Global Warming is a Threat to Global Security

In 1983, U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called climate change "a cause for concern," which was an understatement. By the 1990s, special interests, politicians, media, and other untoward took over United Nations and national global warming responses.  

In an AUGUST 08, 2009 article 'Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security' global warming (aka, climate change) is seen as a direct threat to national security: "The world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest."  

"Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill." "[Senator Kerry] did not identify those senators, but the list of undecided includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program." Of course the congressional left Democrats and President Obama did nothing to alter the course of global warming.  

"The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton [D] and John W. Warner [R], then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

By 1974 there were 54 operating nuclear reactors in the United States with another 197 on order. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1974 predicted that by the end of the century 50% of all U.S. electricity generation would come from nuclear power construction on existing orders. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Less than half of the reactors on order in 1974 under the NRC were ever completed. Politicians and coal, natural gas, and oil special interests took over the U.S. energy sector to grow use of fossil fuel -- global warming trends became more firmly established.

'The Wall Street Journal: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976', AUGUST 02, 2012 -- Judging by political and media responses to issues of curtailing the threat of global warming, there would appear with consistency that few adequately communicate catastrophic events. "To forestall policy on climate change, the Wall Street Journal editorial board routinely downplays scientific consensus, overstates the cost of taking action, and claims that politics, not science, motivate those concerned about the climate. But an analysis of more than 100 editorials from 1976 to present shows that the Wall Street Journal used these same rhetorical tactics in previous decades on acid rain and ozone depletion and they did not stand the test of time." Still protecting Wall Street Journal investments in self interests, a September 2011 Wall Street editorial claimed that Al Gore and other "climate-change advocates" have "tried to bully anyone who keeps an open mind," which "is true of many political projects, but it is or ought to be anathema to the scientific method."  

For more than two decades scope and goals of global warming mitigations have been sidetracked by political process of deceit, misrepresentation, and corruption. Currently, with dictatorial powers in hand, left Democrats have furthered predicted the demise of human races. Media has intentionally played an important part misrepresenting the critical nature of need for quick global warming mitigations responses. Current major obstacles to securing a future for human races is President Obama, biased media, and a dedicated small but politically influential coal, natural gas, oil energy interests.

CHANGE IS NEEDED

Without changes now, human races are terminated 2050-2055. 

Saving human-races tasks are both time and government funding critical. Changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say. Currently, U.S. National Guards are now acting as forest and brush firefighters within some states.  

Climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia and all water systems, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises, and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response. Near term resulting number of lives lost will be in the millions.

An exercise in 2008 at an educational institute explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense) who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding "green" substitutes for fossil fuels, eliminating nuclear energy, and furthering unproductive negotiations toward an international climate treaty. A growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to national interest. Public review of global warming threats and security challenges are inadequate.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address -- not addressing global warming issues now and "kicking the can down the road" will make mitigations more expensive later. Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving legislation. If replacement nuclear energy is properly phased-in, significant energy price increases may not occur.

In 2009, said Senator Kerry, “I’ve been making this argument for a number of years, but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” Former conflict in southern Sudan, which killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” Senator Kerry said. He said he had urged President Obama to make the case. Former Vice President Al Gore has also urged President Obama to respond to global warming.

The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. In February 2009, the Pentagon included a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Military and intelligence planners are now aware of the challenge posed by global warming. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms. Another vulnerable installation is Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that serves as a logistics hub for American and British forces in the Middle East and sits a few feet above sea level. Global relocation now of some U.S. naval facilities may be required. Ocean level rise effects all coastal cities and ocean coastlines.

Global warming temperature rise has a profound effect upon marine life cycles and thus continued human existence. Needed is a great deal more clarification of impact of marine changes upon human food chains.

A lack of rain and has brought the worst drought in more than 50 years to America's Midwest that usually provides over half the corn and more than two-fifths of the soybeans to world markets, and counterproductive corn-ethanol to U.S. cars. The impact of the sustained drought goes beyond farming. Rivers in the Midwest are actually drying up, including a 100-mile stretch of the Platte River in Nebraska. In the Mississippi -- which carries 60% of the nation’s grain, 22% of its oil and gas and 20% of its coal -- the drought has dropped water levels so far that barges have been forced to carry less cargo as they try to navigate the shallow waters. River flows are maintained by groundwaters and are part of the water-cycle.

It is questionable if Midwest High Plains aquifer can sustain current irrigation rates much into the 2020s. The Colorado River is managed and operated since 1922 under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the "Law of the River." Satellite data aids in surface and groundwater level identification. Largely missing from media reporting is the management of California’s groundwater resources, which in dry years provide nearly 40 percent of the state’s water supplies. Changing regional water systems requires time.

Arctic Region melting presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea oil, natural gas, and undersea methane resources are already the focus of international competition. Further warming of Arctic Region's huge amounts of natural methane and carbon emissions are ocean-current temperature dependent and land surface air temperature dependent. Arctic Region natural methane and carbon emissions form a powerful reinforced positive feedback loop that is directly temperature and regional emissions related, which also results in (catastrophic) increased global warming.  

Global warming by itself has significant geopolitical impacts around the world and will contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments. Assessments warn near term storms, droughts and food shortages result from a warming planet in coming decades will create numerous relief emergencies. “The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” a military report said.

Increased population and gross domestic product (GDP) directly increase energy used and increased greenhouse gases. In 1750, world population was estimated to be 700 million. Current global population is 7 billion and it is expected to exceed 9 billion before 2050. Energy demand is growing explosively to meet human needs and aspirations worldwide.  Much of this demand is currently being met by fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil). Historical energy use is unsustainable. Because most greenhouse gases come from the use of fossil fuels, the central task of a global emissions-reduction strategy must be to quickly transition to existing technology of high capacity clean nuclear energy. Natural and human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and decline thereafter.

NOTE:  Global greenhouse gas emissions must, before 2050, have an atmospheric content of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide that averts catastrophic climate change and averts end of human races.

President Obama and left Democratic promotion of "green" alternatives to nuclear energy has been ineffective correcting 250-years of global greenhouse gas emissions. Unbiased media should report on the more than two decades of motivations for politically promoting "green" unsound, ineffective, and unsustainable diversions from proper nuclear energy responses.   

Top ten world energy consumers by country in 2012 - units in million-billion BTUs (see energy unit Quads): United States 57.227, China 50.690, Russia 18.132, Japan 13.031, India 11.891, Germany 8.556, Canada 8.360, France 6.728, Brazil 6.335, Korea 5.891, and total Worldwide is 293.110. Nuclear energy production is 5.8% of total world energy production. Current and past coal, natural gas, and oil energy production has significantly added to atmospheric carbon content that increases global warming.    

By continually producing hydrocarbon (coal, natural gas, oil) energy infrastructures there results exceeding 'global carbon budget.' Exceeding global energy infrastructure catastrophic conditions are established about 2017. To alter the course of global warming events, there now must quickly be reductions of human and natural greenhouse gases with reductions of coal, natural gas, and oil infrastructures.

Over the coming five-years, the least-cost and only global warming option to lowering global warming is by steadily transforming global energy systems to nuclear energy zero greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn lowers human and natural carbon-cycle gas emissions.   

Unfortunately, too many world leaders, national politicians, and media remain committed to continuing coal, natural gas, and oil energy dependence. Necessary planned successful social and environmental responses to global warming temperature increase are essential, many, and varied and involve lives of more than 9 billion people. No nation maintains a viable organization to respond to countering global warming temperature increase. Not in place is the needed central organization to coordinate implementation of identified needed energy, social, and environmental responses.  

For Congress to participate in preventing 2017 exceeding of 'global carbon budget,' Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) membership is to be replaced by four senior nuclear specialists and one presidential appointee. Revised scope of revised NRC membership is to include supervisions of U.S. 'Nuclear Fuel Cycle' and rapid expansion of U.S. nuclear energy. Global and U.S. plans for global warming reduction are to be produced by intelligence agencies with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).

Stop Global Warming With US DOD Planning

President Obama's national energy policies is founded upon decades of left Democratic political leadership's promotion of "renewable energy" waste, fraud, and corruption by promotion of wind, solar, ethanol, and carbon-cap-and-trade. President Obama and left Democratic political leadership has assured human races 2050-2055 destruction by ignoring global warming and by enacting shutdown of nuclear energy. It is critical that global warming temperature increase be corrected or it is assured that all human races die too soon.  

Tempus Fugit

There are only three modern anthropological avenues available that might alter the course global warming, environmental, and human events: ● Reduce and stop (extremely limit) using hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) ● Modify long-term land, groundwater, and sea use practices ● Limit or reduce long-term human population rate of growth. Only rapidly expanding nuclear energy may produce desired global warming results.  

Nuclear electrical energy is only energy source that is clean enough and has capacity to make a global warming difference. Majority of U.S. energy is derived from fossil fuels: in 2009, EIA data showed 37% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 21% from coal, and 25% from natural gas. Carbon free nuclear power supplied 9% and 6.5% from hydroelectric dams. Energy demand sectors are: electric power 41%, transportation 28%, industrial 20%, and residential & commercial 11%. In 2010, the U.S. electricity generation was 4361 billion kWh gross, 46% of it from coal-fired plant, 23% from gas-fired, 19% nuclear, and 6.5% from hydroelectric.  

"Renewable energy" is politically popular since 1992: biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind. Hydropower and nuclear energy should not be lumped within extremely limited category of green renewable energy. Ethanol for automobiles (MTBE is to replace ethanol), municipal waste, and biomass burning are largest energy sources within green renewable energy category. Geothermal, solar, and wind produce only a "very small fraction of U.S. energy." A nation investing in geothermal, solar, and wind has no meaning. If in ten years a very small fraction of U.S. energy is tripled you still wind up with a very small fraction of U.S. energy. Nothing is gained by investing in renewable energy. On the other hand, had political systems invested in carbon free nuclear energy, electric energy capacity is increased, U.S. energy independence is improved, and a there is a reduction in global warming greenhouse gases.         

In 1960s, electric utilities kicked-off "Total Electric Living" advertising programs promoting all electric homes. For the past 50-years politicians should have supported nuclear energy sector to produce inexpensive clean electrical energy. It is inexpensive energy that make rich nations richer. Expensive energy keeps poor nations poor. Global Warming Era destroys all nations -- be they rich or poor.  

Only realistic global warming temperature reduction method available is to vastly increase nuclear electrical generation. Core global warming task is to reduce global energy share of coal, natural gas, and petroleum, to be replaced nationally and globally with hydrocarbon free nuclear and hydroelectric energy. Hydroelectric energy expansion is limited by available dam site locations.

Stresses of increased human populations; 250-years of increased hydrocarbon energy use; increased gross domestic product (GDP); and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most likely response projections over time include uncontrolled population growth; limited technology changes; limited changes in types of energy used; critical political decisions not made; extensive political corruption; delays; limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy; evil politicians; and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. No politician has proposed changes to global warming business as usual politics, corruption, and payoffs. Global warming temperature increase concerns have been known by scientists since around 1960s. There are no known formed plans to alter course or impact of life terminating global warming temperature increase. Political global warming responses to date -- nil.

Over the coming next five years, least-cost global warming option is lowering global warming by steadily transforming global human hydrocarbon energy systems to clean nuclear energy; lower human/natural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and then over time lower to zero human GHG emissions. Difficult to reduce are increasing Arctic Region natural methane levels that are ocean current temperature dependent and land surface-air temperature dependent. Arctic Region natural methane/carbon emissions form a reinforced positive feedback loop that is directly proportional to temperature.

Too many world leaders, national politicians, media, and hydrocarbon industries remain committed to continuing hydrocarbon energy dependence. Therefore, not done are necessary planned successful responses to global warming temperature increase that are essential, many, varied, and involve saving lives of more than 9 billion people. No nation has identified a viable organization to respond to countering global warming temperature increase.

Electricity demand is increasing twice as fast as overall energy use and is likely to rise 76% to 2030. Nuclear energy is the only existing and foreseeable technology that has enough molecular energy to convert to clean energy that might alter rate of global warming temperature increase. As always, it is politicians who are responsible for global warming outcome -- politicians just need to act upon best scientific response plans for saving human races.   

U.S. national and global energy policies are in long-term political disarray. Other than U.S. military and intelligence agencies, there is no apparent leadership or organizations that are capable of effectively planning what it takes to alter global warming temperature increase.  

Statements

"To meet U.S. projected demand over the next two decades, America must have in place between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants." "National Energy Policy, Report of National Energy Policy Development Group," May 2001.  

With 2009 "stimulus" monies of more than $90 billion earmarked for renewable energy, President Obama and left Democratic leadership promised funds would be invested in solar, wind, biodiesel, ethanol, and other alternatives to energy approaches. Alternative "green energies" have failed to produce any measurable long-term global warming benefits. Also supported was counterproductive European carbon cap-and-trade systems. President Obama promised that under his carbon cap-and-trade system, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Over 48% of America's electricity comes from coal-powered plants. If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can -- it is just that "clean coal, oil, or natural gas" (ie, carbon capture and storage) implementation bankrupts utility companies.

President Obama's approach to energy makes no sense, he phased out U.S. nuclear energy. Whatever left Democratic energy plans are, those plans are grossly inadequate: “We’re going to have to cap the [carbon] emission of greenhouse gasses. That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power … but a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we’re going to have to change our light bulbs, we’re going to have to shut the lights off in our houses.” --Candidate Barack Obama, 
Iowa PBS interview, November 9, 2007.

Left Democrats' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated large carbon reductions. However, when laws of physics and economics are taken into account there is no possible way to meet EPA requirements.

Multiple global warming misstatements are blanketing internet and government information sites. To make it through elections the misinformation intent is to obfuscate and confuse public's reality of global warming. People want answers as to what is being done to address global warming.      

With turbulent times 1974 formation of U.S. Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) nuclear energy became politically opposed. Since after 1992, everything that could be done has been done by left Democratic leadership, and later by President Obama, to delay, increase energy costs, and disrupt nuclear energy responses necessary to curb global warming temperature increase. "Renewable energy" was to be a solution, but green energy turned out to be special interest driven. Left Democratic systems have been positioning science and engineering as villains to social-program funding while left Democrats and Communists have dismantled U.S. and global ability to respond to global warming. It is science that saves human races.

Left Democratic 1990s to present Energy Activity

Left Democratic renewable energy system has identified nuclear energy as a "non renewable" energy energy source. This is ironic because all energy sources will be around longer than current projected lifespan of human races.

U.S. electricity use in 2010 was more than 13 times greater than electricity use in 1950. Historic growth of U.S. and global electricity has been fueled by use of hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) with more than four decades of stops placed upon nuclear energy expansions. Politicians (and therefore their political support groups) remain active opposing nuclear energy because politicians have been bribed not to support nuclear energy (bribery is a long established part of U.S. political systems). Congress and state politicians have made illegal fortunes supporting hydrocarbon energy over nuclear energy. For that reason and over time, to eliminate competition, hydrocarbon energy politicians increased costs of nuclear energy and introduced obstructing stops to nuclear energy implementation. Finally, left Democratic leadership phased out U.S. nuclear energy with President Obama's 2009 symbolic final chapter of phasing out U.S. nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository. President Obama further reorganized and dismantled U.S. government nuclear energy departments (ie, Obama spiked his nuclear football).      

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members remain instruments of politicians. Termination of U.S. nuclear energy began when Congress formed the NRC under Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Act was a result of political self serving opportunities represented by anti Vietnam War protests and anti nuclear protests). Prior to political takeover of NRC, former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued permits for construction of almost all U.S. nuclear facilities now in existence. NRC members have always been representatives for antinuclear and pro hydrocarbon corrupt political self interested movements. It is through NRC member activity that left Democratic political systems finally completed shutdown of global clean nuclear energy to make room for "renewable energy" waste, fraud, and corruption promotion of wind, solar, ethanol, and carbon cap-and-trade. Congress first legislated U.S. "green energy" push with Energy Policy Act (EPAct 1992) and later Acts.

By late 1990s, special interest politics took over structure of global warming technological reporting. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports post 2001 improperly ignored methane as a important global warming gas and sliced-diced reports to add confusion and non viable options that obfuscated understanding global warming. IPCC documents now need revisions to present projected reality. There are only two case studies: greenhouse gas emissions "business as usual" and the case with changes to save human races.           

By 2003, increased political promotion of waste, fraud, corruption (while promoting wind, solar, green energy, ethanol, and carbon cap-and-trade) became the global warming response of left Democratic systems. President Obama spearheaded alternatives to energy and shutdown nuclear energy because it was popular.

STOP GLOBAL WARMING  

A perplexing issue with global warming is communicating the seriousness of global temperature increase. At current rate of hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) energy infrastructure buildup, Earth's 'global carbon budget' is exceeded about 2017. Critical 450 ppm carbon dioxide level is exceeded 2030-2040 (events happen very quickly after exceeding 450 ppm CO2 level).

Very large stores of Arctic Region ocean methane clathrate deposits have become unstable due to global temperature increases. Very large amounts of very powerful global warming methane is released. Climate scientists have identified that more methane clathrates in permafrost regions will be released as a result of global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces, which cause runaway temperature increase climate change that cannot be controlled. East Siberian Arctic Shelf and other Arctic Ocean region research carried out in 2008 has shown many-many tonnes of powerful global warming methane being released with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal.

At 2010, greenhouse gas increased above natural pre industrial global warming concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased ~39% and powerful warming methane (CH4) concentration is increased ~164%. Rise of accumulated greenhouse gas 'global warming potential' is exponential.   

At historical trends of global warming greenhouse gas increase, human races termination from global warming is 2050-2099, but most likely termination is 2050-2055. Resulting from natural Arctic Region methane release and 250-years of human hydrocarbon emissions, expected remaining human races life span is zero-years to forty-years.    

To save all human races, combined 'global warming potentials' of human and natural greenhouse gas emissions must peak prior to 2020. The only way to peak global warming temperatures is peak global warming greenhouse gases. The only clean energy source having capacity to decrease human greenhouse gases is nuclear energy.  

Why it remains so hard to communicate this urgent life saving message to politicians and media is perplexing. Rather than accept solutions to global warming, President Obama attacks U.S. military budget and global intelligence agencies for political election reasons.

US DOD Global Warming Planning

U.S. national energy policies and global energy policies are in long-term political disarray and unable to meet needs of curbing global warming temperature increase. For now, other than U.S. military and intelligence agencies, there is no apparent leadership or organization existing, who are capable of planning what it takes to timely alter the rate of global warming. Existing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) membership is to be replaced by four senior military nuclear specialists and one presidential appointee. Revised scope of revised NRC membership is to include supervisions of U.S. 'Nuclear Fuel Cycle' and rapid expansion of U.S. nuclear energy. Global and U.S. plans for global warming reduction are to be produced by U.S. military and intelligence agencies with U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Natural and human greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and decline thereafter.