. His peer-reviewed publications on climate change, include studies of the cloud and water vapor feedbacks and climate sensitivity.

The information presented here is a summary of his testimony regarding the most important conclusions the climate scientific community has reached in the last two centuries. He describes conclusions that scientists know to be true with a high degree of confidence.

1. The climate is warming

He points to observed increases in the temperature of the lower atmosphere and ocean spanning many decades. This includes the global average surface temperature, and ocean warming. This data is supported by a "mountain of ancillary data" including satellite measurements, ice loss and sea level rise.

2. Warming is due to Human Activities

He reviews the evidence for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as the causal factor in global warming. He states that humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 400 parts per million today. Methane levels have more than doubled over this period, and chlorofluorocarbons did not exist in our atmosphere before humans. He explains that the observed relationship between GHGs and warming are consistent with climate models. Far from overstating the case, he sees the IPCC's conclusions as "conservative."

3. Future warming could be large

He goes on to say that if we continue with business as usual, GHG emission will keep rising and lead to a 21st century global average warming of 4.7 - 8.6°F3. Regionally, on land and in the Arctic, the warming is apt to be larger. Such temperature increases would "herald a literal remaking of the Earth’s environment and our place within it."

4. The impacts of this are profound

The virtually certain impacts include:
  • increasing temperatures
  • more frequent extreme heat events
  • changes in the distribution of rainfall
  • rising seas
  • the oceans becoming more acidic
As explained by Dessler, "those impacts and their magnitude are, by themselves, sufficient to compel us to act now to reduce emissions."

Other outcomes are less well known, but could prove to be significant, this include:
  • increases in drought intensity and distribution
  • increases in flood frequency
  • stronger hurricanes
In addition to these concerns there is always the possibility of what Dessler calls a "surprise" from "some high consequence impact that we never anticipated."

5. The Dangers of Inaction

Dessler points to newly published research (Allen and Stocker, 2014) which shows that every year we do not act to reduce GHGs commits us to about 2 percent more eventual warming. This adds to the urgency of acting soon as the longer we wait the harder it will be to limit global warming to under 2°C.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Climate Change is an Economic and a Security Issue
15 National Security Officials on the Threat of Climate Change
Climate Change Social tensions and Conflict
Climate Change and Conflict: Excerpts from a 2013 US Intelligence Report
Climate Change 2012: Security, Resilience and Diplomacy
US Military: More Renewable Energy Less Fossil Fuels
The Chinese and American Government's Agree on climate change and energy security
How to get Through to Climate Deniers
Security Issues in the Second Quarter of the Fifth IPCC Report
A Sustainable World Order
Water as a Weapon of War
Peak Oil
Read More»

National Security Officials on the Threat of Climate Change

Add Comment Edit
Here are 15 current and former national security officials in their own words reviewing the threats posed by climate change:
  • Thomas Fingar, former chairman of President Bush’s National Intelligence Council: “We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years … We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect U.S. national security interests.”
  • Brig. General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret.), former Chief of Logistics under General Petraeus and a self-described “conservative Republican”: “Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security. Not just foreign oil but oil in general. Because I believe that in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that that all drives, I think that that increases the likelihood there will be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere.”
  • Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense: “[T]he area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”
  • Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense: “Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability.”
  • General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), former Army chief of staff: “Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.”
  • Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.): “If the destabilizing effects of climate change go unchecked, we can expect more frequent, widespread, and intense failed state scenarios creating large scale humanitarian disasters and higher potential for conflict and terrorism … The Department of Defense and national intelligence communities recognize this clear link between climate change, national security, and instability and have begun strategic plans and programs to both mitigate and adapt to the most likely and serious effects in key areas around the globe.”
  • General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command and special envoy to Israel and Palestine under President George W. Bush: “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”
  • Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): “Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror.”
  • General Chuck Wald, USAF (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command under President George W. Bush: “People can say what they want to about whether they think climate change is manmade or not, but there’s a problem there and the military is going to be a part of the solution. It’s a national security issue because it affects the stability of certain places in the world.”
  • Brig. General Bob Barnes, USA (Ret.): “While most people associate global warming with droughts, rising sea levels, declining food production, species extinction and habitat destruction, fewer connect these impacts to increasing instability around the globe and the resulting threats to our national security. But the connection—and the threat it poses—is real and growing.”
  • Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret.), former NASA administrator: “The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we’ve dealt with in the past.”
  • General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.), Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush: “Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response.’
  • Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, USAF (Ret.): “The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change.”
  • Admiral John Nathman, USN (Ret.), former Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush: “There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we’re going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We’ve been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change.”
  • Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.): “The national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country … Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution.”
Related Articles
US Military: More Renewable Energy Less Fossil Fuel
Veterans Support Clean Energy
President Obama's 2013 Environmental Budget
US Military may Stop Buying Biofuels
Obama Makes Good on Promises with Executive Orders
How to get Through to Climate Change Deniers
Read More»

Peak Oil Conference

Add Comment Edit
On Saturday, October 9th, 2010 in Washington, D.C., the 6th annual Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas Conference came to a close. The conference communicated important information about the impacts of the looming energy crisis in a world without a readily available supply of cheap oil.

Among the conference guests were former Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger, former CIBC Chief Economist Jeff Rubin and policy expert Ralph Nader. A host of peak oil scientists were also joined by US Representative Roscoe Bartlett, and energy analysts, including Dr. Bob Hirsch, Dr. Roger Bezdek, and Charlie Maxwell.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about peak oil in the US, specifically the difference between easy-to-get-to and hard-to-get-to oil. Americans, particularly Republicans, need a better understanding of the complex socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts of peak oil.

While there are huge tar sand reserves, (500 billion barrels in Orinoco tar sands, and another 170 billion in the Alberta tar sands), extracting oil from the Canadian oil sands costs up to $70 to $80 a barrel and deep water offshore drilling efforts can cost $50 to $60 a barrel.

The simple fact is that the price of oil will increases as oil becomes more expensive to access. We will never again see oil below $40 a barrel.

According to the conference press release, “Petroleum is being consumed four times faster than it is being discovered. It's time for the government and society to recognize the crisis. Immediate, bold action is required in the areas of conservation, mass transit, new technologies and lifestyle changes.”

Peak oil is another reason for the US to get serious about supporting the transition to renewable sources of energy that are limitless and emissions free.


Related Posts
Peak Oil
Independence Day: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Temporarily Capped
Obama Presidency and the Gulf Oil Spill
Limbaugh Blames the Sierra Club for Oil Spill
Palin Blames Environmentalists for Oil Spill
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Drill Baby Drill
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Read More»

Peak Oil

Add Comment Edit
The world's oil supply is finite and many credible sources are counting down to the moment when demand exceeds supply.

As indicated in the CNA report "Powering America's Defense," there is a strong relationship between climate change, energy dependence, and national security. The report clearly states that continued reliance on fossil fuels creates “an unacceptably high threat level from a series of converging risks.” These threats include conflicts over fuel resources, destabilization driven by ongoing climate change, and threats to critical infrastructure. According to the report, dependence on foreign oil weakens international leverage, jeopardizes the military, and entangles the US government with hostile regimes.

In February 2010, the IISS held a workshop on climate change and energy security. Their discussion included a review of some direct threats due to climate change. Although participants were divided, some of those present put forth the idea that we could surpass ‘tipping points’ that could lead to rapid, dangerous changes.

The US Army is the biggest single user of oil in the world and according to a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years. Serious shortages are expected by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact. "By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report.

In February 2010, Ibrahim Sami Nashawi, Adel Malallah and Mohammed Al-Bisharah from the College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University, published a study on global oil supply using a multi-cycle Hubbert model. The original Hubbert model in 1956, accurately predicted that oil production would peak in the United States around 1970.

Although widely accepted, the Hubbert model has been criticized because it does not consider factors like technological innovation, political events, social tensions and economic considerations. The Kuwait study methodology is a multi-cycle approach that incorporates elements ignored by the Hubbert model.

According to the findings of the Kuwait study, the world production is estimated to peak in 2014 at a rate of 79 million barrels/day. OPEC has a remaining reserve of 909 barrels, which is about 78% of the world reserves. OPEC production is expected to peak in 2026 at a rate of 53 million barrels/day. On the basis of 2005 world crude oil production and current recovery techniques, the world oil reserves are being depleted at an annual rate of 2.1%.

Due to its environmentally harmful effects and dwindling supply we must prepare for a world without oil. Clean energy production is not only a sensible strategy to meet shortfalls in energy demand, it is the most sustainable way to replace existing demand.
________________________________
Related Posts
Read More»
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )