In this article in the NY Times, analysts correctly ascertain that climate change could result in threats to national interest. What is sad about this form of analysis–which as, of course, the FOXNews reporting eagerly highlights (Climate Change Could Warrant U.S. Military Action)–is the reactive mentality that this lends to the debate about policy and strategy. Instead of talking about methods of combating climate change in terms of establishing carbon emission reducing policies, funding ‘green’ technologies, and mitigation of climate change in those areas most affected, war hawks eagerly begin anticipating increasing weapons cachets and military budgets. But what good will it do to send in troops to areas devastated by climate change? That’s like trying to staunch a wound with a toothpick. The only effective measures we can take to address the potential threats to U.S. interests and security from climate change will be preventative: through policy, funding, and diplomacy. And that must happen now, not later.
Manderson's Bubble
My Inner Life Transcribed To The Sky
Even letting the debate continue, when our species may hang in the balance, says something about us. I argue that there is a certain presumptuousness surrounding our approach to how we are addressing global warming that goes well beyond simply having a short-term perspective. What if the cockroach has a more sustainable position? I recommend the following post: http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/climatic-presumption-what-is-the-forecast/