Because wars and stuff never happened before fossil fueled vehicles, coal heating, and you eating a delicious burger
Climate change could be a ‘catastrophic’ national security threat, report warns
Climate change could turn into a “catastrophic” threat to national and global security in the coming decades, warns a new report released Monday.
“Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades,” the report states. “Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.”
The report, titled “A Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change: How Likely Warming Scenarios Indicate a Catastrophic Security Future” was released Monday by the Center for Climate and Security, a non-partisan security policy institute.
Non-partisan. Right.
The report identifies major threats, including heightened social and political instability and risks to U.S. military missions and infrastructure, as well as security institutions across all regions of the world.
Remember all the world wars when CO2 was below the safe level of 350ppm?
So far, the globe has warmed about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since pre-industrial times, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
In North America, under a low-warming scenario (1.8 to 3.6 degrees by 2050), the region “will experience more intense, extreme events like storms and wildfires, with significant impacts on life, property, security infrastructure and democratic institutions,” the report said.
So, “about 2F” since 1850 (actually closer to 1.5), and they’re prognosticating double that in 30 years, as a low-warming scenario? Wouldn’t it be fun to have a time machine to jump ahead and see how badly the Warmist prognostications failed?
“Our panel’s analysis shows that no region of the world will be left unaffected, and climate impacts will interact in dangerous ways in even near-term, lower levels of warming,” Goodman said.
Climatic changes have always created issues and benefits. No reason to assign witchcraft, ie, fossil fuels, to it.
In addition to phasing out fossil fuels, the report said “the world must also ‘climate-proof’ environments, infrastructure, institutions and systems on which human security depends.” And in the U.S., “we call for renewed efforts to prioritize, communicate and respond to climate security threats.”
Perhaps all the retired military folks, who primarily vote Democrat, on the board of this organization can explain exactly how our military is supposed to operate without fossil fuels. Same with the Coast Guard, police, fire, ambulances, hospitals, rescue personnel, etc. And have the people on the board given up their own use of fossil fuels?
