coalition of 25 leading national consumer groups and grassroots environmental organizations has formed to urge the Senate to improve sweeping climate change legislation passed by the House of Representatives by stripping out the corporate giveaways and including strong protections for struggling energy consumers and the environment.
In a letter sent today to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is still crafting the Senate's version of the bill, the groups say that 100 percent of the carbon credits should be auctioned and revenues should be used for direct consumer relief as proposed in February by President Obama. To the extent that the committee builds on the House-passed bill, the groups, which include AARP, Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), Public Citizen, National Consumer Law Center and TURN, are calling on the Senate to establish a stronger system of consumer protection.
Thanks to backroom deals with polluting industries and corporate lobbyists, the current version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a loser for the environment and for consumers, said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program. The House version would give away 85 percent of the carbon credits for free to utilities, oil refiners and manufacturers. While consumers are offered no protection from price volatility or rate hikes in this version, industrial energy users secured protections to guarantee their bottom lines.
"Powerful interests got special protections in the climate legislation, leaving households inadequately protected from high prices," Slocum said. "We are calling for equitable treatment for families and no windfall profits for corporate interests."
Current accountability measures in the bill are inadequate to ensure that electric and natural gas local distribution companies use the proceeds from their carbon credit auctions to benefit consumers by lowering rates for low-income and middle-class households and by investing in sustainable energy for the future. As written, the bill will result in windfall profits for many large polluters and delay the country's transition to cleaner energy technologies.
"AARP is committed to improving the health of our environment so that all people, no matter their age, can enjoy healthy communities," said Elaine Ryan, vice president of government relations for AARP. "While we want to see a bill that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, we are acutely concerned for the well-being of middle, low and fixed-income individuals who would be negatively impacted by potential utility rate increases. Research and experience have shown us time and time again that an individual's inability to afford utility costs can have catastrophic and life-threatening results. This is why AARP urges the Senate to improve this bill and provide stronger cost containments for consumers."
Added Olivia Wein, staff attorney National Consumer Law Center, "Millions of families already struggle to balance their budgets or survive on fixed incomes. They can't afford to pay the higher energy costs that will result from cap and trade. The Senate needs to clearly direct utilities, which have been given free emission allowances, to use the resulting revenue to cut the utility bills of residential customers."
"Climate policy is consumer policy in America," said Mike Tidwell director of CCAN. "Unfortunately, the House version of the climate bill was a sweet deal for Big Oil and Big Coal but not for average consumers. The Senate needs to improve the House approach by rebating carbon permit money directly and without games to voters who want both clean energy and fairness for consumers."
Mark Toney, executive director of TURN, said, "Even David needed a slingshot - and ratepayers need a consumer protection fund to stand a chance against the deep pockets of the energy industry."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The South Stream Pipeline and the Environmental Factor
The South Stream pipeline project is a complex technical endeavor which entails a wide array of factors, including that of environmental protection.The present assessment concerning South Stream's environmental impact reveals opposing views from multiple actors vying for answers, concessions and influence alike. Furthermore, the South Stream project in terms of environmental research lacks any detailed scrutiny, from either state authorities or civil organizations. This lack could be attributed to the fact that the project is still in the early stages of preparation.
The president of the Committee of the Black Sea Regional Energy Center (BSREC) and also director at the Center for Energy Policy & Development in Greece, Prof. Dimitris Mavrakis, holds an optimist view concerning the environmental viability of the project.
According to him, "Laying pipelines in the sea bed, either for developing subsea fields or for natural gas transportation is a common practice in our days."
Moreover, he explains that "the exploitation of North Sea natural gas reserves has led to the development of a dense network of subsea pipelines, without negative environmental implications, and the same applies for the Mediterranean Sea".
Mavrakis' overall final conclusion is that "South Stream does not include any environmental risks, as experience has shown from previous pipelines already deployed'.
The Italian partner in the project, ENI, has already released a press report underlying that the "strictest environmental criteria and the most advanced technologies will be carried out in cooperation with Gazprom". The Italian branch of Greenpeace, according to the local media, hasn't rejected the project in terms of its environmental prospects, though no definite report has been made by any Italian environmental organization so far.
On the other hand, there are those who objecting to the above by keeping a critical stance. According to the Moscow paper Kommersant, the press service of the Ukrainian Environmental Ministry has expressed that "the pipeline would require a close study and the conduct of a large-scale ecological assessment".
For the moment, further information has not been made available by Kiev, though diplomatic sources in Athens confirm that Ukraine will bring up the environmental issue in the future, and that this will certainly exacerbate strains in its relations with Moscow.
Further, the Polish member of the European Parliament, Mrs. Urszula Gacek, has made her country's reservations public by drafting a relevant question to the Commission in early 2008, stating that "South Stream [Pipeline] may have negative consequences concerning [the] Black Sea's ecosystem". The question was aimed at exploring the probabilities of an EU hand-out for South Stream, a development that hasn't occurred so far.
In Greece in early September 2008, when the South Stream agreement was voted on by the Parliament, the Left-wing party of Syriza voted against it, citing environmental reasons and more specifically "Physical degradation of the environment in places where the pipeline is going to cross, including the internationally protected "Natura 2000" zones".
Already the local authority of the scenic coastal Perdika region in Western Greece has proclaimed in an adamant manner that the construction of the pipeline traversing their territory, in combination with the creation of a natural gas compressor station, will "ruin their natural environment and damage extensively their well-formed tourist infrastructure".
The members of the municipal board have claimed that the existence of a preparatory report concerning the environmental consequences by a faculty member of the Athens National Technical University, though the authorities of the School were not able to verify such for the time being.
The WWF branch in Greece agrees in principle that "Natural gas should be encouraged as an alternate form of energy in comparison to lignite, oil or stone coal," but adds the caveat that the construction of the South Stream Pipeline should be "carefully assessed and become part of a public energy debate".
Bulgarian NGO's involved in environmental protection have not expressed their view on the project, but there are numerous weblogs, mostly by young university activists, calling against the construction of pipelines in general, citing environmental reasons. Similar resentment has largely come from residents of the port of Burgas, from where both South Stream and the Burgas-Alexandroupoli oil pipeline are projected to pass.
The president of the Committee of the Black Sea Regional Energy Center (BSREC) and also director at the Center for Energy Policy & Development in Greece, Prof. Dimitris Mavrakis, holds an optimist view concerning the environmental viability of the project.
According to him, "Laying pipelines in the sea bed, either for developing subsea fields or for natural gas transportation is a common practice in our days."
Moreover, he explains that "the exploitation of North Sea natural gas reserves has led to the development of a dense network of subsea pipelines, without negative environmental implications, and the same applies for the Mediterranean Sea".
Mavrakis' overall final conclusion is that "South Stream does not include any environmental risks, as experience has shown from previous pipelines already deployed'.
The Italian partner in the project, ENI, has already released a press report underlying that the "strictest environmental criteria and the most advanced technologies will be carried out in cooperation with Gazprom". The Italian branch of Greenpeace, according to the local media, hasn't rejected the project in terms of its environmental prospects, though no definite report has been made by any Italian environmental organization so far.
On the other hand, there are those who objecting to the above by keeping a critical stance. According to the Moscow paper Kommersant, the press service of the Ukrainian Environmental Ministry has expressed that "the pipeline would require a close study and the conduct of a large-scale ecological assessment".
For the moment, further information has not been made available by Kiev, though diplomatic sources in Athens confirm that Ukraine will bring up the environmental issue in the future, and that this will certainly exacerbate strains in its relations with Moscow.
Further, the Polish member of the European Parliament, Mrs. Urszula Gacek, has made her country's reservations public by drafting a relevant question to the Commission in early 2008, stating that "South Stream [Pipeline] may have negative consequences concerning [the] Black Sea's ecosystem". The question was aimed at exploring the probabilities of an EU hand-out for South Stream, a development that hasn't occurred so far.
In Greece in early September 2008, when the South Stream agreement was voted on by the Parliament, the Left-wing party of Syriza voted against it, citing environmental reasons and more specifically "Physical degradation of the environment in places where the pipeline is going to cross, including the internationally protected "Natura 2000" zones".
Already the local authority of the scenic coastal Perdika region in Western Greece has proclaimed in an adamant manner that the construction of the pipeline traversing their territory, in combination with the creation of a natural gas compressor station, will "ruin their natural environment and damage extensively their well-formed tourist infrastructure".
The members of the municipal board have claimed that the existence of a preparatory report concerning the environmental consequences by a faculty member of the Athens National Technical University, though the authorities of the School were not able to verify such for the time being.
The WWF branch in Greece agrees in principle that "Natural gas should be encouraged as an alternate form of energy in comparison to lignite, oil or stone coal," but adds the caveat that the construction of the South Stream Pipeline should be "carefully assessed and become part of a public energy debate".
Bulgarian NGO's involved in environmental protection have not expressed their view on the project, but there are numerous weblogs, mostly by young university activists, calling against the construction of pipelines in general, citing environmental reasons. Similar resentment has largely come from residents of the port of Burgas, from where both South Stream and the Burgas-Alexandroupoli oil pipeline are projected to pass.
Groups get grants to teach kids about environment
Two Illinois groups are getting federal grants to help teach students about environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded $39,000 to Friends of the Fox River in Crystal Lake. Teachers and students will collect data on biological, chemical and physical water trends along the river. Angelic Organics Learning Center in Caledonia will receive more than $18,000 to provide hands-on food and farming activities for 6th- through 12th-graders and their teachers. The EPA grants are awarded annually.
AG Brown offers to mediate dispute over stalled Chevron project in Richmond
State Attorney General Jerry Brown is offering to help hash out a deal among Richmond, Chevron and environmentalists to resume construction at the local refinery, where about 1,000 workers have been laid off, but not everyone wants Brown at the table.
City officials and the environmentalists accepted Brown's offer; Chevron thinks settlement talks should continue without him.
"The parties agreed to private mediation, before a highly qualified mediator proposed by the plaintiffs and agreed to by Chevron and the city of Richmond," refinery spokesman Brent Tippen said Wednesday. "Chevron has invested significant time and effort in this mediation process and believes that the agreed-upon private mediation has the greatest likelihood for resolving this dispute."
Construction to replace the refinery's hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude stopped about two weeks ago under court order. A Contra Costa Superior Court judge ordered permits suspended until lingering questions in the project's environmental impact report are answered.
Chevron, the city and environmental groups have met multiple times to try to reach a settlement. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement and have been tight-lipped, but multiple sources say talks have reached an impasse.
It's not unusual for settlement talks to temporarily stop if everyone needs time to think about issues and solutions away from the bargaining table, Tippen said. He added that Chevron
hopes talks can resume soon.
Brown made his offer at Tuesday night's City Council meeting before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 350, most of them union workers recently laid off from the Chevron project. The crowd greeted Brown's offer with a standing ovation as they pleaded to return to work.
"The sides aren't that far apart," Brown said. "Give me a call and I'll be here, and we'll get it solved."
The council voted unanimously to accept Brown's offer. Councilman Tom Butt hopes a high-profile political figure such as Brown, who is familiar with the issue, can move talks forward.
"It sure wouldn't hurt to give it a shot," Butt said Wednesday. "He's a plain-spoken person. He won't beat around the bush. That's what a good mediator does."
Mimi Ho, program director with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, speaking on behalf of the environmental groups, said: "We are ready, willing and able to join Jerry Brown in settlement talks. The health of Richmond's community and workers are at stake."
Brown stepped into the fray in early 2008 when he penned three letters stating that the EIR is flawed and pushing for reductions in air and greenhouse gas emissions. Brown hired a chemist, who studied the project and concluded the refinery would be able to refine heavier, more contaminated crude, echoing a concern that environmental groups have raised about increased pollution.
Chevron has insisted that replacing old equipment makes the refinery safer and more efficient, and that it will continue to refine light to intermediate crude. It has filed an appeal to the state to overturn the earlier court ruling.
A divided City Council approved the EIR and the project with a host of mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts. The environmentalists argued that the measures don't go far enough; in September, the West County Toxics Coalition, Communities for a Better Environment and Asian Pacific Environmental Network sued the city and Chevron.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council urged the parties Wednesday to let Brown in the negotiating room.
"Over 1,200 Building Trades men and women have been laid off, over 3,000 secondary jobs related to this project will be lost," the council wrote in a statement. "lt is of the utmost importance that all parties act responsibly and reach a settlement as soon as possible. Our local Building Trades men and women and our local economy depend on it."
Reprint
City officials and the environmentalists accepted Brown's offer; Chevron thinks settlement talks should continue without him.
"The parties agreed to private mediation, before a highly qualified mediator proposed by the plaintiffs and agreed to by Chevron and the city of Richmond," refinery spokesman Brent Tippen said Wednesday. "Chevron has invested significant time and effort in this mediation process and believes that the agreed-upon private mediation has the greatest likelihood for resolving this dispute."
Construction to replace the refinery's hydrogen plant, power plant and reformer to refine a wider range of crude stopped about two weeks ago under court order. A Contra Costa Superior Court judge ordered permits suspended until lingering questions in the project's environmental impact report are answered.
Chevron, the city and environmental groups have met multiple times to try to reach a settlement. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement and have been tight-lipped, but multiple sources say talks have reached an impasse.
It's not unusual for settlement talks to temporarily stop if everyone needs time to think about issues and solutions away from the bargaining table, Tippen said. He added that Chevron
hopes talks can resume soon.
Brown made his offer at Tuesday night's City Council meeting before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 350, most of them union workers recently laid off from the Chevron project. The crowd greeted Brown's offer with a standing ovation as they pleaded to return to work.
"The sides aren't that far apart," Brown said. "Give me a call and I'll be here, and we'll get it solved."
The council voted unanimously to accept Brown's offer. Councilman Tom Butt hopes a high-profile political figure such as Brown, who is familiar with the issue, can move talks forward.
"It sure wouldn't hurt to give it a shot," Butt said Wednesday. "He's a plain-spoken person. He won't beat around the bush. That's what a good mediator does."
Mimi Ho, program director with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, speaking on behalf of the environmental groups, said: "We are ready, willing and able to join Jerry Brown in settlement talks. The health of Richmond's community and workers are at stake."
Brown stepped into the fray in early 2008 when he penned three letters stating that the EIR is flawed and pushing for reductions in air and greenhouse gas emissions. Brown hired a chemist, who studied the project and concluded the refinery would be able to refine heavier, more contaminated crude, echoing a concern that environmental groups have raised about increased pollution.
Chevron has insisted that replacing old equipment makes the refinery safer and more efficient, and that it will continue to refine light to intermediate crude. It has filed an appeal to the state to overturn the earlier court ruling.
A divided City Council approved the EIR and the project with a host of mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts. The environmentalists argued that the measures don't go far enough; in September, the West County Toxics Coalition, Communities for a Better Environment and Asian Pacific Environmental Network sued the city and Chevron.
The Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council urged the parties Wednesday to let Brown in the negotiating room.
"Over 1,200 Building Trades men and women have been laid off, over 3,000 secondary jobs related to this project will be lost," the council wrote in a statement. "lt is of the utmost importance that all parties act responsibly and reach a settlement as soon as possible. Our local Building Trades men and women and our local economy depend on it."
Reprint
Evidence found of grand scale party by ancient humans 4,000 years ago
Researchers from the University of Missouri have found evidence of a grand scale party by ancient humans 4,000 years ago, in the form of remnants that still remain in the gourds and squashes that served as dishware at a Buena Vista site.
The researchers studied the residues from gourds and squash artifacts that date back to 2200 B.C. and recovered starch grains from manioc, potato, chili pepper, arrowroot and algarrobo.
The starches provide clues about the foods consumed at feasts and document the earliest evidence of the consumption of algarrobo and arrowroot in Peru.
"Archaeological starch grain research allows us to gain a better understanding of how ancient humans used plants, the types of food they ate, and how that food was prepared," said Neil Duncan, doctoral student of anthropology in the MU College of Arts and Science and lead author of the study.
"This is the first study to analyze residue from bottle gourd or squash artifacts. Squash and bottle gourds had a variety of uses 4,000 years ago, including being used as dishes, net floats and symbolic containers. Residue analysis can help determine the specific use," he added.
In the study, researchers recovered starch grains from squash and gourd artifacts by a method that currently is used to recover microfossils from stone tools and ceramics.
First, the artifact was placed in a special water bath to loosen and remove adhering residue. Then, the artifact's interior surface was lightly brushed to remove any remaining residue.
The residues were collected, and starch grains were isolated from each of these sediments.
"The starch residues of edible plants found on the artifacts and the special archaeological context from which these artifacts were recovered suggest that the artifacts were used in a ritual setting for the serving and production of food," Duncan said.
"The method used in this study could be used in other areas and time periods in which gourds and squash rinds are preserved," he added.
Scientists believe the Buena Vista site, where the starch grains were recovered, served as a small ceremonial center in the central Chillon Valley.
The social and ritual use of food is not well understood during this time period in Peru, but this research will enhance the potential for understanding, according to Duncan
The researchers studied the residues from gourds and squash artifacts that date back to 2200 B.C. and recovered starch grains from manioc, potato, chili pepper, arrowroot and algarrobo.
The starches provide clues about the foods consumed at feasts and document the earliest evidence of the consumption of algarrobo and arrowroot in Peru.
"Archaeological starch grain research allows us to gain a better understanding of how ancient humans used plants, the types of food they ate, and how that food was prepared," said Neil Duncan, doctoral student of anthropology in the MU College of Arts and Science and lead author of the study.
"This is the first study to analyze residue from bottle gourd or squash artifacts. Squash and bottle gourds had a variety of uses 4,000 years ago, including being used as dishes, net floats and symbolic containers. Residue analysis can help determine the specific use," he added.
In the study, researchers recovered starch grains from squash and gourd artifacts by a method that currently is used to recover microfossils from stone tools and ceramics.
First, the artifact was placed in a special water bath to loosen and remove adhering residue. Then, the artifact's interior surface was lightly brushed to remove any remaining residue.
The residues were collected, and starch grains were isolated from each of these sediments.
"The starch residues of edible plants found on the artifacts and the special archaeological context from which these artifacts were recovered suggest that the artifacts were used in a ritual setting for the serving and production of food," Duncan said.
"The method used in this study could be used in other areas and time periods in which gourds and squash rinds are preserved," he added.
Scientists believe the Buena Vista site, where the starch grains were recovered, served as a small ceremonial center in the central Chillon Valley.
The social and ritual use of food is not well understood during this time period in Peru, but this research will enhance the potential for understanding, according to Duncan
SC climate change forum features Sen. Warner
Former U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia is visiting the South Carolina coast for two days to discuss climate change and how it affects energy and the nation's security.
Warner arrives Wednesday for a Charleston forum sponsored by the Pew Environment Group which is holding sessions nationwide to listen and share information about the connection between national security and the environment.
A highlight of the Charleston session is a Thursday panel discussion at The Citadel. Besides Warner, panelists include Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Environmental Group and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley.
Warner arrives Wednesday for a Charleston forum sponsored by the Pew Environment Group which is holding sessions nationwide to listen and share information about the connection between national security and the environment.
A highlight of the Charleston session is a Thursday panel discussion at The Citadel. Besides Warner, panelists include Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Environmental Group and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley.
Kerry panel looks at climate change and national security
Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked, a Senate panel was warned today.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.
"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."
Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.
For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.
From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."
"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."
Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.
Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."
Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.
"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.
Correction: This item has been revised because of a reporting error that misstated the title for Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security.
Kerry's full opening statement is below:
KERRY'S PREPARED OPENING REMARKS
We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future. It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching. Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders. Fortunately, America’s most trusted security voices—including those here today—have been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.” This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPs—environmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us. Nowhere is the nexus between today’s threats and climate change more acute than in South Asia–the home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035. Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction. Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the world’s population but just two percent of the world’s water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree.Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness. Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dots—if we fail to take action—the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world. We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy. I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warner’s gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacle—a tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warner’s own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue. Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project. Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Center’s work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges. Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.
"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."
Gunn and other military specialists said that climate change could have broad effects on how the US military operates. It will likely expand the number of humanitarian missions the Pentagon will have to undertake, they said, and even change how it deploys its fighting forces.
For example, they warned that rising sea levels could swamp critical US military bases in the Indian Ocean and even the headquarters of the Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., which could be under water after just a one-meter rise in the ocean level.
From Africa to the Middle East and South Asia, dramatic changes in the weather will stress already unstable nations, creating what Gunn called "climate conflicts."
"International conflicts over resources, due to migrants, and/or as a means of distraction are not only likely," he added, "but likely to exacerbate the underlying climate change problem."
Kerry, since he took the helm of the committee earlier this year, has made addressing climate change a top priority. Several specialists said today that elevating the security aspect will help garner the kind of support necessary to make the difficult changes in energy and other global policies to stabilize the climate.
Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security, testified that the hearing was "an important demonstration of the fact that global climate change is now taken seriously as a strategic challenge."
Kerry, for his part, pledged to keep the shining the light on the issue.
"If we fail to connect the dots -- if we fail to take action -- the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world," he said.
Correction: This item has been revised because of a reporting error that misstated the title for Sharon E. Burke, vice president for natural security at the Center for a New American Security.
Kerry's full opening statement is below:
KERRY'S PREPARED OPENING REMARKS
We are here today to discuss a grave and growing threat to global stability, human security, and America’s national security. As you will hear from all of today’s witnesses, the threat of catastrophic climate change is not an academic concern for the future. It is already upon us, and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Earlier this year, a 25-mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic landmass shattered, disconnecting the Shelf from the Antarctic continent. In four years, the Arctic is projected to experience its first ice-free summer—not in 2030, but in 2013. The threat is real and fast approaching. Just as 9-11 taught us the painful lesson that oceans could not protect us from terror, today we are deluding ourselves if we believe that climate change will stop at our borders. Fortunately, America’s most trusted security voices—including those here today—have been sounding the alarm. In 2007, eleven former Admirals and high-ranking generals issued a seminal report from the Center for Naval Analysis, where Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn serves on the Military Advisory Board. They warned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today.” This is because climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. Places only too familiar with the instability, conflict, and resource competition that often create refugees and IDPs, will now confront these same challenges with an ever growing population of EDPs—environmentally displaced people. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us. Nowhere is the nexus between today’s threats and climate change more acute than in South Asia–the home of Al Qaeda and the center of our terrorist threat. Scientists are now warning that the Himalayan glaciers, which supply water to almost a billion people from China to Afghanistan, could disappear completely by 2035. Water from the Himalayas flows through India into Pakistan. India’s rivers are not only agriculturally vital, they are also central to its religious practice. Pakistan, for its part, is heavily dependent on irrigated farming. Even as our government scrambles to ratchet down tensions and prepares to invest billions to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to deliver for its people—climate change is threatening to work powerfully in the opposite direction. Worldwide, climate change risks making the most volatile places even more combustible. The Middle East is home to six percent of the world’s population but just two percent of the world’s water. A demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree.Closer to home, there is scarcely an instrument of American foreign policy that will be untouched by a changing climate. Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a vital hub for our military operations across the Middle East, sits on an atoll just a few feet above sea level. Norfolk, VA, home to our Atlantic Fleet, will be submerged by one meter of sea level rise. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will be expensive, and they risk compromising our readiness. Of course, the future has a way of humbling those who try to predict it too precisely. But we do know, from scientists and security experts, that the threat is very real. If we fail to connect the dots—if we fail to take action—the simple, indisputable reality is that we will find ourselves living not only in a ravaged environment, but also in a much more dangerous world. We are honored to be joined today by an old friend who needs no introduction in these halls. John Warner served five terms as a US Senator from Virginia. He enlisted in the Navy at age 17, served as a sailor in World War Two, fought as a Marine in Korea, and rose to become Secretary of the Navy. I met Secretary Warner when he presented me a Silver Star. Senator Warner became a friend, a colleague for twenty-four years, and one of the true gentlemen of this institution. When he retired and I was awarded his old office, Senator Warner’s gift to his fellow Navy man was a binnacle—a tool that sailors use to point out the right direction and light a path forward. Of course, none of us could ask for a better guide than Senator Warner’s own words and his life of service. I am pleased that he continues to use his extraordinary credibility to speak directly to the American people about the urgency of this issue. Our other witnesses are impressive in their own right. A decorated 35-year veteran of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn now serves as President of the American Security Project. Sharon Burke is Vice President for Natural Security at the Center for a New American Security, where she directs the Center’s work on the national security implications of global natural resources challenges. Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn is a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board and former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. I look forward to hearing from each of you. But first let us turn to a Senator who, for years, has been a Senate leader in confronting non-traditional security challenges from loose nuclear material to food security: Senator Richard Lugar
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)