The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and the Defense Department have a persistent and annoying drumbeat of Biden administration’s climate change talking points. Typical were Avril Haines’ and Defense Secretary Austin’s remarks at the recent White House virtual summit on climate change. As Liberty Nation explained in its report, the National Intelligence Committee’s (NIC) Global Trends 2040 echoed the preeminence of the narrative. For clarity, climate change is a problem; a long-term problem, not an acute, near-term problem or “crisis,” and minimizing real geopolitical and national security threats is not useful.
The Hill’s coverage of the virtual two-day summit quoted Director Haines as saying:
“To address climate change properly, it must be at the center of a country’s national security and foreign policy, and as such, it needs to be fully integrated with every aspect of our analysis in order to allow us not only to monitor the threat but also critically think to ensure that policymakers understand the implication of climate change on seemingly unrelated policies, and then identifying opportunities to mitigate the challenge that we face.”
Ignoring the Real Crisis?
“Unrelated policies,” like a policy to address the threat that 100,000 Russian troops represent on Ukraine’s border. For the Ukrainians, that is a real crisis, and if left unattended, it will become one for NATO, and yes, the U.S. This is just speculation, mind you, but the climate change “crisis” was probably not uppermost on Vladimir Putin’s mind when he deployed Russian forces to the Ukraine border.
And predictably, U.S. Secretary of Defense Austin doubled down, warning climate change is an “existential threat.” Austin told the summit:
“Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis. We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does.”
Austin views climate change as “a profoundly destabilizing force in our world.” How destabilizing is climate change? Austin says: “As the Arctic melts, competition for resources and influence in the region increases.” Wait a minute, in an article a year ago titled Russia And China Making Moves In The Arctic – Can The US Counter? Liberty Nation warned that competition for Arctic resources was a fait accompli. So, the competition is there with or without the Arctic ice cap melting.
But what if the Arctic ice cap did melt, allowing for an actual northwest passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Wouldn’t that be good for maritime shipping? Finding a year-round northwest passage has been a goal since the fifteenth century. Climate change provided a solution without ice breakers or the Army Corps of Engineers.
Skepticism or Reading the Data?
Austin also raised the climate change bugaboos of “drought,” “heavy downpours” (often referred to as rain), “flooding,” hurricanes, and “repeated forest fires.” Should we worry? Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus and visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, in a Fox News opinion piece, readily admits: “Yes, climate change is a real problem. However, it is typically vastly exaggerated.”
Regarding forest fires, as an example, he countered the claim that “much of the Australian continent” had been devoured by “climate-induced fire.” Lomborg cited satellite measurements to point out that “while the fires near population centers had severe impacts, the total land area burned was 4% – one of the lowest-ever percentages, from an average this century of 6.2% and last century of 10.1%.”
And when it comes to the alarmist’s claims that “‘ countless lives are being lost to climate-related disasters worldwide,” Lomborg provides factual data and explains:
“…the International Disaster Database shows that in the 2010s, 18,357 people died each year from climate-related impacts such as floods, droughts, storms, wildfire, and extreme temperatures. That is the lowest death count in the past century, a 96% decline since the 1920s, despite a larger global population. And 2020 had an even lower death count at 8,086.”
Climate change “believers” point out that Lomborg is a “climate change skeptic.” Very, well, let’s turn to someone who would not fall into that category: someone like physicist and former undersecretary for the Department of Energy in the Obama administration, Steven Koonin. In a recent interview, Fox News describes Koonin, “dissenting from the Biden administration’s stance on the global ‘climate crisis,’ saying the data do not support the ‘hysteria.” Koonin explained:
“What I realized is that, although you hear people talking about ‘we’re going to believe in the science, the science is settled, we’ve got an existential crisis – when you actually read the science, it doesn’t support that kind of hysteria at all.”
The bottom line here is that climate change alarmists use the specter of the “end of civilization” as we know it and trot out people in positions of responsibility to convey that message. The purpose is to establish a State of Fear,* so when they spend trillions of dollars, you will believe that the Bidens of this world are keeping you safe. And who gets the bill for assuaging this climate change hyperbole? You, the taxpayer – that’s who.
If you doubt that, look at Biden’s “new international climate finance plan” that doubles US underwriting of climate change programs in developing nations. According to the World Trade Organization, China qualifies as a developing nation. Is the Biden administration going to finance China’s climate change programs?
If it makes you any more secure while the Biden administration is committing to spend your treasure, Russia and China made no such commitments and voted present at the virtual summit. They aren’t fools.
* “State of Fear” is a New York Times bestselling novel by Michael Crichton.
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.
Read more from Dave Patterson.