Thread: Don't militarize the climate debate.

Bradford Plumer
November 20, 2009

For years, advocates of climate-change legislation have struggled to find a sales pitch that will sway even the most hardened of skeptics. Polar bears, green jobs, urgent pleas to think of the grandkids … none of them have quite done the trick. But recently, a new argument has come to the fore: the national security case for cutting carbon emissions. At a hearing in October, Senate Democrats invited military leaders and strategists to speak about both the dangers of America’s oil dependency and the potential for rising temperatures to create new security threats around the globe. Dennis McGinn, a retired Navy vice admiral, conjured up a not-too-distant future in which increased drought, flooding, and crop failures ravaged areas like sub-Saharan Africa or Bangladesh, fueling violent conflict. Meanwhile, he said, the U.S. military could find itself handcuffed by its over-reliance on oil if prices start spiking. “Continuing the United States’ pattern of energy usage in a business-as-usual manner,â€

I'm not buying and don't want to pay for the give to Al Gore tax.

I buy the oil dependency argument. Not once since the oil embargo in the 1970's during Nixon's administration has one of our Presidents or any of our Congresses, Republican or Democrat, come up with anything that remotely resembles a comprehensive energy plan or policy. It should have been obvious to all in 1975 that our dependency on foreign oil, especially from the middle east, posed a specific strategic threat to our security as well as to our economy. It would be impossible to believe this dependence has not shaped a great deal of our foreign policy with regards to the middle east, as well as to other foreign suppliers including Venezuela, Mexico and Canada.

If we had seriously started the process to become energy independent in 1975, and held every President and Congress responsible for implementing it and improving it, we would most likely be energy independent today. Without massive negative impacts on our economy and our employment levels. Without massive taxes. And without Al Gore's stupid book and the UN Climate Change scam.

Drill here, drill now may be part of the solution, but it is not the long term solution. Nuclear energy may be part of the solution, but not the long term. Hybrid cars will solve nothing. We need a total system approach that deals with strategic, economic and environmental objectives, and addresses all aspects of energy: type, source, sustainability, cost, distribution, infrastructure (production, transportation, distribution) along with honest, objective analyses of both the upside and downside of each option available. Such an approach requires at least a 30 to 40 year time frame to implement the required changes, and therefore also demands some practical short term to mid term plans.

The longer we as a people ignore the obvious, the longer our politicians will ignore it. We will never get a logical approach to the issue, and in the meantime we will leave ourselves vulnerable to future embargoes, price gouging, international political manipulation and interference from the UN and the foreign oil producers, and negative economic impacts on foreign trade deficits, direct energy costs, and indirect energy costs. We will see higher fuel prices for our homes and vehicles. Higher prices in the stores because of the energy costs to produce food and products. Fewer jobs because we will be less competitive in manufacturing due to higher energy costs.

Your comments assume logic and people working together to solve a serious problem with national and strategic consequences for our nation. However, there is bifurcation of the vision of America and no one to bring the two views back to a common center. Energy is just one massive problem we face - an obvious one. However, we have serious unseen and non-publicized issues that dwarf our ability to raise capital. For example, across the nation the infrastructure under most major cities is deteriorating to the point that leaks and health concerns are just starting to reach the "Clanging" level on the "DANGER" panel. The cost to dig up streets and repair this massive, but often very old, infrastructure is just too large to imagine. However, it will not last forever. In fact, much has already long past it's useful life.

My point above? I believe we need to bring the best minds together in Government, Business and Academia to look at where we are as a society and what are the dangers our nation faces. We need to analyze each situation that must be dealt with, a time line of when it will reach total dilapidation and the consequences and then layout what the nation must chose to keep and what to let go of.

If we want it all, will we have a much lower standard of living? The world is clambering against America at this time - they have decided we are the boogie man of the world and all the world's problems are our fault.


Expect Europe to point to America, as they are doing now, and tell the Third World:

"Go, Blame It On America!
It Is All Their Fault!
Now It's Time They Open their bank VAULTS!"

Yep, every finger will point to us and we will not only have to repair and maintain our own civilization and standard of living, the world will want us to bring them up to our level and demand we do the same for them. You see we are Capitalist and the world is headed toward Socialism, and in some cases, worse. The world is heading into chaos and there is nothing you and I can do about it.

Buckle your seat belts America! We have no heroes, not leaders we can turn to. Those that seem to be stepping forward in the World will have a gun in their hand and an army at their back. But is that really any change than history has provided? No. We are just coming off a world bounce. Welcome to our future.