::::::::
The New York Times published a story about the national security implications of climate change. It reminds us thatclimate change is about more than climate. It is about people and places, politics and power.
Here'swhat the NYT article had to say, paraphrasing a report issued by the National Intelligence Council:
"The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year.
It concluded that climate change by itself would have significant geopolitical impacts around the world and would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments.
The assessment warned that the storms, droughts and food shortages that might result from a warming planet in coming decades would create numerous relief emergencies.
'The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,' the report said."
One of the reasons we in America have ignored global warming is because it mostly happens to people we don't usually pay much attention to: the poor and the destitute in Asia and Africa. But the world is a volatile place, as the military and intelligence communities well know. Ethnic and religious tensions fuel local and regional wars. Droughts and food shortages demand a humanitarian response.
As hundreds of millions of people begin to move around in response to loss of habitat and livelihoods, we Americans will feel the ripple effects. It's good that our military and intelligence communities are taking this topic seriously. If only that could be said of the politicians who must ultimately make the choices that will either make things better or allow things to continue to drift into uncontrollable change.
We will have a much better idea of how much progress is likely after the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009. If the conference results in the usual delaying tactics and putting off of serious decisions, then I would guess that further serious climate change is a certainty. If on the other hand serious agreements to reduce emissions are put in place, then perhaps we will avoid the worst effects.
A prudent government hedges its bets, which explains the renewed emphasis on the military and intelligence aspects of global warming even as the U.S. Congress struggles to come up with a solution during this session. We can assume other governments are doing the same. Can we as individuals afford to do any less?
This article first appeared on www.PlanetRestart.org
