Climate Change: Pentagon Report Predicted Global Warming Catastrophe
By Rob on Feb 26, 2008 in Environment, Featured, News
An article in the Observer of England that was published a few years back has been stirring people up after hitting the top of Digg recently. In 2004 the Observer managed to obtain a “suppressed” Pentagon report claiming that by 2020 we will live on shrunken continents with crumbling social infrastructures. And all because we couldn’t green up in time.
The Guardian reports that the study was commissioned by Andrew Marshal, the Pentagon’s futurist-in-chief and warns that “abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.”
The year 2020 is not far off and this report is considerable cause for alarm. If Great Britain is truly to be plunged into a “Siberian climate” and rising water levels threaten to destroy coastal nations, it is high time the U.S. takes a strong public stance on more sustainable sources of energy.
With the booming industrialization of India and China, the world’s two most populated countries, we cannot afford to avoid providing any possible guidance in setting high global standards in low-impact energy generating and waste disposal.
I, for one, am reconsidering the invitation to join my friends who moved out to Colorado to start a sustainable subsistence compound.
Come on people, make some noise. Don’t think buying a Prius and eating organic vegetables will do much good.
Devil's Advocate | Mar 7, 2008 | Reply
Please stop with the global warming madness. The recent data from NASA last week just said we’re cooling now.
Bobby Joe | Mar 10, 2008 | Reply
Well, you are correct up to a point. But I believe that we will not face the problem, much less solve it, unless you and people of similar mind keep doing what your doing. And the reasons are many. This is a comment, so I’ll be brief and stick to reason #1. The United States Government is, by design, slow to respond to all but the most dire and immediate threats. It is designed to be deliberative, to ponder and consider alternatives, to debate. Here and there, a president may run roughshod over this structure for a brief time. But to ask the government to implement a prompt, expensive, unproven, and drastically altered lifestyle for all its citizens is to ask the impossible. Mr. Rancher, Mr. Grocer, Mr. Yacht owner, Mr. Attorney, and all the rest are known as stakeholders. In an electoral system, they have power, and simply will not, say, let the cattle out of their pens to roam the prairies feeding on wild grasses, and hire a bunch of cowboys for spring branding and the fall cattle drive to Abeline. You yourself have in your article espoused a desire to stick your head in the ground. Just how long do you think your “sustainable subsistance compound” will last when you run out of water and the dust storms come. You owe it to yourself, hell, we all do, to do more than complain of what others are not doing. In pointing out danger and advocating change, you are really doing more of what needs a lot of doing. I’ll bet you’ve got a list. I sure have. The American Diet needs to change. Don’t eat anything that goes “moo”, whether it can stand on all fours or not. That’s top of my list. Let’s see if we can get that Michael Moore fellow to run the Department of Agriculture.