Climate-Related Security Predictions Coming True in Pakistan

[depakid]

Analysts have been warning for several years that the impacts of climate change directly relate to the national security of the U.S. and other countries, but the link has never been so clear as it is today in northwest Pakistan. The security implications of climate change first got official U.S. government attention this February, in the Quadrennial Defence Review, a four-yearly report from the Pentagon on the direction of national security strategy.

Noting rising sea levels, water shortages, melting Arctic ice, and extreme weather events, the review said that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."

These implications had been discussed by other experts much earlier. Most notable was a 2007 report from the think tank Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which found that, when compared to other national security challenge, climate change "may represent a great or a greater" test. Their conclusions, however, were based on scenarios and exercises.

In Pakistan, where unprecedented floods have killed 1,500 people and displaced millions more, those scenarios are now reality. When floods swept through the country in late July, they pushed some desperate refugees right into the arms of militant groups in the northern regions of the country, where government aid was too slow or too little.

The same phenomena occurred in the wake of the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, leading to greater legitimacy for militant groups. This might happen again, with implications for not only Karachi but the security interests of every country with interests in the region. This displacement of people and stress on government resources and legitimacy was predicted in earlier models of climate change-induced emergencies.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/27

[WingDinger]

1. A study found that our nukes role in the coming decade would be for turning back

those dissplaced by climate change. By force.

[bananas]

2. Which study was that?

[WingDinger]

7. Shortly after the S UNION fell.

[Iterate]

9. Look, this is a pretty serious allegation,

and if you have a link or more detailed information, then share it. Or alternately, if you are misunderstanding something, the people here can (politely I hope) help you clear it up. There are plenty of real hair-brained ideas to knock down and no need for you to spend time chasing ones of the phantom kind.

[The Croquist]

3. I'm not surprised

When someone predicts that anything and everything bad that will ever happen is because of something, gullible people will jump on it as "proof"! Your statement and the article presupposes that the flooding in Pakistan was caused by "climate change" but that is a link that can never be proven. It isn't until the 14th paragraph that the article mentions:

Whether these outcomes can ultimately be attributed to climate change is still a matter of some - though increasingly less - debate.

Exactly what does increasingly less - debate. mean? What has changed so that we can be more confident that anything and everything bad that ever happens can be blamed on "climate change"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Pakistan

Wikipedia has a list 20 natural disasters that have hit Pakistan not updated to include the current one. 11 of them are floods. They don't list deaths for all of them but in 1977 over ten thousand died. Were all of them caused by "climate change" or is this one special? Is it possible that floods just happen sometimes?

Was the 1887 flood in China that killed between 900,000 & 2,000,000 people caused by "climate change"?

Some how everything bad that happens these days is assumed to be caused by "climate change".

[NickB79]

6. "in 1977 over ten thousand died"

How much of the country was underwater at the time? Was it more than the current 20%, or less? All media coverage of the Pakistani floods state that this level of flooding is unprecedented in the region's history.

Arguing the size of a disaster based only on overall deaths is faulty logic, because disasters can be MUCH larger today yet have far fewer deaths due to improved medical and transportation technology. That doesn't diminish the SCALE of the disaster, though.

[The Croquist]

8. Somehow I think that if the death total would have been higher that would be the criteria that was

important but no I don't know how much of Pakistan was flooded in 1977. Probably not nearly 20% since only about a million people were "affected".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_in_Pakistan

In 1976 however, although they don't mention deaths, they do claim that 5,566,000 were "affected". In 1992 they claim that 1,334 died and that 12,324,024 were "affected". Keep in mind also that since 1976 the population of Pakistan has grown significantly. The chart located here:

'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakistan-demography.png

shows the 1976 population at about 71 million. The CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html

estimates their 2010 population at about 175 million people. It might not be too surprising to expect that if the population grows by 246% that some people might just migrate to less desirable and less safe land.

But the bottom line is that Pakistan floods allot. In the short history of the nation 1947 to present (63 years) they have suffered 12 major floods. All of a sudden we are supposed to assume that this flood was caused by "climate change"? Face it, in the short existence of this country they have averaged a major flood about every 5 years (63/12 = 5.25). This is the first major flood since 1998. One could just as well argue that "climate change" has lessened flooding in Pakistan.

This is what I argue:

We don't know what caused the flood and to blame it on "climate change" is irresponsible as is calling this flood "unprecedented in the region's history".

[MountainLaurel]

4. Interesting push me-pull you

With the jet stream moving south, leaving Russia without the rains it normally receives and sending rains to Pakistan.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Has an actual connection been made

in this instance between climate change and the jet stream slowing down ? Its slowing of the jetstream which has cause these particular issues in both Pakistan and Russia.