Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Climate change threatens national security -report

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:10 PM
Original message
Climate change threatens national security -report
Source: Reuters

Climate change could end globalization by 2040 as nations look inward to conserve scarce resources and conflicts flare when refugees flee rising seas and drought, national security experts warned on Monday.

SNIP

"Some of the consequences could essentially involve the end of globalization as we have known it ... as different parts of the Earth contract upon themselves in order to try to conserve what they need to survive," said Fuerth, who was national security adviser to former Vice President Al Gore.

Rich countries could "go through a 30-year process of kicking people away from the lifeboat" as the world's poorest face the worst environmental consequences, which he said would be "extremely debilitating in moral terms."

SNIP

We predict a scenario in which people and nations are threatened by massive food and water shortages, devastating natural disasters and deadly disease outbreaks," said John Podesta, President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff and now president of the Center for American Progress think tank.



Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKN05284709._CH_.242020071105
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ending globalization isn't such a bad thing, IMHO.
I eagerly await the end of major multinational corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Worldwide famine, violent overthrow of governments, anarchy in the streets...
At best. I don't think your opinion on this is relevant to the crisis at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Well excuuuuuse me. I was under the mistaken impression that
expressing our opinions on threads was what DU was about.

Since the post indicated that globalization would be in jeopardy, how is my opinion of exactly that "not relevant"? Your post is the equivalent of telling me to shut the fuck up. I believe I'll decline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Chuckle. I started laughing when I saw that post...
... proclaiming authority for acceptable thoughtspeech.

I agree with your focused point that an end to rampant globalization would not be a bad thing. (And acknowledge that you were not giving a thumbs-up to the genocide of those most adversely affected by climate change. Not a difficult message to grasp, nor distinct concepts to maintain.)

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hot breaking news from the "No Shit?!?" file
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Retired US Generals on Global Warming
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. People have been kicking people away from "lifeboat America" ever since the first fence went up.
They just want to wait until they and theirs get there first. Then CLOSE THE BORDERS.

The only difference NOW is that the top half of the middle class is being bothered. And Little Brittany may have to sacrifice and share!!


They really have no IDEA what MAY COME, WHAT MOST LIKLY WILL COME. It will hit like a TON of BRICKS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ideagarden Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. but we play a part...
Instead of all the crazy forecasts, and Gore is next to god tripe, why don't people do something. We can fix the world if indeed its f'ed.
1) Plant more tree = less CO2, cleaner air, more shade

2) stop burning stuff period, go solar, wind, tidal, nuclear

3) Go back to science and figure out what is really happening compared to what might be forecast to happen if the numerous unrealistic model guess what might happen. I stress this as a key point.

4) Seriously look at the #1 major wasted agricultural crop: You'd never guess: your shiny, green front lawn. Stop watering it! Let rain work its magic, go to the parks for grass that we can all share.

5) Definitely don't use food to make fuel. Madness!!! That might cause food wars since the price of corn and wheat are skyrocketing now because of this.

6) Public transportation is crucial. Live were you work. Stop wasting gas.

The rest is madness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Unfortunately some of us can't afford to "live where we work".
Not everyone can live in the city.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Pentagon issued a secret notice to Bush years ago . . .
advising him that GW was more of a threat to us than "terrorism."

Bush knows it, of coursed -- so does Cheney ---
they're pulling in whatever they can get and keeping it covered-up --
they don't want the change it would require ---
particularly OIL INDUSTRY ---

that is probably also why the rush for pipelines for OIL ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. As Richard Heinberg put it, the question isn't whether we'll move away from oil, but how.
This whole article is a fantastic read:

Big melt meets big empty: Rethinking the implications of climate change and peak oil

by Richard Heinberg

snip

This year, Arctic ice reached a minimum extent of 4.13 million square kilometers, compared to the previous record low of 5.32 million square kilometers in 2005. This represented a decline of 22 per cent in just two years; the difference amounted to an expanse of ice roughly the size of Texas and California combined. Between 1979 and 2005, the rate of Arctic ice retreat had averaged 7 percent per decade; in the two years from September 2005 to September 2007 that rate increased to more than 20 percent. Moreover, the average thickness of the ice has declined by about half since 2001. Altogether, taking into account both geographic extent and thickness, summer Arctic sea ice has lost more than 80 per cent of its volume in four decades. While sea levels will not be directly affected by the total melting of the northern icecap since it floats on and thus displaces ocean water, that event will severely destabilize Greenland's ice pack - whose disappearance would cause sea levels to rise by several meters, inundating coastal cities home to hundreds of millions.

The organization Carbon Equity issued a report last month, "The Big Melt: Lessons from the Arctic Summer of 2007" (www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/Arctic.pdf), which draws conclusions from this disturbing new information:

The data surveyed suggests strongly that in many key areas the IPCC process has been so deficient as to be an unreliable and indeed a misleading basis for policy-making. . . . Take just one example: the most fundamental and widely supported tenet - that 2°C represents a reasonable maximum target if we are to avoid dangerous climate change - can no longer be defended. Today at less than a 1°C rise the Arctic sea ice is headed for very rapid disintegration, in all likelihood triggering the irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet and catastrophic sea level increases. Many species are on the precipice, climatechange- induced drought or changing monsoon patterns are sweeping every continent, the carbon sinks are losing capacity and the seas are acidifying. . . . The Arctic began to lose volume at least 20 years ago when the global temperature was about 0.5°C over the pre-industrial level. So we can now see that to protect the Arctic the average global temperature rise should be under 0.5°C.

According to the report, if this suggested 0.5°C precautionary warming cap were adopted, the target for allowable concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases would have to be about 320 ppm CO2 equivalents, a level that was passed more than 50 years ago.

more...

http://www.energybulletin.net/36739.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, whereismyparty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. Tucker got serious today--said time to built a higher fence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC