Admiral: Climate Change a National Security Threat

According to Admiral Samuel Locklear, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command the top threat America faces in the Pacific Region is not the Iranians, North Koreans or even Radical Islamists…its Mother Earth and climate change.  Yes, America’s biggest security threat is greenhouse gasses, rising oceans, ice melting and tsunamis.  From the Admiral:

“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’

Admiral Locklear, concerned about the threat, is spending more of his time on the issue:

“The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”

Meanwhile over 30,000 scientists believe that the Admiral and others have drank the cool-aid and are consumed by an politically motivated, overstated fear.  According to a Heritage Foundation report:

“The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus. The much-heralded 2007 United Nations report on greenhouse gas emissions has served as a catalyst for lawmakers to burden traditional energy sources with regulations in favor of so-called clean energy. The private sector has begun to “chase” these policies, shaping business decisions to align with policies preferred by politicians, not the market or the public.”

Foreign policy experts believe that climate change cool-aid drinkers are engaged in threat inflation:

“But the more closely you look at the report, the clearer it is that the actual national security implications of climate change are modest, at least for the United States. The likely demands on U.S. military forces will be for humanitarian relief, not for the protection of vital U.S. interests. I have no problem with humanitarian relief, by the way, but let’s call it what it is — a form of global philanthropy — and not try to sell it as a defense of the American people.

Ultimately, the climate-security argument is vastly overstated and designed to fulfill a domestic political purpose more so than a reaction to an imminent national security threat.

Comments are closed.