or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Climate Change Will Destroy Us ??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climate Change Will Destroy Us ??

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Can this happen???


Secret Report Warns of Rioting and Nuclear War; Threat to the World is Greater than Terrorism

by Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defense is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defense The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defense's push on ballistic-missile defense

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received skeptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.
post #2 of 13
Just a thought, I've always thought of the earth as a living organism, to which we are the size of a bacteria. Now, almost all non-microscopic living organisms live in a symbiotic relationship with bacteria (like the e-coli in our intestine that helps us digest our food), however when the ratio is thrown out of balance, one of two things happen. A: The body triggers an immune response system that kills off the excess bacteria and restores the balance, or B: The body tries to fight off the bacteria, loses and dies.

Just my $.02

post #3 of 13
Originally posted by Momofmany
Can this happen???


Absolutely, Amy. Another heritage of the Bush administration. The U. S. is standing almost alone due to its rejection of Kyoto, other than for those it dragged along with it through the use of its economic power. Opinions of respected scientists are rejected -- the military-industrial complex is alive and well. It is almost impossible to see where the Department of Defense ends and Hilliburton/KBR begins.

We pray we take our country back from the industrial, most particularly, energy, interests in the coming election. Like so many of you, I am a mother and a grandmother. My grandchildren, their children, and their children's children have a right to live on the same glorious planet we all have been priviliged to live on.

You are so right to express your concern. Do it here and elsewhere until your voice is hoarse and your fingertips are sore from your keyboard.


Ann, on the beach with Jim, Miss Kitty and, soon, Samwise
post #4 of 13
I find the "key findings" summarized in that article particularly disturbing, because they are so concrete, and we're already seeing these developments in many places:
Key findings of the Pentagon Report
· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honor.
· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands inhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet's population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

· A 'significant drop' in the planet's ability to sustain its present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.

· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become 'virtual fortresses' to prevent millions of migrants from entering after being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.

· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance' as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.

· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

· Mega-droughts affect the world's major breadbaskets, including America's Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.

· China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.
post #5 of 13
My sister has worked for the EPA for many years. She talks about how the results of their environmental studies are manipulated by the politicians so that they support what the politicians want congress and the public to believe. It is disheartening to know that we really do have proof of the negative effects of global warming, air pollution, mercury, etc yet the decisions made don't reflect this knowledge. Instead decisions are made based on manipulated data and lies.
post #6 of 13
This is from an e-mail I got today from moveon.org

Under energy industry pressure, President Bush’s EPA plans to defer controls on mercury emissions by power plants for at least a decade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 4.9 million women of childbearing age in the U.S. -- that's 8 percent -- have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. The people hit hardest will be new-born infants -- every year over 630,000 infants are born with levels of mercury in their blood so high they can cause brain damage.

From a public health standpoint, the EPA's new policy is a disaster. But for Bush's energy industry allies, who are responsible for most mercury pollution, it's yet another bonanza. Increased pollution levels will allow these companies to save millions, while their top managers keep writing big campaign checks to support George W. Bush -- it's a pretty sick cycle.

On January 30th, the EPA announced its intention to weaken its own earlier proposal that would have required a 90 percent reduction in mercury pollution by power plants by 2008. The new proposal doesn't force every power plant to limit mercury pollution, leaving many communities vulnerable. It would also delay implementation of even these weaker requirements until 2018, leaving a whole new generation of kids needlessly at risk.

The first responsibility of the Bush administration and the EPA is to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Time and again, we've seen the Bush administration try to weaken environmental protections, starting with its proposal to roll back stricter limits on arsenic in our drinking water. We must boost the visibility of the mercury issue so that, as with arsenic, the Bush administration is shamed into adopting a more rigorous standard.
post #7 of 13
We can all play a part in protecting the environment.

I do not foresee myself as the type to actively set up an organisation and lobby to protect the environment, nor am I an inventor working on pollution reduction technology or more fuel efficient vehicles.

What I do is to make a decision not to drive. Not to get the driving licence at all so as not to be tempted. And take public transportation instead. Got a lot of flack from my parents when I was growing up. They were asking me why I was not learning to drive and also tried to 'bribe' me by saying they would get me a car just like my brother. Even now, when I tell people I do not drive because of the environment the first response is always laughter then them stating that one person not driving is not going to make an impact. Of course such people are the same people who do support protecting the environment. So go figure huh?

Well, the point I am making is that while cutting industrial pollution may reduce pollution quite a bit, people working in concert, each sacrificing a bit, together can make a difference.

The question I am going to ask is what is your contribution that you can make?
post #8 of 13
It's happenning as we speak to Tuvulu, a small island in the Pacific off the coast of New Zealand. One island has already disappeared. That was in 1997!

Tuvulu - Damage done so far
post #9 of 13
Originally posted by Sang72
Just a thought, I've always thought of the earth as a living organism, to which we are the size of a bacteria. Now, almost all non-microscopic living organisms live in a symbiotic relationship with bacteria (like the e-coli in our intestine that helps us digest our food), however when the ratio is thrown out of balance, one of two things happen. A: The body triggers an immune response system that kills off the excess bacteria and restores the balance, or B: The body tries to fight off the bacteria, loses and dies.

Very well put!!!
post #10 of 13
Originally posted by thy451
The question I am going to ask is what is your contribution that you can make?
I drive a Toyota Prius...a hybrid. It is a super-ultra low emissions car. I also refuse to buy overly-packaged products, and recycle everything that is recyclable in my community.
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
What do I do to help?

I try to buy products produced locally. There is a lot of environmental overhead associated with packaging and shipping products long distance. For example, I will go to the local farmer markets to buy produce. I will go to craft fairs to buy candles and soap (no national chain products). In my grocery store, I look for local food such as spices, honey, bread. If in doubt, don't buy a national brand, and look at where a product is produced before you buy it.

I also have started working from home anywhere from 2-5 days a week (depending on what my schedule allows) to avoid using my car. I would love to get to a point where I could bicycle to work, but right now live 35 miles from the office.

Just about everything we use is recycled one way or the other. We don't buy garbage bags, we reuse grocery bags or cat/dog food bags. We avoid purchasing products whose packaging can't be recycled. Recycling to me isn't just putting it into a bin that goes to a recycling center. Recycling to me calls for an additional use or 2 within your life before it goes to the center.

My husband and I donate a tremendous amount of money to environmental groups each year. We study the issues, write letters to government officials, and vote for candidates that support the environment.

And when you do your daily click, don't forget to click on the environmental sites. In the grand scheme of things, those sites are probably more important that clicking on the animal rescue sites. Rescuing animals into a world that is destined for environment ruin isn't going to help them much.
post #12 of 13
Originally posted by thy451
The question I am going to ask is what is your contribution that you can make?
I've had a driver's license for 30 years, but I only use the car when it is absolutely necessary, i.e., for vet visits. I take public transportation to work, and walk to the store, bank, doctor's, etc., locally. My husband rides his bike to work, and drives the car at most once a week to do the "heavy" grocery shopping. Any beverages we buy, including milk, are in returnable bottles, and all paper products are made of recycled paper. We buy only personal hygiene articles (shampoo, conditioner, liquid soap) that are refillable. Ditto liquid laundry detergent. I clean with steam, no chemicals. We recharge batteries for remote controls, etc., and don't use stand-by. The heat is on in the kitchen and bathroom during the day (55 F), and in the living room in the evening (50 F - we wear heavy sweaters or fleece). The other rooms aren't heated. We don't use air conditioning. Is it enough? Certainly not, but we'd like to think we're at least cutting down on the pollution we personally cause. Now, if I could only get JC to stop insisting on his Whiskas cat milk in the little plastic bottles....
post #13 of 13
I notice that at least with regards to writing paper, the products over here in North America is not as environmentally friendly. In Asia they have this particular brand of paper which is quite popular and it is not just recycled paper but that chlorine acid is not used as part of the production process hence there is no waste water produced. Maybe it is just this particular place but I cannot seem to find that product over here.

Sometimes it is a bit hard to stay environmentally friendly as I get tempted to just take a taxi-cab instead. Which is why I know if I ever get a licence I would be just so tempted to drive everyday. Of course it does not help that many people expect to be picked up if you ask them out, sigh.

By the way have you heard of the no-detergent washing machine? It operates through ultrasonic waves. Although heavy dirt and mud still require soap. The thing is that the soap industry is launching a campaign against them.
Not too sure if such products are available in the US yet.

Another question I have for some of you folks who but local rather than national chain products. I was wondering why do you think that local producers are more environmentally friendly than large producers. While large producers produce more pollution in terms of sheer amount but in terms of pollution per production I am not too sure. In other words, if the small producers used their method of production and produced as much as the large producers, would they generate less, as much or more pollution? At least in theory, larger producers have greater resources and ability to reap economies of scale and produce more efficiently and thus have the ability to introduce green measures. Even if it is merely for public relations and attract the environmental dollar. I think often we forget to focus on the pollution per production unit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Climate Change Will Destroy Us ??