33 retired US military generals and admirals say climate change threatens US national security - do you agree?

Today 33 retired US military generals and admirals announced that they support comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Here is the text of the letter:

"Dear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,

Climate change is threatening America’s security. The Pentagon and security leaders of both parties consider climate disruption to be a “threat multiplier” – it exacerbates existing problems by decreasing stability, increasing conflict, and incubating the socioeconomic conditions that foster terrorist recruitment. The State Department, the National Intelligence Council and the CIA all agree, and all are planning for future climate-based threats.

America’s billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes. A substantial amount of that oil money ends up in the hands of terrorists. Consequently, our military is forced to operate in hostile territory, and our troops are attacked by terrorists funded by U. S. oil dollars, while rogue regimes profit off of our dependence. As long as the American public is beholden to global energy prices, we will be at the mercy of these rogue regimes. Taking control of our energy future means preventing future conflicts around the world and protecting Americas here at home.

It is time to secure America with clean energy. We can create millions of jobs in a clean energy economy while mitigating the effects of climate change across the globe. We call on Congress and the administration to enact strong, comprehensive climate and energy legislation to reduce carbon pollution and lead the world in clean energy technology."
http://www.trumanproject.org/files/misc/Truman_Project_-_Clean_Energy_Ad.pdf

It was the largest such announcement of support ever, reflecting the consensus of the national security community that climate change and oil dependence pose a threat American security. I'll be interested to see how deniers spin this one. Do you agree with these retired military experts that climate change threatens US national security and we should enact carbon regulation to address it?

2010-04-29T15:15:18Z

jim says "Wow, I knocked that one out of the park."

I hope he's joking, but knowing jim, he probably believes that.

2010-04-30T13:56:11Z

Ah yes thank you bravozulu for chiming in with your expected brilliance. Retired generals are trying to advance their careers. You're a regular Einstein.

Facts Matter2010-04-29T11:10:05Z

Favorite Answer

A little difficult to blame *this* turn of events on America-hating anti-capitalist communists.

And does Jack really think that these guys don't know about tar sands, and just how sticky a problem (pun intended) it is to get useful fuel out of them?

Jack also mentioned food.

If he looks at a globe, he will see that the area possibly opened up by warming is, as a matter of geometry, smaller than the area threated by it.

George, you don't have to read the question, but if you can't be bothered to, then you shouldn't pretend to answer it.

Ottawa Mike2010-04-29T12:23:59Z

Alright, you asked for spin so here it is.

It sounds like these generals (and other vets and vet groups) don't like war and soldiers being killed (contrary to what most people think about military personnel). And it also sounds like they don't like foreign dependence on oil either. Foreign oil dependence means sometimes you have to fight for oil, sometimes oil money gets into the hands of terrorists and none of that is good for military personnel (among others, i.e. national security).

Yes, they throw in the term climate change because they have to since that's the primary reason for reducing carbon usage. But like I've said a thousand times, some people like the idea of carbon reduction regardless if the global temperatures go up, down or sideways. These guys like the idea of not giving trillions of dollars to Middle East countries (and the negative repercussions that go along with that). Actually, that's a pretty good point.

If anyone reads that article as support for the science of CO2 causing disasterous warming, then they are better at spinning than I.

Yes, that's entirely my point of view and entirely speculation. I have my grandfather who was killed in WWII to thank for allowing me to live in a society where I can openly speculate without fear of arrest or worse.

Edit: I'll have to do some digging into the Trueman National Security Project. My initial impression is that they are a Liberal front group. (yes, speculation again, give me some time.)

hypnobunny2010-04-30T05:17:44Z

You should be worried when the military wants to solve climate change. A military solution usually involves blowing up or killing the percieved source of the problem.

Dr Yes level 9 since 19992010-04-29T14:00:02Z

Yes. And not only that but the climate refugees who will be swarming our borders in search of food.

Feed the Pigeon!2010-04-29T11:13:12Z

The Battle of Trafalgar (21 October 1805) proved the most significant naval engagement of the Napoleonic Wars and the pivotal naval battle of the 19th century.

The British Royal Navy led by Lord Horatio Nelson destroyed a combined French and Spanish fleet and in so doing guaranteed to the United Kingdom uncontested control of the world's oceans for more than 100 years. Because the British won the Battle of Trafalgar, they, not the French, would rule an expanded empire that included India, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, around the world and a world economy with London, not Paris, as the pre-eminent financial seat of Europe. At the end of the battle, Lord Nelson passed away.

His final words were "Kiss me Hardy, the anthropogenic global warming is killing me!"

So, the answer is YES! Anthropogenic global warming is a threat to national security, look at what happened to Lord Nelson!

Show more answers (10)