Climate change is a national security threat

Many people and most scientists now accept the danger of climate change on the environment in which we all live.

Climate change is already adversely affecting Africa, according to a group of aid agencies and environmental groups (and most other Africa observers).

Arid or semi-arid areas in northern, western, eastern and parts of southern Africa are becoming drier, while equatorial Africa and other parts of southern Africa are getting wetter, the report says.

But the threat is not just to Africa. A group of retired generals and admirals recently warned that climate change "presents significant national security challenges to the United States."

The UN Security Council even held its first-ever discussion of the impact of climate change on international stability.

Many experts view climate change as a "threat multiplier" that intensifies instability around the world by worsening water shortages, food insecurity, disease, and flooding that lead to forced migration.

The band of countries between Senegal and Somalia were once agriculturally self-sufficient yet regularly face hunger emergencies as the climate has dried. It's no coincidence that clandestine African migration toward Europe originates most heavily in countries like Senegal and Mali which have been among the most affected by the changing cilmate.

Among the reports observations:

-Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. ... The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism.

-The U.S. may be drawn more frequently into these situations, either alone or with allies, to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. The U.S. may also be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun, to avert further disaster and reconstitute a stable environment.

Even the Bush administration's 2006 national security strategy noted that climate change may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response. These challenges are not traditional national security concerns, such as the conflict of arms or ideologies. But if left unaddressed they can threaten national security.

So it begs the question: if the administration claims to recognize the national security threat posed by climate change, why has it been the world leader in obstructing any significant action on the issue?

I wonder if it's because any remedial action on climate change might not benefit Boeing or Haliburton.