Republicans Disagree With Bernie for Agreeing with the Department of Defense.

[dust1n]

During last Saturday’s Democratic debate on CBS, the moderator asked Bernie Sanders if he still believed that climate change is the greatest threat to national security—and he said yes. Republican senators scoffed at his claim that climate change could lead to destabilization and more terrorism, calling it “unrelated,” “disingenuous,” and even “absurd.” But what the GOP fails to realize is that even the Pentagon has acknowledged the very real threat climate change poses to our security.

The 2014 Department of Defense Climate Change Adaptation Road Map report details all the ways our changing climate will impact international conflict and military operations. Sea level rise and more extreme weather events will exacerbate ongoing global conflicts. The effects of climate change will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic diseases, as well as disputes over refugees and dwindling resources.

The Pentagon report does not just allude to terrorism—it mentions it by name:

“We refer to climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’ because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today—from infectious disease to terrorism. We are already beginning to see some of these impacts.”

http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/republicans-call-bernie-sanders-absurd-agreeing-pentagon

The US military is part of the climate change conspiracy, too.

 

[Laika]

A study reached the conclusion that the Syrian civil war is already partly an example of the effects of climate change. so this is already happening.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.abstract

 

[YmirGF]

The US military is part of the climate change conspiracy, too.

It should be underscored that this report is a response to two executive orders, ordering government departments and agencies to draft policies in response to climate change.
Note: Ordered. This report is in dutiful compliance with those directives.

EXECUTIVE ORDER REQUIREMENTS

This 2014 update to the Roadmap fulfills the requirements of a Climate Change Adaptation Plan found in Executive Orders 13514 and 13653. Executive Order 13514 requires that all Federal Departments and Agencies evaluate climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage both the short and long term effects of climate change on the agency’s mission and operations, and include an adaptation planning document as an appendix to its annual SSPP.

Executive Order 13653 notes that “building on these efforts, each agency shall develop or continue to develop, implement, and update comprehensive plans that integrate consideration of climate change into agency operations and overall mission objectives and submit those plans to CEQ and OMB for review.” A table which cross references this Roadmap to the specific implementation requirements of EO 13653 is provided in Annex 1.

One can only wonder how enthusiastic the military brass would be without these two orders ordering them to come up with ideas.

http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/republicans-call-bernie-sanders-absurd-agreeing-pentagon

The US military is part of the climate change conspiracy, too.

Nowhere in that disingenuous article does it even hint that the Pentagon was under orders to come up with an action plan from the White House, nay, from the pen of Obama himself.
It does certainly give the illusion that they are fully on board however. It's not like they are going to tell him to stuff his orders.

 

[Sunstone]

One can only wonder how enthusiastic the military brass would be without these two orders ordering them to come up with ideas.

Are you trying to suggest the US Military are slackers when it comes to threat assessments? Or that they are made of such weak stuff that they would issue a report whose conclusions they knew to be substantially wrong just to please a president? Really, Paul, just how ball-less do you think the US brass is?

 

[YmirGF]

Are you trying to suggest the US Military are slackers when it comes to threat assessments? Or that they are made of such weak stuff that they would issue a report whose conclusions they knew to be substantially wrong just to please a president? Really, Paul, just how ball-less do you think the US brass is?

Nice spin, Phil. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the military may not have been keen on this to begin with and it took two presidential orders to get them to cough it up.... or else be replaced.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379

 

[Sunstone]

Nice spin, Phil. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the military may not have been keen on this to begin with and it took two presidential orders to get them to cough it up.... or else be replaced.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379

Did those "orders" order the military to come up with a specific conclusion, Paul? Or did they merely order them to assess what threats, if any, will be presented by climate change?

 

[YmirGF]

Did those "orders" order the military to come up with a specific conclusion, Paul? Or did they merely order them to assess what threats, if any, will be presented by climate change?

We will never know how much traction these ideas had prior to Obama ordering them to express the assessments in those terms.
As far as conclusions goes, the wording in the 2nd paragraph I highlighted is telling in that they quoted the executive order itself... which is a bit odd.

 

[Sunstone]

We will never know how much traction these ideas had prior to Obama ordering them to express the assessments in those terms.
As far as conclusions goes, the wording in the 2nd paragraph I highlighted is telling in that they quoted the executive order itself... which is a bit odd.

I think you've taken a leap of faith here, Paul. I see nothing to suggest, as you seem to believe, that the President was trying to force any particular conclusions on the Military. As for his ordering a report...which president has never ordered a report of any of his agencies? Pray do tell us!

 

[YmirGF]

I think you've taken a leap of faith here, Paul. I see nothing to suggest, as you seem to believe, that the President was trying to force any particular conclusions on the Military. As for his ordering a report...which president has never ordered a report of any of his agencies? Pray do tell us!

Okie dokie, Phil. I can see that this discussion is going nowhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, America once claimed Iraq had wmd.

They did.
We even supplied some (bio & chem) to them (to use against Iran).
The real question was when & where.

 

[dust1n]

It should be underscored that this report is a response to two executive orders, ordering government departments and agencies to draft policies in response to climate change.
Note: Ordered. This report is in dutiful compliance with those directives.

One can only wonder how enthusiastic the military brass would be without these two orders ordering them to come up with ideas.

Nowhere in that disingenuous article does it even hint that the Pentagon was under orders to come up with an action plan from the White House, nay, from the pen of Obama himself.
It does certainly give the illusion that they are fully on board however. It's not like they are going to tell him to stuff his orders.

"The foundation for the Department’s strategic policy on climate change adaptation began with the
publication of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in 2010 by the Secretary of Defense
.
The QDR articulates the United States national defense strategy and seeks to adapt, shape and rebalance our military to prepare for the strategic challenges and opportunities we face in the years ahead.

The 2010 QDR recognized that climate change was a threat to national security and the 2014 QDR
reaffirms the Department’s position: “The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale,
and complexity of future missions, including Defense Support to Civil Authorities
(DSCA) while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installati
ons to support training activities.”

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint_wForeword_c.pdf

"The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is a study by the United States Department of Defense that analyzes strategic objectives and potential military threats. The Quadrennial Defense Review Report is the main public document describing the United States' military doctrine.

As stipulated in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the QDR is to be conducted every four years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrennial_Defense_Review

Damn you, Obama!

 

[YmirGF]

Well, America once claimed Iraq had wmd.

Oddly, that was my thought too. It's not like any administration seeks to have government agencies conform to their agenda after all.

Okie Dokie, we can see you just ran from a valid argument

Wait? What? I wasn't under the impression that Sunstone was making a particularly valid argument.

 

[YmirGF]

"The foundation for the Department’s strategic policy on climate change adaptation began with the
publication of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in 2010 by the Secretary of Defense
.
The QDR articulates the United States national defense strategy and seeks to adapt, shape and rebalance our military to prepare for the strategic challenges and opportunities we face in the years ahead.

The 2010 QDR recognized that climate change was a threat to national security and the 2014 QDR
reaffirms the Department’s position: “The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale,
and complexity of future missions, including Defense Support to Civil Authorities
(DSCA) while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installati
ons to support training activities.”

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint_wForeword_c.pdf

"The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is a study by the United States Department of Defense that analyzes strategic objectives and potential military threats. The Quadrennial Defense Review Report is the main public document describing the United States' military doctrine.

As stipulated in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the QDR is to be conducted every four years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrennial_Defense_Review

Damn you, Obama!

*sigh*

I get that much, Dustin. I understand the process was setup long before Obama came on the scene, however, the focus on climate change has only been since Obama came into office. That is reasonable given the current fixation on climate change and its possible ramifications, however Obama's EO specifically includes the proviso “building on these efforts, each agency shall develop or continue to develop, implement, and update comprehensive plans that integrate consideration of climate change into agency operations and overall mission objectives and submit those plans to CEQ and OMB for review.” I'm not sure how people can just ignore that part of the order, as it specifically tells them to "integrate consideration of climate change into agency operations..."

 

[dust1n]

*sigh*

I get that much, Dustin. I understand the process was setup long before Obama came on the scene, however, the focus on climate change has only been since Obama came into office. That is reasonable given the current fixation on climate change and its possible ramifications, however Obama's EO specifically includes the proviso “building on these efforts, each agency shall develop or continue to develop, implement, and update comprehensive plans that integrate consideration of climate change into agency operations and overall mission objectives and submit those plans to CEQ and OMB for review.” I'm not sure how people can just ignore that part of the order, as it specifically tells them to "integrate consideration of climate change into agency operations..."

Oh, I see. The Executive Orders you cited were from late 2009, when they were signed. I didn't realize that, so I do apologize. Here's research the military was doing in May 2008, before Obama was president:

"On March 30-31, 2007, the Strategic Studies Institute
(SSI) and the Triangle Institute for Security Studies
(TISS) held a colloquium on “Global Climate Change:
National Security Implications.” The 2-day event took
place in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and was well-
attended by both academics and members of the U.S.
Government and the Armed Forces...

The linkage between climate change and national
security has received increasing attention over the last
year, and the colloquium provided some timely insights.
TISS would thank all those who made it possible. Too
many individuals and institutions provided conceptual
and other help along the way to be enumerated here.
But we would like to acknowledge a few in particular.
First, we owe thanks to the U.S. Army War College
(USAWC) both for generous financial support and
for recognizing this as a subject worthy of serious
intellectual discussion. Second, we owe thanks to the
participants. Their collegiality and professionalism
made organizing this event a rare pleasure and the
conference itself a success...

Until fairly recent times no one thought climate
changed, let alone was influenced by human activities.
By the 19th century, scientists were theorizing that
temperatures were affected by what we now call
greenhouse gasses. And in the late 19th century, the
Swedish scientist Arrhenius suggested that human
industry might cause the planet to warm. But this
notion was generally scoffed at. Over the course of the
20th century, the scientific community gradually came
to terms with this theory and began to regard climate
change—even rapid climate change—as more than a
distant possibility.

Interest in climate change as a national security
issue developed even later. Although the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) did commission a study to
look into the security implications of climate change in
the late 1970s, the issue had little resonance until the
late 1990s when the Senate Armed Services Committee
declared that environmental destruction, including
global warming, was “a growing national security
threat.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) was created in 1995 in part to allay
fears. And then, in 2003, the rather notorious report
commissioned by the Pentagon, “An Abrupt Climate
Change Scenario and its Implications for United States
National Security,” provided a worst-case scenario,
which suggested that climate change might have a
catastrophic impact, leading to rioting and nuclear
war.

So where are we in our thinking today when it
comes to the science of climate change? There are
still dissenting voices, and we cannot speak with
absolute certainty. But science, we should remember,
is essentially a culture of doubt.

As Karl Popper wrote

at the start of the 20th century, “I think that we shall
have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not
look upon science as a ‘body of knowledge’, but rather
as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or
anticipations that in principle cannot be justified, but
with which we work as long as they stand up to tests
,
and of which we are never justified in saying that we
know they are ‘true’. . . .”

Nonetheless, the idea that there is such a thing
as climate change is as close to established scientific
fact as one can get."

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf

 

[dust1n]

Kind of just reading along,

"The American military is more environmentally
conscious than is widely recognized. To some extent,
this is policy driven. The Energy Policy Act, for example,
makes energy conservation on bases a requirement.25

U.S. Army Field Manual 3-100.4 stresses environmental stewardship. 26

However, interest in environmental
issues goes beyond grudging acquiescence to orders
given by civilian “bosses.” Some regional commanders
have insisted on environmental engagement in the
face of resistance from above. 27

Environmental security and disaster prevention, response, and recovery are
now looked upon as acceptable military missions in
that they are viewed as essential elements of regional stability. 28

And agencies like the Army Environmental
Protection Agency work hard to promote advances in
this area. At the same time, the Armed Forces continue
to be committed first and foremost to the war fighting
mission.

What is signally lacking is planning at a national
level and clear directives from above. Environmental
security is not part of any existing National Security
Act. DOD Directive 3000.05 may tell the Armed Services
that stability and support operations will receive the
same priority as combat operations, but does not
allocate specific funds to give these mandates “teeth.”

 

[esmith]

Well when Obama ask the Pentagon to give him a strategy for ISIS, that will work, then maybe we will get to work on the most pressing issue that the world faces as of now.

 

[Sunstone]

During last Saturday’s Democratic debate on CBS, the moderator asked Bernie Sanders if he still believed that climate change is the greatest threat to national security—and he said yes. Republican senators scoffed at his claim that climate change could lead to destabilization and more terrorism, calling it “unrelated,” “disingenuous,” and even “absurd.” But what the GOP fails to realize is that even the Pentagon has acknowledged the very real threat climate change poses to our security.

The 2014 Department of Defense Climate Change Adaptation Road Map report details all the ways our changing climate will impact international conflict and military operations. Sea level rise and more extreme weather events will exacerbate ongoing global conflicts. The effects of climate change will likely lead to food and water shortages, pandemic diseases, as well as disputes over refugees and dwindling resources.

The Pentagon report does not just allude to terrorism—it mentions it by name:

“We refer to climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’ because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today—from infectious disease to terrorism. We are already beginning to see some of these impacts.”

http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/republicans-call-bernie-sanders-absurd-agreeing-pentagon

The US military is part of the climate change conspiracy, too.

It will be interesting to see how Sanders deals with the Republican senators, etc. who, apparently, are unaware of, or in denial of, the threat climate change possess to national security. Republicans have an undeserved reputation as the best political party for national security (Meanwhile, they lead in the invasion of Iraq, which is a key factor in the creation of Isis). A lot of people live in the past and still think the Republicans know what they're doing on national defense. Can Sanders overcome their blind bias? Time will tell.

 

[Augustus]

Is there anyone who actually doesn't believe climate change is happening?

There are debates as to its causes, but do people still think everything is perfectly normal despite the clearly observable strange weather all over the world? Republicans are always on about 'common sense' rather than snobby elitist 'experts', surely common sense says it is happening as it is observable the world over.

Being man made or otherwise shouldn't affect the national security considerations of the effects of global warming anyway. And if it is happening, then surely any semi-competent DoD should be exploring the potential problems that may arise, which would clearly be significant.

Contrary to some people's opinions, many in the US military are extremely knowledgable about risk even if many politicians are not. Their lives often depend on it as they have to walk the walk unlike politicians talking the talk.

Either the military are collectively stupid (which they are not), or they are taking climate change seriously (man made or otherwise).

 

[esmith]

There are multiple genocides and refugee crisis that are actively happening we are turning a blind eye to, so I think referring to ISIS as the most pressing issue on earth is a bit preposterous.

First ask yourself what is causing the refugee, and genocide issues; at the present time it is not climate change, it is terrorism. So, being logical vice emotional one must ask what is causing the present problems and then make the determination that the cause and not the results must be addressed first. Yes, the refugee problem must be addressed but in a logical manner and not a emotional mindset.

 

[metis]

We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.