US Military Could Collapse Within 20 Years Due To Climate Change, Report Commissioned By Pentagon Says (vice.com) 262
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: According to a new U.S. Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the U.S. military itself might also collapse. This could all happen over the next two decades, the report notes. The senior U.S. government officials who wrote the report are from several key agencies including the Army, Defense Intelligence Agency, and NASA. The study called on the Pentagon to urgently prepare for the possibility that domestic power, water, and food systems might collapse due to the impacts of climate change as we near mid-century. The report was commissioned by General Mark Milley, Trump's new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, making him the highest-ranking military officer in the country (the report also puts him at odds with Trump, who does not take climate change seriously.)
The report, titled Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army, was launched by the U.S. Army War College in partnership with NASA in May at the Wilson Center in Washington DC. The report was commissioned by Gen. Milley during his previous role as the Army's Chief of Staff. It was made publicly available in August via the Center for Climate and Security, but didn't get a lot of attention at the time. The two most prominent scenarios in the report focus on the risk of a collapse of the power grid within "the next 20 years," and the danger of disease epidemics. Both could be triggered by climate change in the near-term, it notes. The report also warns that the U.S. military should prepare for new foreign interventions in Syria-style conflicts, triggered due to climate-related impacts. Bangladesh in particular is highlighted as the most vulnerable country to climate collapse in the world. The report recommends the U.S. military should take advantage of the Arctic's hydrocarbon resources and new transit routes to repel Russian encroachment.
"But without urgent reforms, the report warns that the U.S. military itself could end up effectively collapsing as it tries to respond to climate collapse," adds Motherboard. "It could lose capacity to contain threats in the U.S. and could wilt into 'mission failure' abroad due to inadequate water supplies."
The report, titled Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army, was launched by the U.S. Army War College in partnership with NASA in May at the Wilson Center in Washington DC. The report was commissioned by Gen. Milley during his previous role as the Army's Chief of Staff. It was made publicly available in August via the Center for Climate and Security, but didn't get a lot of attention at the time. The two most prominent scenarios in the report focus on the risk of a collapse of the power grid within "the next 20 years," and the danger of disease epidemics. Both could be triggered by climate change in the near-term, it notes. The report also warns that the U.S. military should prepare for new foreign interventions in Syria-style conflicts, triggered due to climate-related impacts. Bangladesh in particular is highlighted as the most vulnerable country to climate collapse in the world. The report recommends the U.S. military should take advantage of the Arctic's hydrocarbon resources and new transit routes to repel Russian encroachment.
"But without urgent reforms, the report warns that the U.S. military itself could end up effectively collapsing as it tries to respond to climate collapse," adds Motherboard. "It could lose capacity to contain threats in the U.S. and could wilt into 'mission failure' abroad due to inadequate water supplies."
Yes, climate change causes many problems (Score:2)
but this is an invitation to create supposed survivors of yet another human created condition beyond nuclear holocaust.
It's pretty self-serving, considering the US Military if treated as a country, has the 13th highest carbon emissions.
The report will try to justify trillions in investments when the US infrastructure is already crumbling, especially clean water, electrical grid, and other competing public interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Germany tested in WW2..
Go full Operation Paperclip and find the hidden and very advanced German electric tank plans...
New US tanks powered by the sun.
A ceasefire while the US tanks park to get their needed solar energy each day. For the earth.
All sides of any conflict will totally understand.
Re: (Score:3)
My worry is we start a new sub-community of military preppers. Doomsday-ers with a budget. We need that budget for infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A ceasefire while the US tanks park to get their needed solar energy each day.
I have twice as many tanks and I rotate them meaning I never have to stop and charge but can constantly attack. I win.
Re: (Score:2)
Crisis or opportunity (Score:2)
Monopolies will kill it first (Score:3)
When you have a situation where in many cases, you're legally barred to compete with the 2-3 companies that control the army, they will end up overpricing things to a point the US Military can't afford anymore.
Zombies (Score:3)
What made the US mil great (Score:5, Insightful)
The ability to carry what is needed for war. To out think and out smart the rest of the world.
Find more of the people who want to join and who have the ability to go to war.
The US mil wont collapse due to the generations of ability.
Stop spending so much extra money on contractors doing work the US mil could do for less. Put that gov money back into the actual mil.
Lots of contractor work could be done by people the US mil pays everyday. Learn new skills while in the mil?
Re "domestic power, water, and food systems might collapse"
The US mil can look after its own water supply. Its something any advanced mil has the skills to do globally..
Power? The US mil can work in nations with no power at all.
Every US mil site is planned to "work" with a total loss of power. Then bring its own power back on. Then transport fuel in to keep the power on.
Food? Lots of nations friendly to the US sell "food". Feeding the US mil from that imported food is "ships" and trade should not be beyond a nations Navy.
Why should the US prepare for new foreign interventions in Syria-style conflicts?
Support every failed nation? Spend US money on failed nations?
Should that US money not go to a US mil that is about to "collapse" before "new foreign interventions"?
If the US mil is about to "collapse" how can it do "new foreign interventions"?
The US troops would fly into a "Bangladesh" and never expect any more support? Be surrounded by another nations mil with no support for what reason?
If the US mil was so near "collapse" it would stay in very friendly nations and send support, ensure trade back to the USA...
Re "Russian encroachment"
When the US enters "Arctic's hydrocarbon resources" areas its good and for freedom?
When Russian enters its own "Arctic's hydrocarbon resources" areas its bad encroachment?
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, the US Army rejects people with low IQs as a matter of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Since JP is not a factual reference or strictly accurate (since the reality is more complicated, as you might expect), I will add a few more references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (Army and Navy minimums are relevant)
https://law.stackexchange.com/... [stackexchange.com]
That being said, there is a standard for measuring mental capability within the US armed services.
What constitutes low-IQ measurement will disqualify you from US service in those branches.
Re: (Score:2)
One low IQ person who had to be given a task that was not too difficult and another person to make sure the low IQ task was getting done.
A group of people to find mil tasks for the low IQ people.
The US mil learned a lot from Project 100,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Thats why the many decades of US mil IQ testing sorts for people who can do work without needing another person to look after them.
More professio
Re: What made the US mil great (Score:3)
You may qualify for stupid exemptions if you do that.
I was just reading an article on a conservative site about people who say climate change is real producing carbon. They use this fact to try to argue against reality of climate change. Of course, AGW is real, or it is not. Like food makes you fat, or it does not. It does not effect that truth if you say junk food makes you fat and eat junk food. And if you say junk food does not make you fat, you are not exempt from getting fat by eating it if it makes yo
Re: (Score:2)
The US mil cant deal with the politics of "energy" saving reductions in what it needs for its missions.
Re: What made the US mil great (Score:2)
Those with eyes open belong at the top of a civilization not the bottom. And those on the front lines have their eyes open.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with high IQ people (mine is 160)
No, it's not. [slashdot.org]
is that they rate their intelligence too highly.
Indeed.
Maybe next time you go to your Mensa meeting, you can have your buddies explain to you how to read a graph and calculate a slope.
We'll leave the differential equations and trendline calculating for next year, alright buddy?
Actual Report (Score:2)
https://climateandsecurity.fil... [wordpress.com]
All you need is the executive summary for good comedy.
What utter BS (Score:3)
Quite unlikely. (Score:2)
1. We've got workable electric engines in a variety of chasis that scale well enough for basic use.
2. Counter to 1, we don't have enough production capacity to match all our needs, to complete all aspects of industry and private needs. But that is rapidly improving, including high-scale battery production.
3. Military usage classically gets much higher priority than private usage.
Combine all 3, and until the ENTIRE economy collapses past any recognition, the military will be fed almost everything until a
That's ok, by then... (Score:2)
all you'll need is the Space Force.
Re: (Score:2)
all you'll need is the Space Force.
A brigade of MAGA hat wearing SPACE CADETS!!!
I'm old enough to remember Al Gore (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember Al Gore telling us that Florida will be underwater in 10 years, there'd be no polar bears, and we'd have more frequent super hurricanes. That was right before he bought a beachfront mansion in California. This is why most of the people who are super fervent about climate change are below 30: they aren't old enough to remember all the previous prognostications that also did not come true. Such as, well, Ice Age by the year 2000, which "97% of scientists" agreed would happen, back in the 80s. The "97% of scientists" figure BTW, is also a lie. Here's the article that explains it in detail: https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
That's not to say the climate isn't chaging, but if you're over 40, you've experienced several waves of doom and gloom already, and none of the predicted deadly effects have panned out even in the slightest so far.
Re: (Score:2)
The glaciers are melting, not encroaching, causing worldwide water levels to rise. So some of the deadly effects have panned out in the slightest. Ever so slightly. It's not going to be Waterworld, but things have visibly changed. I'm very sure we're not going into another Ice Age, following modern trends.
Re:I'm old enough to remember Al Gore (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite. WHERE did they pan out in a way that's visible, let alone directly causative to deaths of millions of people? If you were to believe climate alarmists in the 80's, the death toll is supposed to be in the hundreds of millions by now. Last I checked Florida is still there, the population of polar bears is increasing, and the temperature rise is nowhere near what was predicted by most models. And that's before you consider that historical temperature data gets "revised" from time to time or made up outright, and no satellite measurements (which are somewhat more reliable due to increased coverage) exist before the late 80s.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Especially claims that could cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars, and may not improve the situation because the models were wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
>"That's not to say the climate isn't chaging, but if you're over 40, you've experienced several waves of doom and gloom already, and none of the predicted deadly effects have panned out even in the slightest so far."
Exactly. All this hysteria is, quite frankly, exhausting... if it weren't also so comedic. We need to do better for the environment and CO emissions. That is "duh." Whatever WE do won't make that much difference in the world as a whole, unless other countries follow.... unless what we do
Re: (Score:2)
Bull shit. MOST of the predictions have in fact happened. The reason you believe what you do is simple.
1) The media looks at the entire spectrum of people and ALWAYS picks the extremists. No one listens to the guy that says "I think China is going to become an economic world power." Instead they listen to the people that say "CHINA IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!"
2) If by some chance you did hear one of the reasonable people rather than the extremists. You don't remember it, because of course it wa
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! Plus, you can go back even further and find things like an article I found from the Washington Post, back in 1923 where they were concerned about the polar ice caps melting and sea life dying off from it.
Umm.... sounds exactly like the stuff they've been predicting real recently and pushing as a "sky is falling" scenario playing out in the next few years if we don't make drastic changes!
As a guy getting close to age 50, I've seen so much environmental nonsense -- it's REALLY difficult to accept an
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a quote for Al Gore saying that Florida is underwater in 10 years?
In any case, wouldn't this be a straw man argument? You are not discussing the real issue, but arguing with something someone said in the past. How is this relevant?
Re: (Score:3)
https://genius.com/Harry-chapi... [genius.com]
Overselling things is bad, but the ethos behind "let's stop the greenhouse effect" and "let's reduce deaths and illness from air and water pollution" and "let's shape culture to use less and be more sustainable" and "drought, fire and flooding are DEFINITELY getting worse" is pretty valuable.
I'm really interested in how /. became a haven for climate change deniers, which you are. I am calling your last sentence a lie. Deniers have been shifting the goalposts as evidence of h
That's some tough luck, Bangladesh. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can already have a bikini season in Moscow every Summer, it's not like the city is buried under snow round the year.
And in Winter as well: there are people (including ladies) who bathe in a hole in the ice.
Asinine. (Score:2)
Any serious report on the capability of the US Military doesn't just assume it exists in a vacuum.
Any of these far-fetched scenarios - while not impossible, are vanishingly unlikely: you might as well train for asteroid-impact missions - neglects to ALSO note that no matter what the negative outcomes for the US military, the outcomes are immeasurably worse for EVERY OTHER FIGHTING FORCE ON EARTH.
It remains by far the most flexible, adaptable, well-equipped, effective fighting force.
Mutually Assured Destruction (Score:2)
Whatevs (Score:2)
Yes. It'll get so bad the most advanced military will collapse, leaving the world free for pillaging by less advanced countries that, ummm, won't.
This is horseshit (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who thinks the US and its military is genuinely in danger of collapse due to climate change would do well to reflect upon the "Great horse manure crisis of 1894" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
TL/DR: In 1894, urban planners predicted that the streets of New York and London (and most other big cities) would be perpetually buried under several feet of horse poop by the 1950s as population grown caused an unsustainable increase in the number of urban horses that would eventually outstrip our ability to remove their daily fecal droppings from city streets.
It's relevant, because back in the 1890s, the sense of crisis was palpable and real. You literally COULDN'T cross the street in New York or London without wading through ankle-deep horseshit... and even smaller big cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Toronto, Madrid, Milan, Prague, and Stockholm were starting to have serious poop problems of their own. Then, almost overnight, cars happened, and horse-drawn carriages became little more than romantic Friday-night rides around a park.
A generation ago, military planners could make scary assertions like, "The US might become the victim of a fuel embargo driven by climate change" and be taken seriously, because back then, the US was dependent upon imported foreign oil. Now, thanks to shale, the US is a net EXPORTER of petroleum. Gas will probably never sustainably fall BELOW $2/gallon going forward (because shale costs more to produce than Saudi crude did back at its peak)... but gas is unlikely to sustainably rise ABOVE $3/gallon, either, because shale production is now ramped up to the point where we can produce nearly unlimited quantities (from the perspective of daily US oil demand) of it in perpetuity going forward.
Ditto, for fresh water. Desalination isn't cheap. In fact, desalinated water costs about 2-3 times as much per gallon as freshwater from lakes and wells. But once a metro area rides over that speed bump & accepts higher water prices as the price of abolishing shortages, we can make as much fresh water as anyone wants to buy at that price. As a matter of good luck, the areas at the greatest risk of needing to rely upon desalination for freshwater are ALSO generally the areas with the most expensive cost of living to begin with. The fact is, someone who's ALREADY paying $2,500/month rent or carrying the mortgage on a million-dollar house isn't likely to care whether the monthly water bill is $25 or $70, because it's literally piss in the ocean compared to every OTHER expense they're getting hit up for month after month... and would almost certainly PREFER to pay $70 for abundant water than pay $25 and live with rationing.
Just a thought... (Score:2)
This report is amusing... (Score:2)
The report recommends the U.S. military should take advantage of the Arctic's hydrocarbon resources and new transit routes to repel Russian encroachment.
So basically: Aaaaa, panic!! The house is on fire!!! Put the fire out by STARTING MORE FIRES!!!!
The irony of tools of abundance... (Score:3)
... in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
As I wrote in this essay: ... ... ..."
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni... [pdfernhout.net]
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious.
Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing.
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.
Anyway, the deeper issue here is not that "climate change" puts us at risk (even as it might). The lack of insight into the deeper issue leads to failure to prioritize creating resilient infrastructure. Especially challenging for current US politics is that encouraging individuals and communities to have greater self-reliance and greater capacity for productivity (within a federated networked context) is fundamentally at odds with centralizing most wealth in a few hands.
That is why books like Brittle Power from 1982 have essentially been ignored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon study and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book argues that the U.S. domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, whether by accident or malice, often even more so than US technology is vulnerable to disruption of the imported oil supply. According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works better, and is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy. In the preface to the 2001 edition, L
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly... what good is a 20 year forecast when the world ends in 12 years... or is it 12 months? I forgot.
Perhaps we should start calling this Global Science Change.
Ug, look, 12 years isn't the end (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should bother with even the most cursory examination of the science?
Also, the Climate Change Denies are getting more and more numerous. I'm not sure if they're paid shills or guys over 50 scared they'll lose what little they have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's the point where the damage is irreparable.
Wow, pretty impressive that they can predict that to the year. I wonder what will happen between 11 years from now and 13 years from now to push us past the point of "no return". Where exactly will the line be drawn?
Re: Ug, look, 12 years isn't the end (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's the point where the damage is irreparable. We as a species will continue after year 12. Our lives will be worse, and there will be very little we can do about it.
Much worse than whatever idea you have in your head of the "sacrifice" needed to do something about it today.
Re: Ug, look, 12 years isn't the end (Score:2)
and there will be very little we can do about it.
Maybe there will, maybe there won't... but the Military/Industrial Complex isn't unofficially but blatantly causing us to breathe aluminum for our health... get it??
Re:Ug, look, 12 years isn't the end (Score:5, Insightful)
The point at which the "damage is irreparable" is constantly changing because the science behind these doomsday predictions is bullshit and not science. When I was a kid, we were doomed if we didn't change everything by the early 90's... then the late 90's... then 2000... then 2001... then 2009... then 2013... the only thing that changes with the climate change cult is the year that the tipping point is reached and we're all doomed; it's pushed back every year so they can keep getting funding for their "research" and so politicians can keep using it to justify taxes.
And all us "guys over 50" don't give a shit because nothing's changed and nothing's going to change on any timescale that matters... we've already got what we want and we're not gonna lose anything even if the predictions are true. In 20 years, we'll be in our 70's giving zero fucks so no, it has nothing to do with us being scared... it's just that we've been hearing the same boy cry wolf for the majority of our lifetimes while you delicate little kids think this is some new and pressing disaster in the making.
Re: (Score:3)
I find the science pretty convincing and consistent. Yes, it becomes more accurate and some things get revised, but I can't see anything even remotely going on which justify the claim than the science behind climate change is bullshit. Some doomsday predictions may be bullshit, but the amount and scope of the changes is indeed worrying. This can be understood by everybody with some understanding of the physics. Of course, one can bring up strawman arguments like "some doomsday predictions were wrong in the
Re:Ug, look, 12 years isn't the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Also if climate change is real however it is not caused by mankind, we will STILL need to accept that we have to do something about it and bear the costs, or just give up and accept that climate disasters are the new norms because the alternative means a decline in our short term monetary investments.
Re: Ug, look, 12 years isn't the end (Score:2)
It could also be the same mechanism at play that allows us to ignore the fact that we will die. Maybe for many that mechanism is literally preventing them from connecting long term problems with immediate problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't need a 5000lb SUV if you didn't have 300lb kids!
Re:Every 10 years (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no doubt we can beat this thing in spite of magoos like you who insist there's nothing wrong so they don't have to help.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a modest proposal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that this report was done by those liberal, lefty, SJWs in the... *checks notes*... United States Army.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Will you get a load of the mental gymnastics these right-wing types have to do to keep their worldview afloat?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not blaming me for the common affliction of false dichotomy minds.
My worldview is rock solid even if politics disappears entirely.
But tell me... Republican, or Democrat?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that this report was done by those liberal, lefty, SJWs in the... *checks notes*... United States Army.
Reminds me of this Pentagon Report from 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
Nine weeks to go if you go by the last time the Pentagon predicted this!
They are just jumping on the climate change bandwagon to boost their funding again. Anyone who claims they have models that can predict what a complex system like the earth will be doing in 20 years time is lying to you.
Re: (Score:2)
" widespread rioting will erupt across the world" has happened. The causes behind those riots are varied and typically summarized to a single political reason. However, politics is built on economics, and economics is built on the environment. The 20 year ago report may be accurate, but it would require another research project to know for sure.
Re: Every 10 years (Score:5, Insightful)
You've really picked quite a strange hill to die on.
Re:Every 10 years (Score:5, Informative)
It was a case study of what would happen if the Ocean Conveyor (Thermohaline Circulation) shut down.
In no way did it predict it was going to happen.
Having a plan for the worst case is what those guys do. It's their job.
Non-tabloid sauce [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Basically the worst case, not the likely case.
So... Exactly like the report which is the topic of the posted article that has everyone in this thread hyperventilating? Interesting. I wonder if you'll be able to put 2+2 together to see what the point I was trying to make to PopeRatzo was.
Re:Every 10 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, what makes the report different is that it makes to claims about what will happen, and instead discusses how the DoD should behave if those claims happen. This is part and parcel of the US military's planning practices, which include everything from nuclear war with France or an invasion from Canada to fighting off Chinese-allied aliens.
In this specific report, it discusses the problems that may occur if there is large-scale sea rise, widespread drought, mass migration, dramatic changes in oil/fuel supplies, and so on.
Oh, it also includes a section on weather control.
By the way - if you think there are no lefty SJWs in the US military, it just goes to show you have no experience with military personnel.
Re: (Score:2)
more of a new look Operation Popeye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
(US cloud seeding operation during the Vietnam War)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that this report was done by those liberal, lefty, SJWs in the... *checks notes*... United States Army.
There are plenty of liberals in the Military, and they tend to be officers, often high-ranking.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that this report was done by those liberal, lefty, SJWs in the... *checks notes*... United States Army.
Ah yes, those people from the anti-gravity patent and the nuclear fusion patent. Hey, if they build a couple of those fusion thingies they'll have enough free energy that they could desalinate water, or they could just make that anti-gravity thing and use their flying aircraft carrier to ship ice bergs from antarctica to where they need them!
"Could" (Re:Every 10 years) (Score:3)
Nothing. And the term could is all you need to read to mock it.
The only thing even more non-committal is "15 minutes could save you 15% or more".
Re: (Score:2)
What makes this report different the the impending doom reports that say we have 10 years left, which come out every ten years.
Nothing. In that respect it's just like all those reports that keep saying that Tesla will go bust in three months.
(which they haven't, yet, but they will any day now it's just a matter of time... keep shorting those Tesla stocks, you'll win bigly in the end!)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The USA is still by the far the biggest polluter per capita.
(...and isn't there an old saw about living in glass houses?)
Re:Greta Thunberg says: (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true either: https://cotap.org/per-capita-c... [cotap.org]
What surprised me was Australia.
Most of Europe is about half of where we are. Frank and UK notably lower (high proportion of nuclear power.)
Re:Greta Thunberg says: (Score:5, Insightful)
>"The USA is still by the far the biggest polluter per capita."
But per capita doesn't really matter as much as total pollution by country. And for that, the USA has barely increased for over 50 years AND has been dropping every year since 2005. Meanwhile, China and the most of the rest of the industrialized world (excluding the EU) have been very rapidly increasing, absolutely dwarfing the USA.
If the USA had ZERO carbon emissions right this second, it would make almost no difference in "the world", especially when you go a few more years into the future. That doesn't mean we shouldn't CONTINUE our reasonable improvements, and always hunt for and strive for more. But it does mean it is silly to throw hysterical, hyper-expensive, economy-destroying "solution" plans in the mix... especially when we already have an ever-growing national debt that now stands at almost $23 TRILLION dollars, which continues to grow at something like $20,000 PER SECOND. Or to throw meaningless, freedom-destroying, virtue signaling crap into the mix. Or "solutions" that grow the government (especially the Federal) more and more and more.
Re:Greta Thunberg says: (Score:4, Insightful)
So China should split into 2 countries to make America the greatest CO2 producer?
It's a lot easier for someone using 17.5 tonnes to cut back then someone using 6.18 tonnes. Your argument is like the 600 lb guy bragging about losing a hundred pounds and bitching that the 200 lb guy can't lose a hundred pounds too.
Re: (Score:2)
>"So China should split into 2 countries to make America the greatest CO2 producer?"
If the 2 split countries are controlled the same and have the same policies and the same government, and together emit the same, then it is the same thing. Each entity (country) has its own policies and produces what it produces. An tiny country that emits no CO2 at all might look great- but it doesn't matter in the big picture. When a single country (in this case, China) emits 30% of all CO2 IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, do yo
Re: (Score:2)
Mankind should budget its carbon emissions by arbitrary lines drawn in dirt, not the people who directly cause those emissions?
The fact that China is increasing is only because they are headed toward *parity* with us.
I'd argue that's their fucking right.
You realize that China has over 4 times our population, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll collapse if the people they're "defending" no longer have money to pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll collapse if the people they're "defending" no longer have money to pay taxes.
The US federal government runs annual deficits 85+% of the time. You're around or over the trillion mark now annually. Collapse can only be thought of if the USD is no longer accepted as valid currency in the payment of debt.
Re:Oh give me a fucking break already (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no amount of money the US won't spend on its military imperialism
There's been no new imperialism since we elected that pacifist, Donald Trump. Yeah, surprises me too, but there you go. First president in my lifetime not to start new conflicts. Oddly ironic, really.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is how angry his military behaviors is making his opponents.
Clown world indeed. Honk honk.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is no amount of money the US won't spend on its military imperialism
There's been no new imperialism since we elected that pacifist, Donald Trump. Yeah, surprises me too, but there you go. First president in my lifetime not to start new conflicts. Oddly ironic, really.
Really? The rest of us just watched him green-light a Turkish ethnic cleaning operation in N-Syria.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying we should have ... sent troops, to fight for peace? Is the US supposed to be the world's policeman, or not, please make a clear statement here of your principle.
Or are you merely saying Orange Man Bad?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Two thirds (Score:5, Informative)
Two thirds of our planet is water. Yeah. We will run out of water. Desalinization is impossible apparently. /sarcasm
To be clear: Two thirds of the surface of the planet is covered by water. An analogy for the depth is if you take a billiard ball and breathe on it, the layer of moisture you just created is how deep the oceans are. It's not much really.
But lets go with that thought anyway:
(a ) Where will you get the energy needed to purify it? Right now the average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day. The entire country would need to be turned into a power plant to desalinate that much water and transport it from the sea to their houses (it's always uphill!)
(b) Where will all those pipelines, water pumps and desalination plants come from? That infrastructure needed is enormous. Is it really worth being a greedy idiot today just so you can pay for all that in the future?
Re: (Score:3)
what nonsensical objections you raise.
Desalination is a perfect application for solar energy. there is no shortage of solar energy. Of course we already have large desalination plants around the world, many running on plain ol' electricity from fossil, nuclear, etc.
Where will the infrastructure come from? people will build it, because they need water. And so desalination plants are already being built.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, how many solar panels will we need for a billion gallons per day plus all the pumps?
Will we manufacture all those new pipelines with solar power too? Better add that in as well...
Re: (Score:3)
Where will you get the energy needed to purify it?
Same place the rain gets the energy needed to purify it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Slowing down the problem a bit is what we need to do (and is probably all we can do). Most of the consequences can be mitigated with sufficient planning. We may need to relocate millions of people, but if we can give ourselves a century to do it over it becomes much easier.
Now, the consequence of desalination that nobody has covered yet - what do you plan to do with all of the salt?
Re: (Score:3)
Where will you get the energy needed to purify it?
The green lobby tells us that all of our energy needs can be adequately met with solar, wind, and other renewables. Are you saying they were... lying to us?
Re: (Score:3)
"the average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day"
The average price of water in the United States is about $1.50 for 1,000 gallons. At that price, a gallon of water costs less than one penny. Raise that to $1/gallon and that same American family will use 1/10 to 1/100 the current amount daily which would require MUCH less power for desalination.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that is also the reason why countries in dessert-regions with a lot of money from oil have single-handedly turned their countries into lush, green paradises! Or not. Because things are a lot more complicated.
Re: Two thirds (Score:2)
It is about clean water with growing population and industry, not just drinking water, agricultural and drinking water. It IS a huge national defense thing, check out Lockheed Martins work with desalination/filtration membranes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another expression of just how fucked we are if we don't stop climate change.
Actually it's just yet another expression of budget politics. There is forever a new threat that demands more funding. Ordinarily this is obvious, even transparent, especially among liberals, who usually characterize such "threats" as fictional. But the US military has learned to wrap itself around "climate change" and all doubt evaporates... Of course they need billions more! It's Climate Change!!!11
Re: (Score:2)
I do sleep better at night knowing the military at least puts thought into many diverse potential threats. Maybe people are reading a bit too much into the Pentagon's certainty of this outcome. They study _lots_ of things that are potential threats. It doesn't mean they have certainty that they will happen. But yes, it should give pause that they expect at least some of the enumerated possibilities to occur. And yes, if the potential warrants more budget, then so be it. We don't live in a world where
Re: Ignore Greta and help to save the world (Score:3)
> Is Greta just a proxy for the Deep State?
You decide if she's a globalist pawn:
https://www.infowars.com/surpr... [infowars.com]
verify the sources for yourself.
Re: Ignore Greta and help to save the world (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S. If Infowars ever says 2+2=4, I'll ask what's the base?