Global Warming a "Serious military threat"

Global warming may lead to war 16/04/2007 11:23 - (SA)

Washington - Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" with terrorism worsening and the US will likely be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report. Joining calls already made by scientists and environmental activists, the retired US military leaders, including the former Army chief of staff and President George W Bush's former chief Middle East peace negotiator, called on the US government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming. The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicted. "Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former US Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are." Gen Anthony "Tony" Zinni, Bush's former Middle East envoy, said in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism." The report was issued by the Alexandria, Virginia-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They warned of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make already dicey areas - such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa - even worse. 'Must become a more constructive partner' "Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the report said. "The US will be drawn more frequently into these situations." In a veiled reference to Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the report said the US government "must become a more constructive partner" with other nations to fight global warming and cope with its consequences. The Bush administration has declined mandatory emission cuts in favour of voluntary methods. Other nations have committed to required reductions that kick in within a few years. "We will pay for this one way or another," wrote Zinni, former commander of US Central Command. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll." Top climate scientists said the report makes sense and increased national security risk is a legitimate global warming side-effect. The report is "pretty impressive", but may be too alarmist because it may take longer than 30 years for some of these things to happen, said Stanford scientist Terry Root, a co-author of this month's international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth. But the instability will happen sometime, Root agreed. "We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

U.S. ENVIRONMENTALISTS KNOCK ONE OUT OF THE PARK

Supreme Court rules global warming exists, and EPA should protect states from it

In what may be a landmark environmental decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the EPA has the legal mandate to regulate the gases that contribute to global warming.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Tuesday , 03 Apr 2007

RENO, NV -

Although the U.S. Congress can't pass the legislation to regulate it, and the Bush Administration refuses to admit it exists, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that global warming is real, and that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lost valuable shoreline because of its effects.

The issue was, pardon the pun, so hot, that it required one majority and two dissenting opinions to explain it. Remember this particular case citation: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (549 U.S. 2007). Americans will be reading, interpreting and citing this one for years.

It began as a simple question. Did the federal court of appeals have jurisdiction to weigh in on the fight between Massachusetts and the Environmental Protection Agency as to if EPA is legally mandated to regulate global warming? You betcha, answered Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.

"A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Stevens declared to a nation that refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. "Calling global warming ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time, a group of States, local governments and private organizations, alleged in a petition for certiorari that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide."

"Specifically, the petitions asked us to answer two questions concerning the meaning of §202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statutes," Stevens said.

"In response, EPA supported by 10 intervening States and six trade associations, correctly argued that we may not address those two questions unless at least one petitioner has standing to invoke our jurisdiction under Article II of the Constitution." The high court ruled it definitely did have jurisdiction, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In its arguments, the EPA claimed that, contrary to the opinion of its former general counsels, "the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to address global climate change...and that even if the agency had the authority to set up greenhouse gas emission standards, it would be unwise to do so at this time."

Massachusetts argued that Congress ordered the EPA to protect Massachusetts when Congress enacted regulations applicable to controlling emissions of air pollutant from new motor vehicle engines.

The state asserted that the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts. The state contended that even more environmental damage in yet to come because the EPA refuses to regulate emissions contributing to global warming. As the Supreme Court concluded, "At a minimum, therefore, EPA's refusal to regulate such emissions contributes to Massachusetts' injuries."

MINORITY OPINIONS

Chief Justice John Roberts conceded in his dissension that global warming may "ultimately affect nearly everyone on the planet in some potentially adverse way, and it may be that governments have done too little to address it. It is not a problem, however, that has escaped the attention of policymakers in the Executive and Legislature Branches of our government, who continue to consider regulatory, legislative, and treated-based means of addressing global climate change."

Roberts noted that the petitioners apparently came to the courts claiming broad injury because they really are dissatisfied with the progress of the issue in the elected branches. Nevertheless, he specified, "aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in the petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20^th century global sea level increases. It is pure conjecture."

He scolded his fellow justices, accusing them of ignoring "the complexities of global warming, and does so by now...using the dire nature of global warming itself as a bootstrap for finding causation and redressability."

"In other words, do not worry that other countries will contribute far more to global warming than will U.S. automobile emissions; someone is bound to invent something, and places like the People's Republic of China or India will surely require use of the new technology, regardless of cost," Roberts declared with more than a hit of sarcasm.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Anton Scalia adamantly declared that he holds "that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case because petitioners lack standing."

"The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation," Scalia asserted, adding "This is a straight-forward administrative-law case."

"No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency," he concluded.

REACTION

Environmentalists called the decision a big victory for the plant and a "stunning rebuke to the Bush Administration."

EPA Press Secretary Jennifer Woods told the Christian Science Monitor that the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its next course of action.

The trade newspaper Argus Air Daily suggested that the decision "has far wider implications for the broader energy economy and upcoming regulation could incorporate the universe of U.S. carbon sources. With this 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court may have kicked down the door to greenhouse gas regulation in the United States and has added to the likelihood of broader legislative action on global warming in the near term."

Chicago-based The Heartland Institute declared that "the U.S. Supreme Court today substituted its scientific judgment for that of USEPA scientists. ...Once past the rhetoric, however, all the Court did was order USEPA to issue a more ‘reasoned explanation' for its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases."

When the EPA does explain its reluctance to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, "the Supreme Court should refrain from imposing its lay views regarding global warming on EPA, Heartland Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy James M. Taylor concluded.

http://www.mineweb.net/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page60?oid=18999&sn=Detail

Bush Speech: No "Great Change" on Global Heating

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | January 22, 2007

WASHINGTON -- President Bush this week is prepared to unveil what his aides have billed as a bold new national strategy to confront global climate change and work toward energy independence, even as Democrats push their own, more aggressive approach to the issue.

In previewing the State of the Union address the president will deliver tomorrow, administration officials have strongly hinted that Bush would outline steps the government will take to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which most scientists believe contribute to global warming.

The White House has refused to discuss details in advance of the president's speech, though many in Congress and the energy industry expect it to include raising fuel-economy standards for automobiles, more support for renewable energy sources, and efforts to control emissions at utility plants and other big polluters.

The commitment to addressing global warming marks a shift for the White House, which critics say has consistently tried to undermine scientific evidence of the link between air pollution and disturbing trends in the environment.

Still, White House officials point out that Bush is highly skeptical of mandatory, economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide emissions, citing the president's preference for market-based incentives as a solution to the problem.

That's not enough for many members of Congress, who argue that the time for voluntary programs has passed and that only swift, dramatic actions can avert catastrophic consequences. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bluntly warned the president on Friday that lawmakers will act on global warming, with or without his help.

"The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming and unequivocal," said Pelosi, a California Democrat. "We want to work with President Bush on this important issue in a bipartisan way. But we cannot afford to wait."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the president plans to use his speech to link the national security imperative of developing alternative energy sources to the need to improve the environment. Bush, Snow said, believes that market-based mechanisms such as tax credits and other incentives can encourage clean-energy innovations that can reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

"There are plenty of opportunities out there to encourage people to do the right things," Snow said. "Carrots tend to work better than sticks."

But some congressional Democrats and environmental activists doubt the president's pledges on energy.

In all six of his previous State of the Union addresses, Bush has committed to work toward energy independence, yet the nation imported about 60 percent of its oil from abroad last year -- up from 53 percent when Bush won office in 2000, according to the Department of Energy.

Last year, Bush drew headlines with his declaration that "America is addicted to oil." But the budget request he submitted to Congress a few weeks later cut $100 million from federal energy conservation programs.

Bush, a former oilman, has long had close ties to the oil and gas industry, and his energy policies have focused heavily on promoting domestic oil drilling, including exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

"In the past, there's been some head-turning rhetoric, but head-in-the-sand proposals," said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters. "From our perspective, you can talk the talk all you want, but if you don't have mandatory proposals in place, you're not making progress. That's the ultimate test."

Though talk of the president even acknowledging a human impact on climate change would once have stirred optimism among environmentalists, the political landscape has shifted significantly in the past few months.

A growing number of states have taken major steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including Massachusetts, where Governor Deval Patrick last week rejoined a seven-state regional effort that includes penalties on polluters.

A consortium of major environmental groups has teamed up with a group of industry powerhouses -- including Alcoa, General Electric, DuPont, and Duke Energy -- in calling for federal action on requiring reductions in emissions.

The Democratic takeover of Congress, meanwhile, has brought a reversal in the attitudes of members of leadership toward climate change.

Senator Barbara Boxer , who has called global warming "a potential crisis of a magnitude we've never seen," is now chairwoman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. The California Democrat replaced Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican who famously called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

In the House, Pelosi is signaling her commitment to the issue by creating a committee to deal exclusively with climate change and energy independence. She has charged the committee with helping to draft legislation that the House can approve by July 4.

Pelosi's choice to head that committee, Representative Edward J. Markey of Malden, has advocated a much tougher approach to global warming than anything Bush has espoused, including mandatory emissions caps and significantly higher fuel mileage standards for vehicles.

And it is not just Democrats who are pushing global warming.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a 2008 GOP presidential front-runner, is pushing a measure to cap greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels economy-wide. His co sponsors include Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a rising star among Democrats who is exploring a run for president, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who is an influential moderate voice in Congress.

"The president really has to move, or this issue will have moved right past him," Markey said. "I doubt that the president is going to suddenly embrace a set of policies he rejected for six years. But he has to deal with the reality that the Congress is making this one of the highest priorities for this country."

Despite the intensifying pressure from lawmakers, some White House allies say they don't expect Bush to make major policy changes. Representative Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that he expects the president to add fresh "nuances" to his energy policy but that Bush would not risk economic damage with drastic pollution reducing measures.

"The expectation may exceed the reality," Barton said of the State of the Union address. "He's what I would call a common-sense environmentalist, who wants to keep our economy strong and protect our environment. I don't think that you're going to see any great change in his position."

Barton said that if Democratic leaders tried to push an extreme approach toward confronting global warming with mandatory caps that are unreasonable for businesses, they would quickly learn that they don't have the votes to make their proposals law.

"You're going to make energy and environmental policy on the middle -- you're not going to make it on the extremes," he said.

But environmental groups and many Democrats say Bush can show his commitment to tackling global warming if he institutes a mandatory emissions cap that applies to the entire US economy, and forces automakers to make more efficient cars and sport utility vehicles.

Mandatory limits are at the heart of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions -- a treaty on which the United States backed out shortly after Bush took office in 2001.

"We've tried voluntary for a very long time, and emissions just keep going up," said Joseph Romm, a former Clinton administration Energy Department official who published a book this month on global warming. "If you have the problem, you have to embrace the one viable solution: Putting a cap on emissions."

The specifics of Bush's plan aside, the biggest impact could come in sparking a new dialogue between the administration and congressional Democrats on energy policy, after years in which the two sides have viewed each other skeptically.

"Nothing is going to happen on this unless it is done on a collaborative effort," said Frank Maisano, an energy industry spokesman in Washington.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/22/bush_set_to_tackle_global_warming/

The Antarctic Peninsula 1986-2002

White House Denies Climate Policy U-Turn

White House Denies Climate Policy U-Turn
Administration Denies British Report that Bush Will Announce a Dramatic Change of Policy in His State of the Union Address
By BLAIR SODEN

Jan. 14, 2007 — - The State of our Union … is suffering from global warming?

The White House is flatly denying a British report today in The Observer newspaper in which British officials say they expect President Bush to reverse himself during his annual State of the Union address on Jan. 23 and commit to an agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States.

"[The story] is inaccurate on all fronts," a White House official said, "and especially regarding the State of the Union."

While the Bush administration denies the British report, there are signs at the White House that might fuel such speculation.

Just last month, the Bush administration recognized the effects of global warming by adding polar bears to the list of "threatened" animals under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne acknowledged that the polar bears' environment was slowly deteriorating from melting ice sheets caused by global warming.

At the time, it was unclear whether the announcement was part of a larger plan to modify U.S. climate change policy, but British officials say it may have been the beginning of a strategic U-turn.

A source close to British Prime Minister Tony Blair told The Observer, "President Bush is beginning to talk about more radical measures. We could now be seeing the beginning of a consensus on a post-Kyoto framework."

Bush declined to sign the Kyoto protocol first proposed in 1997 and put into effect last year. The agreement among 160 countries, made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), called for "industrialized countries to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent compared to the year 1990."

President Bush agreed with the overall goal of Kyoto, but refused to sign an agreement he said is flawed.

"America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility," Bush said in 2001. "To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change."

While the president has declined to abide by regulations imposed in the Kyoto protocol, the California legislature recently reached an agreement with Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.

California's Global Warming Solutions Act, passed on Aug. 31, 2006, proposes to reduce the state's greenhouse-gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. Since California would rank as the 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, the plan may signify a turn for the U.S. as a whole.

Schwarzenegger isn't the only politician taking climate change policy into his own hands. A bipartisan group of six U.S. senators recently introduced a revised Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act last week, pledging to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.

Among the co-sponsors are several potential 2008 presidential candidates, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Their proposal would put a mandatory cap on industrial emissions, something the president and former Republican Congress have adamantly opposed.

If President Bush does introduce a new climate proposal during his State of the Union speech, despite the White House denial of the British report, Thomas Graedel, a professor of industrial ecology at Yale University, fears it will be ineffective without enforcement.

"The fact that the president may announce a policy change is recognition of something that virtually everyone who's looked at the issue would find perfectly reasonable," Graedel said. "But without a commitment to take strong action through acknowledging the existence of the action really doesn't move us in the direction of doing anything about it."

President Bush addressed the global warming issue last January at his State of the Union address when he acknowledged the U.S. addiction to oil. He proposed the Advanced Energy Initiative as part of the 2007 budget. Congress has yet to vote on it.

According to The Observer, British officials speculate that a meeting in December 2006 between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair was a turning point for U.S. policy on global warming. While the details of the private talks were not released, the president acknowledged that greenhouse-gas emissions were discussed.

"The prime minister has put global climate change on the table," Bush said. "It's an issue that we, where there's been disagreement in the past … there is a consensus that we need to move forward together."

Senior White House officials say they won't discuss the content of the State of the Union address before it's given, but that the British report of a dramatic change simply isn't true.

The officials claim the president has repeatedly acknowledged the earth is warming, and that he's "put good, workable policies and significant scientific research dollars to work to drive technological innovation that will help lift developing nations out of poverty and decrease environmental effects of energy consumption."

Graedel and other supporters of policies to prevent global warming say they hope this year will be different.

"I hope the U.S. will make a major commitment to reducing not only it's rate of increase of greenhouse-gas emissions," Graedel said, "but the absolute amount of emissions."

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

Bush on Global Warming