national security

‘Eco-terrorism’: the latest

This is some scary sh*t.

David Roberts Politics

I wonder how many people realize that the chances of nuclear war did not fall significantly with the end of the Cold War. A deliberate nuclear war, while a real risk, was always the outside chance. The worst danger -- an accidental nuclear launch -- is probably more likely today than it was prior to the fall of the Soviet empire.

Neither the U.S. nor Russia have taken their missiles off hair trigger alert, and Russia's command and control system is deteriorating. When the old war criminal McNamara, leftist Noam Chomsky, pacifist and anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott, and the right-wing libertarian Cato Institute all worry about the same problem, maybe we should also.

Aggravating this, the U.S. is engaged in talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to put a "missile defense" system in their territories. "Missile defense" systems are useless, of course, as defense against missiles. Even in rigged tests they fail as much as they succeed. They can be fooled by tricks as simple as Mylar balloons.

But they are a quite useful as first-strike weapons. Russia won't be at all nervous at such first-strike weapons on their border, right? The U.S. is well known for a calm and measured approach to foreign policy. So we're not increasing the chance of an accidental launch by them even a little bit. After all, we would have no objection if Russia placed a similar system in Cuba.

Gar Lipow Climate & Energy

The hits keep on comin’

Senate Foreign Relations Testimony on the grave threat to our nation's security posed by global warming:

Admiral Joseph W. Prueher (PDF), USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command and Former Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China;
General Charles F. Wald (PDF), USAF (Ret.), Former Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command; and
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly (PDF), USN (Ret.), Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the First Commander of the Naval Space Command.

Memo to conservative global warming deniers: Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) asserts in his opening statement (PDF),"To adequately prepare our security and diplomatic forces for future threats, we need to understand how climate change might be a source of war and instability."

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Joseph Romm Politics

Coal is the enemy of the human race. Coal is the enemy of the human race

The Office of Fossil Energy (no, not Dick Cheney's office -- apparently there is another one) released a new report this week: "Tracking New Coal Fired Power Plants."

An excerpt from the press release:

If built, the plants will be critical in helping to meet future electricity demand in the United States. The new and proposed plants would theoretically produce enough electricity to power 90 million homes.

Coal is vital to the nation's energy security. Providing more than 50 percent of U.S. electricity, coal is an abundant, domestic energy source with more than a 250-year supply at current use rates. America's coal reserves, estimated at 272 billion tons, contain more energy potential than all of the oil in the Middle East.

Your tax dollars at work.

Adam Browning Climate & Energy

Maybe the Pentagon can persuade red-staters

The military -- which tends to insist on operating in a reality-based world, as a matter of self-preservation -- thinks global heating is a big threat.

A bit from the story:

Today, 11 retired senior generals issued a report drawing attention to the ability of climate change to act as a "threat multiplier" in unstable parts of the world. The Army's former chief of staff, Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, who is one of the authors, noted he had been "a little bit of a skeptic" when the study group began meeting in September. But after being briefed by top climate scientists and observing changes in his native New England, Sullivan said he is now convinced that global warming presents a grave challenge to the country's military preparedness.

"The trends are not good, and if I just sat around in my former life as a soldier, if I just waited around for someone to walk in and say, 'This is with a hundred percent certainty,' I'd be waiting forever," he said.

JMG Politics

Friedman in the NYT Magazine

What's red white and blue, and green all over? The cover of this week's New York Times Sunday Magazine. In "The Greening of Geopolitics," Thomas Friedman applies his trademark econo-politico-historical analysis to the state of the global environment, and he is nothing if not comprehensive. From China, Schwarzenegger, and Wal-Mart, to Islamic fundamentalism and oil prices, Friedman traces the connections. Enviros won't learn much about global warming they didn't already know; on the other hand, how greening America could ultimately result in democracy in Saudi Arabia and better schools in Qatar is a point not often made in activist circles. Particularly encouraging are Friedman's call for regulations at the national level to encourage green innovation (free hand of the market won't do this by itself) and his call for a 2008 candidate with a rock-solid plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Oh yeah, and the art is pretty too.

Maywa Montenegro Technology

Chemical-safety bill moving oh-so-slowly through Congress

An attack on one of the many toxic chemical plants in the U.S. could endanger more than a million people. Environmentalists, security experts, and even the Army surgeon general have been raising the alarm about this threat since Sept. 11, 2001, but Congress has yet to do anything about it. Its latest efforts are being […]

Amanda Little Politics

A geo-green third party?

Thomas Friedman -- la moustache de la sagesse -- has a column up (NYT $elect; reprinted in full here) suggesting that his "geo-green" shtick would be a good basis for a third party presidential candidacy. God love The Mustache for bringing energy issues to a broad audience, but this column is dopey.

Let's start with this:

What might a Geo-Green third party platform look like?

Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called "The Patriot Tax," which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.

Putting aside the rather paltry size of the tax and the difficulty of determining "unusual driving needs," this seems sensible enough, though a broad carbon tax would be preferable. But:

The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.

What a bizarre list. Social Security is fine. If it's deficit-killing expenditures you're after, why not start with healthcare? And I'm all for mass transit, but is it more important than getting alternate sources of energy online? If reducing the deficit is so important, why does Friedman -- and virtually every other pundit -- insist that a gas tax be revenue neutral?

This, however, may be the most extravagant claim: