New York Times:
Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.
Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
"We will pay for this one way or another," says retired Gen. Anthony Zinni. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind... Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives."
In fact, it's already costing human lives. In June of 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon placed the blame for genocide in Darfur on global warming.
Two decades ago, the rains in southern Sudan began to fail. According to U.N. statistics, average precipitation has declined some 40 percent since the early 1980s. Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming.
It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought. Until then, Arab nomadic herders had lived amicably with settled farmers. A recent Atlantic Monthly article by Stephan Faris describes how black farmers would welcome herders as they crisscrossed the land, grazing their camels and sharing wells. But once the rains stopped, farmers fenced their land for fear it would be ruined by the passing herds. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out. By 2003, it evolved into the full-fledged tragedy we witness today.
The people who deny global warming deny it for a reason -- dealing with it will cost money. So it's just better, in their minds at least, to ignore it or pretend it isn't happening. But the truth is that the consequences of not reducing global warming would be much more expensive -- not to mention tragic -- than reducing it.
One way or another, we're going to wind up dealing with it -- it's completely unavoidable. The question is whether we're going to be smart about it and deal with it now or if we're going to allow people to talk us into being stupid, after which we'll deal with the consequences.
