Pentagon Study Describes Rapid, Catastrophic Climate Change

[TOAD6147]

A recent Pentagon report describes dramatic worldwide ecosystem changes, resulting in massive political and social instability, due to rapid climate change over the next 20 years. From food shortages to violent storms, mass human migrations and wars for survival, the study suggests that the Bush Administration must reverse its position on climate change immediately.[1]


The report's authors believe that climate change "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern." The report was commissioned by Andrew Marshall, a strategist and futurist who has advised the Pentagon for 30 years.[2]


An article in Great Britain's Sunday Observer describes such findings as:


By 2007 violent storms or flooding will smash coastal barriers and render low-lying coastal and riparian areas uninhabitable worldwide.
Between 2010 and 2020, average European temperatures drop by 6 degrees F.
Deaths from war and famine will number in the millions until human population levels drop to a sustainable level.
Rich nations like the U.S. and Europe will become "virtual fortresses" to prevent entry of millions of migrants fleeing flooded or starving lands.
Nuclear arms will proliferate, with Japan, North and South Korea, Iran, Egypt and Germany developing nuclear weapons capabilities.
Access to water will become a major area of strife; Nile, Amazon and Danube Rivers all at risk.
The Bush Administration has yet to publicly acknowledge the Pentagon study, or reverse any of its positions which oppose taking action to address global warming. In fact, as reported yesterday in BushGreenwatch.org the administration is threatening to undermine an international treaty that has proven widely successful in reducing worldwide production of methyl bromide, the most potent ozone-depleting chemical still in widespread use.[3]


The Pentagon's climate change report has been ignored so far by American media, with the notable exception being an article in the February 9 issue of Fortune magazine. Fortune describes several disturbing trends that support the theory of rapid climate change, including the recent break-up of the Arctic's largest ice shelf, and increasing signs of a weakened ocean current which brings warmer water from the tropics north to the eastern U.S. and northern Europe.


Fortune writer David Stipp notes that "The Pentagon's reaction to this sobering report isn't known...but the fact that [Andrew Marshall] is concerned may signal a sea change in the debate about global warming."[4]


If so, there are still no signs of it. Just last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report on behalf of over 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, accusing the Bush Administration of systematically distorting scientific findings to serve policy goals on the environment, health, biomedicine and nuclear arms.[5]

Find sources at www.bushgreenwatch.org/

[RADAR1797]

Posted

-RADAR

[osprey4]

The US government did not cause climate change and the US government cannot stop climate change. If climate change is to be stopped, the marketplace will stop it. Otherwise, it will go on.

[TOAD6147]

The US Government has helped climate change by inaction and can help stop climate change by some meaningful legislation to force "the marketplace" to do what they will not do on their own. Do you really think "the marketplace" cares about what the future (except for Futures) looks like? They have been raping the earth for so long that even if they are now starting to feel even small twinges of guilt, the bottom line is that it will devastate their "bottom line". It's best to pollute to the detriment of mankind than to protect the very resource that makes their success possible. Who in "the marketplace" really cares what might be in 20 years? It's all about the projected profits of the next quarter of the current fiscal year.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by TOAD6147
Do you really think "the marketplace" cares about what the future (except for Futures) looks like?

Yes, I do.

Take CFCs. Industry, not the government, began the phase-out of CFCs and industry is responsible for the innovation that has replaced them.

The vast majority of the increase in global warming is being caused not by the US but by third world countries. If the marketplace does not drive this issue, then nothing will fix it.

[Epidemic]

Per Capita we burn more here in the good old USA.

But as the third world increases lifestyle they increase their per capita follows suit.

Successful population drives use of resources.

we import population into the USA and each imported person becomes a super user of resources.

Ban imigration and you will reduce greenhouse gasses.

[osprey4]

Hardly, the third world outnumbers us by a large margin and always will, and the largest increases in consumption of fossil fuels are outside the US and EU.

[Epidemic]

elaborate.

The US has among the highest use of fuel and resources (per capita). do you disagree with taht statement.

[TOAD6147]

The US has among the highest use of fuel and resources (per capita). do you disagree with taht statement.

I don't. It's called "conspicuous consumption".

[Epidemic]

Ahh but the only reason the US has conspicuous consumption is because we have an economy and large land mass.

Everyone's goal is to attain this. Third world after achieving food stability will begin to use more resources for other compforts.

If every house in africa had AC, and a computer world oil would have about 5 year supply

I am quite sure that africans don't enjoy seeing their children die of heat stroke nor their old. AC will come to the haves, If the haves increase fuel consumption will increase.

In a way world poverty is all that keeps us from all being thrown into the 18th century.

If we want the world to improve and starvation to decrease and wealth to increase for all then something has to give.