[Global Warming, National Security]

The Real Security Risk.

The greatest risk to national security is not terrorism. It's not rogue states, it's not nukes in North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan. This being "global warming week" here at Hog, you know where I'm going with this one. In the short term, al Qaida suitcase bombs are a pretty big threat. But long term, as the consequences of global warming start destablizing regions of the world, lack of water, famine, rising seas, and the political chaos that results will be far more dangerous.

To take one example, today the magazine Science reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting far faster than anyone knew. (You notice that with global warming, the outcomes are always far worse than predicted, never better. A cautionary tale.) Currently they're going at twice the pace previously predicted, and as melting begets faster melting, there will be a geometric progression to the greening of greenland.

In 1996, the amount of water produced by melting ice in Greenland was about 90 times the amount consumed by Los Angeles in a year. Last year, the melted ice amounted to 225 times the volume of water that city uses annually.

Greenland's contribution to rising seas, combined with antarctica's are likely to raise sea levels--prepare yourself--more than 20 inches in the next century. At one meter, much of Bangladesh will be covered with water, coastlines will be ravaged, and massive resettlement will be necessary. Political consequences for the enormous social effects these changes would cause--well, it's not going to help bring democracy to anyone.

And this is just one item that I chose because it happened to be in the news today. For a fun experiment, go to Google news and search on "global warming." The reports we hear about on a regular basis are--pardon the obsolescent cliche--the tip of the iceberg.

So why isn't the Pentagon worried about the security risks of global warming? Well, turns out they are.

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.

(The whole article is well worth a read.) Here's the ghastly truth, so grim that it's a political nonstarter: thanks to the willful blindness of our leaders, we are dooming ourselves to death and war within (some of) our lifetimes. Unlike other issues, this one can't be cleaned up by responsible adults once the greedy, stupid, corrupt frat boys leave Washington. If we don't create some political will soon, we're all going to pay the price.

As a last word, I'll mention that the US currently spends 1.1 trillion dollars on defense--49% of the national budget. A fair amount of that services past military adventures, like paying for amputees wounded in Bush's grandiose experiment. But let's say we actually did consider global warming the threat it is. Let's say, with visions of climate apocalypse in our minds, our blood runs as cold as it did when we watched airplanes fly into buildings. Could we muster, say, $500 billion a year in addressing this threat? In fifty years, we'll regret it if we don't.

Enough.