Hey, Defense Department: Focus on ISIS, not Climate Change

[scpg02]

Hey, Defense Department: Focus on ISIS, not Climate Change

Nicolas Loris / October 14, 2014

As world leaders remain locked in on the threat of ISIS, the U.S. Department of Defense laid out its plan to fight a different battle: ice caps.

In a new report, DOD argues that climate change poses “immediate risks to U.S. national security” because of warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns and more frequent and intense storms. There are just two small problems with such an assertion. One, none of these climate challenges are actually occurring in amounts that would present an immediate risk. Two, the administration’s economy-crushing carbon regulations that would choke off affordable energy sources wouldn’t make a difference even if climate change did pose a threat.

~snip~

dailysignal.com/2014/10/14/hey-defense-department-focus-isis-climate-change/

[nautonnier]

I would really appreciate a FOIA question asking the DOD who requested the contingency plan for climate given that there has been no change in climate for 18 years.

[nonentropic]

Interestingly around the world there is much hand ringing that the economic recovery is weak. In my mind there is a problem with investment it is now directed to uneconomic areas of the economy, that is over priced energy development.

If you consider the standard jobs to investment ratios from rational economic theory its not hard to see that pouring say 100 billion pounds into windfarms that are substituting out something like 15 billion pounds of gas generation you will forfeit something like 85,000 jobs. In addition the produced electricity needs a higher charge to support its usage.

The jobs still exist but not in that country. Is there really a difference between ISIS and the green loonies!

[sigurdur]

Oct 20, 2014 17:13:11 GMT nonentropic said:

Interestingly around the world there is much hand ringing that the economic recovery is weak. In my mind there is a problem with investment it is now directed to uneconomic areas of the economy, that is over priced energy development.

If you consider the standard jobs to investment ratios from rational economic theory its not hard to see that pouring say 100 billion pounds into windfarms that are substituting out something like 15 billion pounds of gas generation you will forfeit something like 85,000 jobs. In addition the produced electricity needs a higher charge to support its usage.

The jobs still exist but not in that country. Is there really a difference between ISIS and the green loonies!

Nope

[icefisher]

Well they had some for the cold war. . . Ice Station Zebra. . . .we need to be able to defeat isis in an ice free Arctic after all.