Why, Yes, We Must Cut Our Defense Budget For Globull Warming

From our buddies at Treehugger

Okay, so I just finished writing about how it turns out China leapfrogged us last year to become the world leader in installed wind power. I also derided the media (myself included) for harping on the “China’s going to eat our lunch” narrative until we’re blue in the face. But I’m going to do it all over again — because I was just reminded of this: China spends 1/6th the amount the United States does on its military, and spends twice what the US does on funding clean energy. Now, which nation appears to have its budget priorities in order?

China doesn’t have to play the world’s policeman, er, sorry, not-PC, police person. China also doesn’t have to pay private companies as much for military hardware, nor its soldiers as much. But, hey, good thing wind turbines don’t tend to freeze when its cold and provide no power. Anyhow, the obvious answer in Liberal World?

Can America ever catch up? Yes, says Washington research fellow Miriam Pemberton. But it means taking a $100 billion-dollar bite out of the defense budget annually.

Of course! It’s so easy! Yes, we can actually lop of some of the cost of the military by doing away with waste and refusing to pay contractors for cost over runs. They bid on a contract, they should have to abide by the contract. But, really, using the threat of competition from Red China over “green energy” is a competition that only exists in the minds of the alarmists, some of which block the use of green energy.

But Pemberton, who researches demilitarization issues for the Institute for Policy Studies’ Foreign Policy in Focus project, says Congress is missing the big picture.

IPS? Hmmmmm. “America’s oldest leftwing think tank” that “Has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world.”Well, there ya go.

Endowing those agencies with more cash to shrink carbon footprints, launch green jobs and advance clean technologies could mitigate the chaos of severe floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels that climate scientists are predicting and witnessing. That could lessen the U.S. military’s concerns about having to tamp down unrest caused by climatic events worldwide.

There are times I almost wish we would implement all these idiotic proposals to attempt to stop Mother Nature, just to watch them fail miserably. The talking points spin would be epic, and would probably include something about waiting to long and Bush not signing the Kyoto Protocol.

The story keeps going on, and on, and on, but, makes me think: if green energy is so super duper fabulous, why would we need the government to spend money on it? You’d think the private sector would jump in with both feet to make money…..huh? It’s expensive and there is little return on investment? Ah.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Why, Yes, We Must Cut Our Defense Budget For Globull Warming”

  1. Kevin says:

    I’ve often wondered what the US would be like in two distinct different realities.

    Reality #1: The liberals get everything they want.
    Reality #2: The conservatives get everything they want.

    Both realities would be frightening. Gridlock is the way our system was designed to work. In a perfect world, the only laws that will get passed are ones that two groups at odds can agree with. If you can pass something through the House and the Senate then theoretically, it is something that needs to be passed. I think the reality of the situation is far less admirable though. Money, bribes, and favors play too much of a role.

  2. John Ryan says:

    China’s solar business is booming they believe that solar cost will be the same as coal within 5 years. Solar watt cost has been dropping about 20% per year. In 2009 China invested more in green energy than the USA for the firt time. They invested 34.6 billion mostly in wind farms, the USA spent only 18 billion. China believes in green power as does israel.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    China’s solar business is booming they believe that solar cost will be the same as coal within 5 years.

    Then explain why China is importing 78% more coal this year, and expected to increase coal imports through the year 2035.

    Is it your contention that China is looking for the most expensive way of producing power?

    Solar watt cost has been dropping about 20% per year.

    Sorry. No.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152130.htm

    They invested 34.6 billion mostly in wind farms, the USA spent only 18 billion.

    Let’s see how that plays out, shall we?

    China population: 1,341,730,000
    US population: 311,811,000

    According to your own stats, this means spending per capita is:

    China: $25.79 per capita.
    US: $57.73 per capita.

    Of course, the Chinese don’t have to do anything like impact statements, or deal with lawsuits. So the actual spending on solar in the US per capita is even higher.

  4. […] Why, Yes, We Must Cut Our Defense Budget For Globull Warming But Pemberton, who researches demilitarization issues for the Institute for Policy Studies’ Foreign Policy in Focus project, says Congress is missing the big picture. […]

  5. captainfish says:

    China can also AFFORD to go green because they have all the rare-earth minerals. It is cheap for them to dig, process and they are already building the “green” products.

    US?? We have outlawed all mining for rare-earth minerals. We have nearly stopped all other mining. We have driven out almost all businesses with high taxes.

    But, like Kevin, let’s do a thought experiment:
    A) If I have $100 and I spend 10% on Green, how much am I spending? $10. not much. People will whine and complain that I need to spend more.

    B) If I have $1,000 and I spend 10%, how much am I spending on green? $100. Yet, the percentages are the same.

    Please tell me how China’s incoming tax dollars compare to ours?

    Now, this douche wants us to take $100 billion from our military, which is already facing budget cuts despite fighting a war on terror, and GIVE it to green energy producers and researchers. All this to end global warming??

    Creating jobs and reducing a carbon footprint only by giving money to china to not cut down trees, will end drought and rising seas?

    What militaristic concerns are there over Global Warming affects? Unrest? Why? Worldwide?

    So, this schmuck wants us to reduce our military to nothing, while everyone else increases their military, in order to prevent GLOBAL catastrophic effects upon food and land, and then expect America to contain the advancing tyrannical militaries?

  6. Trish says:

    Yes, and then there is this:

    http://www.telegram.com/article/20110114/NEWS/101140455/1020

    We will never compete with China, and they will continue to use coal while we are being told to go solar. So I say drill baby. I want my oil!

Bad Behavior has blocked 10941 access attempts in the last 7 days.