Should global warming mitigation come out of the Defense budget?

Question

The Pentagon says that the threats posed by global warming are far more dangerous than the threat of terrorism:

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_1557.asp?t=t

"Pentagon officials warn that abrupt climate change over the next 20 years could throw the world into a state of anarchy -- dwarfing the current threat of terrorism. In this doomsday scenario, large-scale droughts, famine brought on by food shortages and reduced energy supplies could cause riots around the globe that could culminate in nuclear warfare."

The U.S. military budget is detailed here:

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Since global warming our largest security issue facing the military, shouldn't the Pentagon shift their priorities to manage their risks? Shouldn't the $120 billion annual cost to implement the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act come out of the existing $1,449 billion that we spend on defense?

Answer 1

and you guys claim there is no POLITICAL motivation behind AGW ! ..... Thank God the AGW believers are so good at exposing themselves as the BS they are!

Answer 2

Using Hillary Clinton logic, it should come from the windfall profits of the carbon credit companies.  Good thing for them I'm not a socialist in power...

Answer 3

I work as a land steward at a nature center and open space preserve.  About 5 years ago I targeted Castor bean for removal there, since the stands were accessible and limited in size.  Much of the work was done manually by volunteers.

Castor bean seeds can be used to produce Ricin, but in my area this invasive plant proliferates.  Some of us have wondered why the government doesn't provide grants to facilitate it's removal, given the potential for this species to cause serious harm to so many.

There are plants in our area that have more serious impacts to biodiversity, but I targeted this one not just because it's invasive but because it is poisonous and because of the terrorist threat.  Yet I know that since it is common in surrounding lands I've done little to reduce the threat.  I do, however, derive some comfort from knowing that if an attack were to occur using Castor bean/Ricin, that our lands would not be the source.

Providing funds in the defense budget to address impacts to biodiversity would go a long way to ensuring that humans and wildlife alike would have a viable future to enjoy.

Answer 4

That would be dangerous and idiotic.  The left loves to feel relevant.  It won't fight real threats such as Islamic fundamentalism but it sets up fake threats to make it feel tough.  The left would love to gut the pentagon.  Defense is one of the few things that the federal government has an obligation in the Constitution to conduct.  The left could slay two conservative dragons with this nonsense.  They could reduce the defense of the country, which they hate, and could provide funds for their cause which will make them feel like they are accomplishing something.  They wouldn't be.  They would be making the world a more dangerous place.  The left thinks America is the danger.  It is the ignorance of the left and their policies that put us in greater danger.

edit:  When the cold war was over, there was a "peace dividend."  Every time a war ends, there is always a foolish group that think that all wars are over for ever and the politicians rush to take the money from defense for their pet projects.   There is no way of knowing how much money was saved.  Defense is best if not used.  If our military wasn't as powerful as it was, it is doubtful that many of our allies, such as former West Germany, would remain free.  The costs of defense must not be weighed without the benefits, just as the potential negative consequences of global warming  must be weighed with the benefits.

Answer 5

Yea, how bout we just hand over our country to China or maybe Iran or North Korea.  That makes total sense.  Let's ignore real threats for a convoluted fantasy threat.  How about we just leave it to Spiderman and Superman to solve, since it is more along their line of work anyway and about as realistic.

That is why Bush got elected twice because liberals speak with such lunacy that all the rest of the world needs to do for liberals to be defeated in anything is to simply let them speak.

I basically reiterated what Jim Z said but it is the absolute truth and the entire world knows it.  Who do you think terrorists were appealing to when they beheaded all those people?  That's right, liberals are the reason more people die because they think and know that it has an impact because the bleeding heart liberals want to give up and run from EVERYTHING!  They can't lead a country, they need to take a freakin poll every single time to make even the simplest of decisions!

Answer 6

while i'm on your side, your first link was from 2004.

at least that's the date i saw.

and i'm sure that whoever was foolish enough to publish it, is no longer employed by the bush government.

as for "come out of the military budget", it would be my suspicion that the military would want to direct how that money was spent.  are you really sure you want the military to dictate our country's efforts in the global warming arena?

there is also, the "before bush vs after bush" question.

it's just not worth pursuing today, i suspect.

Answer 7

Well considering that the consequences of global climate change could very well create future international conflicts, that the Pentagon is concerned about it, and that our military budget is absolutely massive, that makes sense to me.