Recently by Gary North: The Looming Reversal of Centralization
Remember when global warming was called global warming? You know: back in 2001, before a decade elapsed in which there was no measurable global warming.
It’s not called global warming any longer. That was just too embarrassing, because there hasn’t any global warming for a decade. This stable temperature has taken place, despite the fact that worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide are higher.
In light of the 2010 data, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by fully a third since the year 2001, yet global temperatures have not risen during the past decade. Global warming activists argue that carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary factor in global temperature changes, yet global temperatures show no change despite a 33% increase in global carbon dioxide emissions.
So, the anti-warmers changed tactics. They invented a new threat: climate change.
Mankind is responsible for climate change, we are told. Therefore, the U.S. government is required to spend money to combat it, all over the world. It has no jurisdiction outside the United States, but that has not dimmed the hopes and plans of warmers
The U.S. government has spent over $72 billion to combat climate change since 2008.
This has failed. The climate keeps changing. Sometimes it’s warmer. Sometimes it’s cooler. It it refuses to cease changing.
The armed services has spent $4 billion of the $72 billion. This is because the militay is facing a real threat because of climate change. We know this because Secretary of Defense of Defense Panetta has told us so.
Panetta told an audience at the Environmental Defense Fund that climate change has raised the need for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, hitting national security in the process.
“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,” Panetta said. “Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”
What we need is an ecologically kinder and gentler military. We need Army green to mean what it symbolizes.
In recent years, the Defense Department and the services have spearheaded a number of alternative-energy initiatives and seemingly embraced environmentally friendly practices on the battlefield.
President Obama effectively put the Pentagon at the forefront of an ambitious alternative energy strategy during the State of the Union speech in January. The Navy and Air Force have already spent billions to integrate biofuels into their fleets of fighter jets and warships.
Marine Corps combat units in Afghanistan are using mobile solar panels to recharge batteries for their night vision and communications in the field. Solar power is also helping to run a number of Marine Corps combat outposts in the country.
As yet, there are no solar-powered tanks, solar-powered bombers, or solar-paneled aircraft carriers. But you never know. There might be a breakthrough one of these days. Let’s hope we get such a breakthrough before we boil/freeze to death.