Max Schulz writes for Human Events on Senators Kerry and Boxer’s specious national-security argument in support of climate-change legislation:
The appeal to national security from Kerry and his colleagues is dubious for three reasons. First, it is based on speculation from military and intelligence analysts who are occasionally assigned outside their expertise to conjure up all sorts of economic (and weather-related) scenarios that, though highly unlikely, nevertheless can’t entirely be discounted as possibility. In the 1970s, for instance, CIA analysts warned about massive migration and starvation that would be caused by the impending ice age.
Moreover, these “findings” are based entirely on the predictions of highly speculative computer models that aim to predict global weather patterns up to 100 years into the future. It is important to note that none of these models predicted the slight cooling the planet has experienced over the last decade.
The global warming hawks might have a little more credibility if they weren’t simultaneously the most dovish advocates of President Obama’s massive cuts to the defense budget. President Obama’s proposed budget aims to cut $11.5 billion from defense, including $1.62 billion from missile defense spending. To translate esoteric dollar figures into something a bit more concrete, the Democrats’ defense plans would cut the number of ground-based midcourse defense interceptors from 44 to 30, at precisely the time that North Korea is ramping up its missile program. Obama is also trying to shut down the production line that builds the F-22 aircraft responsible for our aerial advantage over Russian and Chinese fighters.
And Obama has told the Pentagon to come up with an additional $60 billion in cuts next year, without regard to the threats America faces. Nary a peep is heard from the global warming hawks in opposition to any of these cuts.
It turns out there is a national security angle to the global warming debate, just not one that Senators Kerry and Boxer intend to highlight. Passing cap-and-trade would create an artificial market for carbon credits that would attract international criminal organizations. Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso noted at Boxer’s hearing that both Interpol and the EPA “are aware of the potential threat that cap-and-trade schemes can pose if taken advantage of by [criminal] elements … [that] traffic in weapons, explosives, fake IDs and passports, drugs, money laundering, and human trafficking.” He noted that Interpol has warned that a large-scale marketplace for carbon credits likely would establish funding streams for groups like Colombia’s Marxist FARC terrorists, the Russian Mafia, or Mexican drug cartels. Those are groups that already threaten America’s national security in a variety of ways.
The fight over global warming used to be about saving the planet. But hysteria about impending climate catastrophe has turned public opinion against the idea of dramatic action. A Pew Research Center survey earlier this year found that global warming came in dead last in a ranking of 20 possible priorities, far behind things like the economy, jobs, and terrorism.
Having failed utterly to rally the American people to support extreme climate change legislation, Senator Kerry and company have their work cut out for them if they hope to get people to rally for it under a national security banner. If they fail this year — and they most likely will — will they even have the courage to raise the issue in next year’s congressional election?