Climate deniers may be jeopardizing
national security. By refusing to do anything about climate change, they’re
contributing to the rising temperatures that are causing our sea levels to
rise.
Why is that such a threat to our national security? Because the rising
sea levels put 30 of our military bases in danger.
Jeff Goodell describes his visit to
Naval Station Norfolk in an in-depth
article in Rolling Stone. His
visit came just after a nor’easter had gone through, and he saw military
vehicles up to their axles in water, and pooled water all along a flat, grassy
area near Admiral’s Row.
When a storm blows through, or when the tide is
unusually high, Naval Station Norfolk is half-submerged in the ocean.
Sea levels there are actually rising
twice as fast as the global average, according to Goodell’s article, and Naval
Station Norfolk is not the only base at risk.
At Langley, base commanders have
30,000 sand bags ready to fight the inevitable flooding when a storm comes in.
Old Christmas trees get piled along
the beach to keep it from eroding at Dam Neck, another naval base. And, says
Goodell, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine says that the rising sea levels impact our
military readiness.
- Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), who doesn’t believe that greenhouse gases are driving climate change. He also believes we ought to do “all we can” to stop ISIS.
- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who doesn’t think that man is capable of affecting the climate, because God. He also said, last year, that ISIS is developing a bomb to blow up a major U.S. city, and that Obama’s policies are helping them along in their goals.
- Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who brought up the “I’m not a scientist” argument when asked about climate change. She also touts her record as a combat veteran who served in Iraq when discussing threats like ISIS.
- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who both also trotted out the “I’m not a scientist” argument. However, Boehner has “urged” Obama to send a new authorization for military force against ISIS, while, last year, McConnell said that Obama needed to get moving on a strategy for neutralizing ISIS.
- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who said that he doesn’t think climate change is happening the way scientists say it is. He believes that we should do whatever’s necessary to contain and destroy ISIS.
Those are just a few senators and
the Speaker of the House. Congress is rife with these people now.
Goodell’s article also brings up the
fact that many environmental activists, and people and politicians who accept
climate science, tend to frame their arguments in economic and moral terms.
Framing it in moral terms doesn’t work, because the climate deniers either have
their own morality, or they have an “I got mine, screw you” mentality that’s so
strong, they really don’t care about how climate change might affect anybody
who’s not them.
As far as economic concerns,
Republicans are mostly concerned with the present. They shoot back on those
concerns with, “What about the cost to businesses now? What about our economy
now? We can’t fight climate change without derailing our economy and destroying
jobs,” or some similar argument that sounds reasonable, but isn’t quite true.
Goodell seemed to applaud Obama for
framing the argument in terms of national security. If climate change is
affecting our military’s readiness right now, then how can we
mount the offensive against ISIS, and other possible threats, that we need and
are capable of?
Worse, though, is that Goodell
believes that framing the impacts of climate change this way will bring rabid
attacks from the right. Obama is not the first to frame the threat of climate
change in terms of national security. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel did it, and
the Wall Street Journal promptly blasted him for it.
Secretary of State John Kerry called
climate change a “weapon of mass destruction,” and drew Sen. John McCain’s
(R-AZ) ire. McCain said Kerry was “butterflying around the world, saying all
kinds of things,” and Newt Gingrich said that Americans who actually care about
national security should demand Kerry’s resignation.
So all this really does
is make them dig their heels in further, rather than open their eyes. To be
sure, passing policies that aggressively address climate change isn’t going to
bring about immediate results. It can, however, help to slow down man-made
climate change, and buy us a little time to do something with our bases that
are in danger.
Unfortunately, for politicians
bankrolled by some of the wealthiest oil barons imaginable, there is no
argument that will open their eyes. The Koch brothers’ checks will stop coming
if they do.
Author Rika Christensen is an experienced writer and loves debating
politics. Engage with her and see more of her work by following her on Facebook and Twitter.
