BGen Stephen Cheney USMC(Ret) is the Chief Executive Officer of the American Security Project (ASP) and a member of the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.
Hey give me a break, I am just trying to make a fortune off of you suckers
Posted on 07/30/2015 5:35:34 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Having spent more than 30 years in the US Marine Corps, I know what constitutes a national security threat. Climate change, caused in large part by the carbon pollution we dump into our air, presents risks to the safety of both our nation and our world at large. The threats of climate change include extreme weather, rising sea levels, reduced military capacity, and conditions that can enable worldwide violence and perpetuate terrorism.
To address this challenge, we’ll need to both prepare for the effects of climate change and reduce the pollution that is causing it. As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Clean Power Plan proposal is set to be finalized shortly, our country has an unprecedented opportunity to protect itself from the national security threats imposed on us by climate change.
The EPA’s plan sets the first ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, encourages investment in clean energy development, and helps boost energy efficiency measures. It’s vital we seize this opportunity, which also provides incentives and flexibility for states to meet their carbon reduction targets while creating jobs and lowering electricity bills at the same time. We are at risk now more than ever before. Last year was officially ranked as the warmest year on record, and the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. While we cannot suggest direct causations between climate change and extreme weather events, there is substantial evidence that indicates strong correlations between the two.
As temperatures become warmer, more water evaporates. Warmer air is able to carry greater amounts of precipitation, which increases the potential for extreme storms and other natural disasters.
One of the biggest experiences of my career was in fact related to an extreme storm. I was the commanding general of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island in South Carolina when Hurricane Floyd threatened us in 1999. I had to evacuate the base, a decision made in part because the base was only fifteen feet above sea level. And that touches on another threat posed by climate change: rising sea levels.
Sea levels are rising, and projections estimate that they will continue to do so at increasing rates. By the end of the century, global sea levels could rise up to three feet or more, depending on the rate of ice sheets melting. Almost 50 percent of the population of the U.S. lives within 50 miles of the coastline, and almost 40 percent of the population lives in counties that are directly on the shoreline. It’s estimated that 150 million more people per year will experience flooding in 2075 if sea levels rise an average 21 inches.
Dozens of U.S. military bases are at risk from rising sea levels, which can also lead to mass displacements, loss of life, disruption to food production, famine, and more. And who will be expected to respond to these calamities? The military, of course, in addition to other local and national response units.
When Hurricane Sandy hit several years ago, tens of thousands of military personnel were activated.
The military is often a key response force for events that are caused at least in part by climate change. And thus climate change affects the military’s overall ability to defend the country. While busy responding to natural disasters, the military has less capacity to focus on other national security threats like terrorism and more international issues.
On that note, terrorism and other forms of global violence are also impacted by climate change. A Department of Defense report released last year explains how water scarcity exacerbated by climate change can lead to sharp cost increases for food. Resource competition puts a heavy burden on governments, societies, and economies, which act as “threat multipliers” that aggravate political stability, poverty, and social tensions – all conditions that enable and encourage violence and different forms of terrorist activity.
Both at home and abroad, the effects of climate change create severe threats to our nation’s security. However, it is a threat that can be contained and reduced significantly. That is why we need to prioritize reducing our carbon pollution, persuade other countries to do the same, and support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which presents an unprecedented opportunity for us to take climate change in our own hands and mitigate the dangers it poses.
Cheney is the chief executive officer of the American Security Project (ASP) and a member of the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board
Climate change, or more exactly, the response of a certain segment of political thought that somehow believes it is significant, DOES pose an undeniable threat to our national security, our financial stability, and even a great deal of our existence.
But not for the reasons the envirowhackos are giving us.
The greatest threat of all is that they shall somehow enact legislation that will shackle, cripple and in some instances completely destroy our capability to do ANYTHING positive or negative about the weather or anything else. Diverting resources to chase the chimera of “climate change”, by taxation, extreme regulation, or just intimidation of all human enterprise, means those resources simply shall not be available for any purposes, and a prolonged decivilization and Dark Age descends upon the world, the worse so because of the new superstitions that will be propagated with religious fervor.
Of course, this would render the deep underlying core of their agenda, the decimation of the current numbers of humanity on earth, as the guiding principle, and though there may be few to “enjoy” the new dystopia, a certain grim satisfaction would fall to the few of the “elite” who managed to survive the entirely man-made Holocaust.
I always thought that stood for "retired", when did they change it to "retarted"? And I thought we were not supposed to use that word anymore?
Hudson Bay Sea Ice Third Highest On Record:
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/hudson-bay-sea-ice-third-highest-on-record/
I think the good general is a day late and a dollar short. :)
WHAAAT? The military now takes on GW??
Hey give me a break, I am just trying to make a fortune off of you suckers
If all the moonbats barking about global warming were riding around on bicycles and living in tents, they might make a better point.
When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, all problems will look like nails.
American Security Project
The CEO of ASP is Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Retired). Its board of directors is chaired by former Senator Gary Hart (D-CO). The other board members are notable Democrats, Republicans, and retired military flag officers.
Board Members include:
Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, USA (Ret.)
Nelson W. Cunningham
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Senator Chuck Hagel
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Senator John Kerry
General Lester L. Lyles, USAF (Ret.)
Senator Warren B. Rudman
Governor Christine Todd Whitman
Admiral William Fallon, USN (Ret.)
Norman R. Augustine
Edward Reilly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Security_Project
I rest my case.
That's four minutes of my life I will never get back.
5.56mm
“The threats of climate change include extreme weather, rising sea levels, reduced military capacity, and conditions that can enable worldwide violence and perpetuate terrorism.”
Most of that we got just from Obama.
Mankind occupies just 3% of the Earth’s surface, and yet is powerful enough to change the global climate? Amazing.
So the possibility of global warming is a bigger threat than a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack by islamic terrorists, regional wars with Russia or China, racial violence or Balkanization in the US, or just simply global islamic terrorism in general?
The NSA must have something juicy on the general.
The only national security threat posed by Climate Change is the one by politicians and bureaucrats who seek to increase their power by destroying our economy and business infrastructure in the name of this phony problem.
That is a keeper! Thanks
“Never trust an officer above the rank of Major.”
I take exception to that. Needless to say:
“Having spent more than 30 years in the US Marine Corps, I know what constitutes a national security threat. Climate change, caused in large part by the carbon pollution we dump into our air, presents risks to the safety of both our nation and our world at large.”
Now here is the big difference. The libs scream CO2. Here, he is saying carbon pollution. Two vastly different things.
You see, pollution can be stopped. Go to the source. Problem with that is, if that were the case, you have to shut down India, China, most of the middle east and Russia. In the US, more than likely you will have to close union led factories. Not too appealing to a lefty.
So they used “nuance.” Yet our congress critters are either too stupid or complicit in this charade.
Thank God this guy is retired, he’s too stupid to lead troops.
What is Climate Change? Simply put, the climate changes. It can get warmer, or colder, drier or wetter. More windy? More stormy--but that is usually because it got wetter.
Anyway, what they mean of course is global--meaning the entire planet--warming--getting hotter. But for the past 1.5 decades it hasn't.
So the world wasn't getting warmer. Therefore they had to change the name. The used Climate Change--which, as shown above, can go many different ways.
Whenever I encounter a liberal who uses term the conversation goes something like this:
Lib: Blah, blah, blah, climate change, blah, blah...
Me: Hold up! You me global warming, right?
Lib: No, climate change!
Me: But doesn't climate change include getting COLDER? Is THAT what you mean?
Lib: No! Geetting hotter, because we put all this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere!
Me: Then you do mean global warming! Be honest. The climate can change many different ways, even in various locations. For example, the Sahara Desert was once grasslands. It got much drier after the Ice Age glaciers melted. But here, you're talking about the whole planet getting warmer due to mankind's industry, is that not correct?
Lib: (They have to concede here, but usually double down or go into a personal attack, like calling me a denier, or not knowing science, or something... At that point the conversation is over. You cannot continue with such people. So...) Honest lib: Well, yes.
Me: But Satellite readings have basically shown that the Earth's temperature has remained unchanged since the early 2000's. Many of the scientist supporting global warming has referred to this as a "Hiatus". However, the computer models they use that shows how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause a steady rise in temperature globally just haven't turned to be true at all, given the measurements, so why can't they simply admit that their computer models are wrong?
Honest lib: I don't know.
So once again, let's analyze the good General's statement, here:
Climate change, caused in large part by the carbon pollution we dump into our air, presents risks to the safety of both our nation and our world at large.
Climate change. He absolutely means global warming. According to all those many computer models, dumping carbon dioxide--not carbon, General!--causes the temperature to rise. If this were true, then yes, certain areas of the globe that now are inhabited by millions of people would get flooded by the sea, or too dry for agriculture, and that could cause mass movements of refugees and nations going to war.
BUT first you have to ignore or HIDE the real evidence that shows despite carbon dioxide levels rising--although much slower than was predicted and put into the computer models--the global temperatures are NOT going up. If that doesn't happen, there is no global warming (which you inaccurately call climate change) threat.
No global warming, no national security threat.
Military planning often has to involve what ifs and sometimes even unlikely events occurring, but that hardly means global warming is undeniable.
Nice term, by the way? What do you call someone who would still deny what you claim?
Who is this screaming lunatic? Sounds as stupid as an Archbishop of Chicago or even a Pope.
Follow the money.
"Men, women, lbqt? whatevers, this is a fight unlike any we have undertaken. No one has ever won a climate war by sunburning for their country. They won it by making the sun burn itself! This is the finest army of sensitively trained people ever assembled since this afternoon. No feelings will be hurt as we tackle the greatest threat to mankind since the tea party, climate change! As you charge that approaching hurricane with nothing but your pink poster saying, "Love Wins", I want you to think about all that you have done to stop this threat. Driving a Prius, having no children and using only one sheet of toilet paper to wipe, which I must say I am downwind of you, so I will soon move. Now go out there and show them that we will defeat the powers of the sun and gravity!!!
Nothing like some moronic drivel with one’s morning coffee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.