Climate Change Will Destroy Us

Olivianna

pee aitch dee
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Posts
13,760
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer UK

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.
 
Olivianna said:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.



That's serious shit. If this report has legs, I'm wondering how the U.S. press will handle it.
 
In geological history most of Florida was covered by water, the ice age descended into Ohio and sea creature fossils are found in the desert. This was all before man existed. Yes climate changes occur but it's a huge leap to say man is causing it or can do anything about it.
 
Considering that when Mt St Helens blew its stack in the eighties, they said that that one alone put up more sulfur and toxins than all of the industrialized world did since man has been around, I would point my finger towards nature causing the change more than man. I will say that man could go a ways in helping to keep things cleaner though.
 
curious2c said:
Considering that when Mt St Helens blew its stack in the eighties, they said that that one alone put up more sulfur and toxins than all of the industrialized world did since man has been around, I would point my finger towards nature causing the change more than man. I will say that man could go a ways in helping to keep things cleaner though.

The same happened with Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines a few years ago - more ozone-eroding mertials went into the atmosphere than mankind has produced in total.

I don't know that it's a matter of keeping things cleaner, though. I think the focus has been misplaced for a very long time. Much of what the environmental movement has been pushing in the last twenty years or so haven't been designed toward producing a cleaner environment so much as it has been designed to punish business and industry. The same can be said for Kyoto which punishes rich countries and overlooks the more dangerous transgressions of poorer ones.

What I'd like to see is the government building programs that encourage industries to not only develop cleaner processes for themselves but also to develop the technology that allows us to roll back the damage that mankind, and nature, has managed to do to the planet. I don't see that government, or a combination of governments, are going to provide that answer. They're not built for it. Private industry is.
 
catastrophic climate change?

oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh............

you mean the 1 degree or so that we've warmed up over the last 25 years!

i get it now.

:D
 
When I was in junior high school, back in the 1970's, we were constantly barraged with artiicles and news reports that the population boom and pollution would bring about a new ice age, lack of clean water, depletion of oil, leading to complete world catastrophe by 2000.
 
There are a couple things that jumped out at me.

The report says that a catastrophic change will cause sea levels to rise *and* Britain to become "Siberian". The World Bank critic then calls out President Bush for calling global warming a "hoax".

Then again, global warming would be an odd culprit to produce a "Siberia" anywhere, wouldn't it?

Also that report apparently states that though many cities will be underwater, there will also be rampant water shortages. Huh? Will humanity also lose the pretty elementary ability to turn salt water into potable?

Also, it's worth considering why the Pentagon would be putting out a document. Would it be, as the article seems to say, that the focus of the article is the climate change itself or the geopolitical fallout (no pun intended) of such changes. Perhaps the pentagon is saying, "Look, worst case, we get a big climate change in the near future. What happens when poor dictatorships that have been building nukes instead of feeding their populations start having to deal with the mass death and riots that would topple them?" It sees to me that an important facet of the report has completely been ignored by the reporters.

I'd be reaally interested in seeing the actual Pentagon reaport instead of this oddly inconsistent news report.
 
JazzManJim said:
I don't see that government, or a combination of governments, are going to provide that answer. They're not built for it. Private industry is.

Reality check, JMJ

Capitalism is all about profit and there is no margin in environmental considerations unless regulation force limits on Corporations.
You are welcome to invest your life savings in global warming cures but no one else will if they think they dont have to.[/sarcasm]
 
warrior queen said:
catastrophic climate change?

oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh............

you mean the 1 degree or so that we've warmed up over the last 25 years!

i get it now.

:D

That is an average you quote but the effect of global warming reduces the low temperature blips too. This is noticeable on our local skifields ( Mt Ruapehu ) where over the last 20 years, seasons have deteriorated to the point where there is only a one in three strike for a good year now.
Change is occurring. Catastrophic... not yet.
 
JazzManJim said:
Perhaps the pentagon is saying, "Look, worst case, we get a big climate change in the near future. What happens when poor dictatorships that have been building nukes instead of feeding their populations start having to deal with the mass death and riots that would topple them?" It sees to me that an important facet of the report has completely been ignored by the reporters.


Thats rich coming from a nuclear power where people live in cardboard boxes in city alleys. A big climate change would be indescriminate in its victims and your country would fare little better than any other.
If global warming is shown to be related to industrialisation, then the big powers are merchants of doom for all the world.
 
Bitchslapper said:
This "Observer" is an English tabloid isn't it?


I'd say it's left-leaning, although I wouldn't call it a tabloid. Perhaps one of our english friends could give us a more authoritative opinion...
 
woody54 said:
An example of the Free press Americans aspire to

HA! Please. We have plenty of trash ourselves. Fortunately the American tabloids usually focus thier attention on Elvis sitings and (usually fake) nude pics of celebrities.

What I don't understand is, if this report is so secret, then why are we talking about it?
 
They are worried about the Gulf Stream stopping.

Don't you watch the Discovery Channel?

It could at anytime or in the 100 years or never.

When it does...we are all fucked.

England is first fucked and worst fucked than most.
 
woody54 said:
Thats rich coming from a nuclear power where people live in cardboard boxes in city alleys. A big climate change would be indescriminate in its victims and your country would fare little better than any other.
If global warming is shown to be related to industrialisation, then the big powers are merchants of doom for all the world.

So, any facts to add to your screed here or what?
 
Olivianna said:
. . . Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.


LOL. You don't say ?
 
JazzManJim said:
There are a couple things that jumped out at me.

The report says that a catastrophic change will cause sea levels to rise *and* Britain to become "Siberian". The World Bank critic then calls out President Bush for calling global warming a "hoax".

Then again, global warming would be an odd culprit to produce a "Siberia" anywhere, wouldn't it?

Also that report apparently states that though many cities will be underwater, there will also be rampant water shortages. Huh? Will humanity also lose the pretty elementary ability to turn salt water into potable?


Global warming will lead to an end to the movement of warm water from the Caribean to the North Atlantic.

Without this 'gulf stream drift' Britain ( and other coastal countries ) would basically freeze.

As to turning salt water to potable, that's neither as cheap or as easy as you seem to think. Only the richest desert kingdoms can afford desalinated drinking water, and even they can't afford enough for wide scale irrigation.

Here endeth the lesson;)
 
Back
Top