Climate change alarmists have tried marketing their “fix-it” solutions to the public in several ways. Their latest tactic? Convincing people on the center-right that climate change is a national security threat. It’s a plausible argument—but is it accurate? More importantly, don’t climate policies pose security risks of their own?
In a new CEI On Point, The Department of Defense Should Assess the Security Risks of Climate Change Policies, CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis explains that climate change national security risks of climate change policy likely outweigh those of climate change itself. He shows that even if the alarmist interpretation of climate change science is correct, the alarmist national security conclusions are not.
“One of the principal ways in which climate change supposedly undermines stability is by intensifying droughts and water shortages, thus leading to crop failure, famine, and armed conflict,” Lewis said. “Yet real-world evidence doesn’t support this gloomy prediction.”
The real threat to American national security is not climate change, but climate change regulations. For example, Lewis explains that:
▪ The Waxman-Markey bill and other ‘green’ policies could dramatically increase motor fuel prices, driving up the cost of operating military vehicles.“The Department of Defense should be skeptical of alarmist assessments of climate change risk,” Lewis warns. “Climate campaigners tout their proposals as cures for everything—from global warming to energy dependence to high jobless rates to the alleged spiritual crisis of a world in search of a ‘generational mission.’ They never acknowledge the potential for harmful side effects.” Read more.
▪ Carbon-suppression policies threaten to cripple the American economy; a weak economy could impose budget cuts that reduce combat readiness, force modernization, and power projection capabilities.
▪ The global warming movement’s campaign to stop the production of coal plants in developing countries could increase global poverty and desperation.
▪ Carbon tariffs could damage America’s security relationships with important trade partners like China.