Why James Carafano Has It Exactly Wrong on Climate Change and National Security
James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation recently railed against members of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee for highlighting the national security implications of climate change. But don’t just take it from us or the Committee, some of the nation’s top military leaders have highlighted the implications of these changes, many of which have already started to impact our populations. For example, according to the National Intelligence Council – the U.S. intelligence community’s think-tank, “global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years,” and General Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.), recently stated that “even a small change of 2 to 3 degrees in one direction could be the difference between a management problem [and] a catastrophe.”
Consider the following facts:
Carafano Myth: “A better approach is to simply allow nations to adapt to the national security challenges implied by long-term global climate changes…any changes in climate will occur gradually over decades”
The Facts: While Carafano would rather wait and see what catastrophic repercussions transpire from climate change, the truth is that these harmful changes are not far off and have already started to take place According to NOAA, temperatures have already increased nearly two degrees on average—3 degrees is enough to significantly reduce crop yields. In addition, the scarcity of resources resulting from these changes has already begun to spurn conflict and will continue to destabilize governments, force our country to respond more frequently as first responder to natural disasters, compel us to have to deal with increased migration around the world and over our borders, and put US military facilities at risk. Not to mention that the global population is also larger than at any time in history, and most significant measures to address climate change will take decades to implement.
Carafano Myth: “Catastrophic predictions…are poorly supported by the evidence.”
The Facts: Carafano is simply wrong here. History is filled with examples of climate induced conflicts and humanitarian disasters, and climate change has already contributed to conflicts in regions like Darfur where droughts reduced water levels in Lake Chad by 90 percent. This lack of water has helped to spark the deadly conflict between Sudan and Chad which has cost almost half a million lives. Conflicts like this will become more common as climate change increases competition for dwindling resources. Carafano suggests that advocates use alarmist scenarios to push their agenda, but the truth is that even conservative estimates of climate change – as highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – will have major impacts.
Carafano Myth: “U.S. action alone would not impact world CO2 levels”
The Facts: If we don’t take the lead in reducing CO2 levels, other countries will, and we will lose out on the resulting jobs and economic growth. Once, the United States led the world in the production of solar panels. Now China leads and the U.S. is only fourth and we are buying clean energy technology we used to export. Not to mention that the majority of Americans believe the United States should take action on global warming even if other major industrial countries such as China and India do less. (ABC News/Washington Post Poll, June 18-21, 2009)
Carafano Myth: “The environment does not cause wars—it is how humans respond to their environment that causes conflict”
The Facts: Yes, guns don’t kill people, people kill people… with guns. This is simply a silly argument – no one is arguing that conflict will occur without human intervention. Countries have been going to war over land and resources for centuries, and there is every empirically proven reason to believe that as climate change effects food, water and other resources, it will force migration, destabilize governments, and cause nations to increasingly go to war. Again, we can already see this happening in parts of Africa.
The challenge then is to act now to prevent the circumstances from developing that will make conflict more likely in the future thereby minimizing future impacts and direct costs to the United States.
21 Comments
Comments are closed.
Let’s start with the “silly” argument that people make wars not climate change. Dismissing an argument as silly does not make it so. There was significant climate change in the 17th century and by some accounts that contributed to the 30 Years War and related conflicts such as the English Revolution. But climate during the 18th century was very stable by comparison and, in fact, on the eve of the French Revolution harvests improved…yet the Napoleonic era saw endemic warfare. Fact is humans determine how to adapt to climate change and other factors as well. Too say adverse climate equals conflict is determist history unsupported by facts….seriously that does not pass the laugh test. As I pointed out in my article, which you ignored, the Artic climate for human uses is improving that may actually cause conflicts in the region not reduce conflict…it all depends on how humans chose to react to their environment.
Simply calling my statements myth does make it so. In each case you simply stated my conclusion and not supporting arguments…so you are not arguing with me you are just setting me up as a strawman to advance your own beliefs…that is poor public policy debate.
Sorry these comments don’t pass the laugh test.
I would also point out that you did cite or link to my original article so readers don’t have an opportunity to evaluate it for themselves or fact check your quotes to see if they are taken out of context. This too represents very poor scholarship and reflects poorly on your criticisms.
I suppose the most egrecious thing you did was ignore my central criticism of the Wakman-Markey legislation and that is that the resulting economic dislocation would cause incredible turmoil to the global economy, a factor that is likely cause more wars than climate change.
here is my paper if anyone wants to read what I really said
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2572.cfm
I suppose the most egrecious thing you did was ignore my central criticism of the Wakman-Markey legislation and that is that the resulting economic dislocation would cause incredible turmoil to the global economy, a factor that is likely cause more wars than climate change.
here is my paper if anyone wants to read what I really said
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2572.cfm
This comment you make makes the least sense of all. “If we don’t take the lead in reducing CO2 levels, other countries will, and we will lose out on the resulting jobs and economic growth. Once, the United States led the world in the production of solar panels. Now China leads and the U.S. is only fourth and we are buying clean energy technology we used to export.” You fail tom mention that China is also catching up with us in CO2 emmissions and has no interest in curbing them and all likelihood, US reductions will be more matched by increasing emissions from China and India.
Your other point is also laughable.
“Not to mention that the majority of Americans believe the United States should take action on global warming even if other major industrial countries such as China and India do less.” of course, the counter to this is when your Mom said “if your friends go jump in a lake will you to.” Adopting public policies because they are popular rather than correct is fine for many things, but not when the security, health and properity of the nation are at risk. Then it is better to educate Americans than follow them lemming-like off a cliff.
This comment you make makes the least sense of all. “If we don’t take the lead in reducing CO2 levels, other countries will, and we will lose out on the resulting jobs and economic growth. Once, the United States led the world in the production of solar panels. Now China leads and the U.S. is only fourth and we are buying clean energy technology we used to export.” You fail tom mention that China is also catching up with us in CO2 emmissions and has no interest in curbing them and all likelihood, US reductions will be more matched by increasing emissions from China and India.
Your other point is also laughable.
“Not to mention that the majority of Americans believe the United States should take action on global warming even if other major industrial countries such as China and India do less.” of course, the counter to this is when your Mom said “if your friends go jump in a lake will you to.” Adopting public policies because they are popular rather than correct is fine for many things, but not when the security, health and properity of the nation are at risk. Then it is better to educate Americans than follow them lemming-like off a cliff.
I am sure you think you are contributing to educating people and that you think I am just some know-nothing reactionary, but what you have done polorizes and sets back a realistic debate about meeting the challenges of global climate change, a very serious issue, you should be ashamed of what you have published here.
I am sure you think you are contributing to educating people and that you think I am just some know-nothing reactionary, but what you have done polorizes and sets back a realistic debate about meeting the challenges of global climate change, a very serious issue, you should be ashamed of what you have published here.
What else is to say? Except that the environmental extremists are in full-gear trying to slow down mankind progress. Actually, the extremists are trying to take us back in time. “Man induced disasters”??? What are they talking about? Sudden climate changes like the Ice ages, Dark ages, volcanoes, cataclysms, earthquakes, Tsunamis, are natural phenomena that change the climate, and are not man induced. The first article by geologists warning about the world will be frozen up again came out in 1895. In the 70’s the mad scientists predicted a cooling period similar to the Ice ages, so in 2000 the Earth should have been frozen. Then in the 90’s the fad became to talk about global warming. Theories and more theories. I don’t subscribe to unproven theories. I rather put National Security and Defense of the United States FIRST!
Of course the temperatures are changing. The sun, you know that ball of fire in the sky, changes in output changing the environment. In addition the earth wobbles on its axis changing the climate of the hemispheres.
In addition climate change is a fact…it is also cyclical. Alaska, land of the frozen tundra, used to be a lush rain forest. In England there was a period in time it was so warm they had vineyards. Not possible outside of that window.
I agree with Carafano that it is how “humans respond.” How can you say that is not the real reason behind “war”? Should America respond by making itself weaker by helping everyone else, by taking on a war on climate change that no one else is fighting? At some point that would trigger America to collapse upon itself and I seriously doubt we would receive the same help to continue our society from the rest of the world as we hand out.
Anyone who has studied, or even read up on the history of the world’s climate knows that the earth is a living breathing thing with cyclic ups and downs, including of all things weather. Personally, I have a greater respect for planet, as a whole than to think that my car or a herd of cattle can have so drastic an impact. In my opinion, man has done more harm through deforestation to adversely effect climate, not to mention destroy species of animal life than anything that industry has done in the last hundred or so years. Left to its own, planet Earth is more than capable of taking care of itself and us, even with all the stupid things we have done and continue to do. Given enough time, the planet can recover from anything as it has for billions of years. What will eventually do us in, in the greed, arrogance and ignorance of the world’s leaders. We have more to fear from what man will do to man, than from what man will do to planet Earth.
I think Dr. Carafano has it right when he says that the environment or if I may say, the changes in the environment don’t cause wars, it’s the way people react to the changes that cause wars. Creating planet wide fear about climate change does more to cause wars over resources than to help in any situation, but it does further the causes being championed by those stirring the pot. Doesn’t it make more sense for countries who have limited resources to support the ones that do, and to make every effort to befriend the countries that can feed the world, rather than start conflicts with them? Maybe it’s just me, but that seems to be a perfect example of how a change in the way a government reacts to “climate change” can make a real difference. Of course if you’re greedy, ignorant and arrogant, I guess you might think it’s better to go to war with those who have what you want rather than enter into treaties that might be mutually beneficial.
The writer cites history as being filled with “examples of climate induced conflicts and humanitarian disasters”. I think that does more to support Carafano that to debunk him. Again, the planet is cyclic. There are examples of drastic climate changes throughout history. The thought that human beings are the cause of those changes and can therefore actually prevent or even slightly affect those changes is “silly”. But, it does serve as an excellent platform on which to stand to get people’s attention by scaring them into making changes that they would ordinarily pay no attention to. For example, we must stop eating meat, because the herds of cattle being raised for the purpose of human consumption are creating methane gas which in turn is causing global warming. If the planet could handle herds of buffalo large enough to cover entire states, belching and otherwise expelling gas, than how is my double cheeseburger destroying the planet?
Oh, maybe it’s because P.E.D.A. is the one spreading that news and, maybe because they have a “dog in that fight”….probably a bad expression to use in a P.E.D.A argument.
For the record, I am the first one standing in an argument for the ethical treatment of animals, but let’s get serious and keep our battles where they belong.
People have a choice in how they handle disasters. Dr. Carafano makes a sober, logical argument that it makes sense for nations to adapt to the inevitable change in climate that is coming over the next hundred years or so. If evolution has taught us nothing else, it is that those who do not adapt…go extinct.
I think George Carlin had it right nearly twenty years ago, when he said “The planet isn’t going anywhere….WE are!”
[…] Let’s take a look at ASP’s critiques: […]
[…] the American Security Project responded to four “myths” in Carafano’s piece. But their retaliatory facts ignore Carafano’s central premise that the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will do much more […]
.
[…] Let’s take a look at ASP’s critiques: […]
[…] the American Security Project responded to four “myths” in Carafano’s piece. But their retaliatory facts ignore Carafano’s central premise that the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will do much more […]
I have written an extensive response to this piece on my own blog. If you wish to respond to it, and if it is easier for you to do so here, I shall gladly post it in total here in the comments section of Flash Point.
[…] all the back and forth over climate change and national security, one issue has been lost in the debate: there are a lot of […]
At no time in history has man had this much affect on the environment. At no time in the past have we had the ability, except maybe at the beginning of the industrial age when the killer fogs were caused by brawn coal,have we deforested, burned, ruined, polluted and hurt our planet as severely as we have in the last 50 years. The Amazon region, the Sudan, the after effects of nuclear testing in the south Pacific and in the southwestern United States all have combined with countless other debacles to make this a very fragile time for the earth. For Dr. Carafano to fail to see that is short sighted and kind of sad.
I also think he knows that or he wouldn’t have protested so much. Who is he trying to convince, the writer or himself?
dear lee, thanks for thinking for me.
Only an idiot would argue that humans are not having an increased impact on the environment. Did I ver make that claim anywhere? No. Do I deny that the global climate is changing. No, I don’t do that either. So what exactly I am not getting here?
Waxman-Markey won’t solve human climate change issues. The law would however would significantly lessen the capacity of humans to respond to climate change through severe economic disruption and loss of economic activity, economic activity that could lead to innovation and adaption to lessen the harmful human impacts on the envrionment and achieve sustainable growth.
dear lee, thanks for thinking for me.
Only an idiot would argue that humans are not having an increased impact on the environment. Did I ver make that claim anywhere? No. Do I deny that the global climate is changing. No, I don’t do that either. So what exactly I am not getting here?
Waxman-Markey won’t solve human climate change issues. The law would however would significantly lessen the capacity of humans to respond to climate change through severe economic disruption and loss of economic activity, economic activity that could lead to innovation and adaption to lessen the harmful human impacts on the envrionment and achieve sustainable growth.