Tuesday, May 24, 2011

More Are Making Plans To Counter The Effects Of “Man Made Climate Change”


As many of my readers know, I have a real issue to those whom deny and voice their feeble arguments against “Man Made Climate Change.”

Just last week I was called by my insurance agency that has my home insurance, (I was in good hands with this insurance) as they wanted to go over some home insurance changes that came about from the head office. When I sat down in the local office, the agent went over some small issues. This national insurance is no longer going to insure Florida, and all coastal areas in states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South and North Carolina, Virginia, etc. and Maryland. But because I live in the middle of the Delmarva Peninsula, they are still going to insure me but at a slight increase in premiums….an extra $20.00 per year about.

You may ask why this national insurance company is deciding to refuse to insure homes in these areas. In the insurance agent’s own words, because of the “Climate Trend Changes” these areas are going to be effected with sever flooding, and damaging weather occurrences. The insurance company decided if it were to insure these areas, it would cause “Sever Financial Hardship” to the company in the short term and near future.

Yes this “National Insurance Company” has reviewed the “Climate Change Facts” and made a conscience decision not to insure these areas of our country.

I would also like to add another story of a local TORNADO event here on the shore. My daughter is on the track team for the local high school. While at a meet last week, she took a picture of a TORNADO with her cell phone that developed on Kent Island right at the shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay here on the Delmarva Peninsula….we never get TORNADOS!!!! Hurricanes yes, TORNADOS NO!!!!

If we can see the changes here on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, I don’t know why anyone else can deny the changing events.

Nation wide there have been over 900 Tornados in just the months of April and May...twice as many as anytime in history for this time period!!!

I decided to complement this story by passing on more information of organizations making plans to be ready for the INEVITABLE events caused by “Man Made Climate Change.”

February 1, 2010
Pentagon released their report, “Climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked.”

The Pentagon’s primary planning document addresses the threat of global warming, noting that it will accelerate instability and conflict around the globe. In the report is language requiring the Pentagon Department to consider the effects of climate change on its facilities, capabilities, and missions to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. The Department of Defense’s, “Quadrennial Defense Review,” officially released discusses the department’s “strategic approach to climate and energy”:

Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Pentagon Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.

The QDR notes that climate change affects the Department of Defense “in two broad ways”:
First, global warming impacts and disasters will “act as an accelerant of instability or conflict.”
Second, military installations and forces around the globe will have to adapt to rising seas, increased extreme weather, and other effects of global warming:

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.

The military is working on not just responding to the impacts of global warming, but also mitigating the threat by reducing global warming emissions. Increased use of renewable energy and energy efficiency not only lessens the military’s enormous carbon footprint, but also delivers immediate security benefits:

Energy efficiency can serve as a force multiplier, because it increases the range and endurance of forces in the field and can reduce the number of combat forces diverted to protect energy supply lines, which are vulnerable to both asymmetric and conventional attacks and disruptions.

The consequence of the Pentagon's failure to prepare could result not just in lost dollars but also in lost lives.
There are five key areas in which effective military planning can be undermined by uncertainty over when and how the major carbon-emitting countries combat climate change.

First, climate change poses a threat to fragile states that lack the capacity to adapt to environmental shifts. The Pentagon needs to know if the military will be called upon to operate more often in countries that have collapsed or are on the brink of doing so. The risk of a regional conflagration sparked by global warming is particularly severe in east Africa and south Asia. How urgently should the Pentagon begin planning for such contingencies?

Second, the US military needs to know how significantly to expand its capacity to act as a first responder in times of natural disaster. Climate change will increase the frequency of large-scale disasters over the next three decades. But the scope of this threat will vary depending on what action is taken to minimize emissions. Although some of the emergencies created or exacerbated by climate change may be managed by the UN, the US military has an unrivalled capacity to act as a first responder in these situations.
Recall the Indian Ocean tsunami that struck a little more than three years ago: only the US could or would so rapidly have deployed and sustained the 15,000 troops, two dozen ships and 100 aircraft needed for the mission. But if the US military anticipates being called upon more often to respond to such disasters then it needs clarity about how soon it should invest more resources into planning such missions.

Third, the US military will have to conduct traditional missions in increasingly adverse weather conditions. Planners must decide how soon to invest in equipment that works better in storms, floods and other hostile climates.

Fourth, rising sea levels and other climatic factors could threaten the viability of bases on islands or low-lying coastal areas. The US military must know how urgently it needs to plan to protect or, in extreme circumstances, compensate for the loss of bases in strategic areas. The Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian Ocean, which serves as a major hub for US and British missions in the Middle East and is vital to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, may be at risk from climate change.

Moreover, expanding existing bases or creating new ones is often expensive and politically challenging. If the Pentagon had a clear sense of what steps were going to be taken to combat global warming, it might choose to invest more in developing its own offshore "sea basing" platforms that do not require host-country consent.

Fifth, the roles of the army and National Guard will need to evolve according to the degree of global warming. National Guard troops are responsible for responding when necessary to domestic natural disasters, but this may not be viable if their deployment overseas leaves the US short of troops and equipment at a time when extreme weather occurs more often at home. The Pentagon might need to begin helping to create a state-level home guard to take over domestic disaster duties from the National Guard.


May 20, 2010
National Academy of Sciences urges strong action to cut greenhouse gases.

The National Academy of Sciences released their report findings on the “most comprehensive report ever on climate change” suggests taxing carbon emissions. It also raises the possibility that global warming might make it necessary to shift vulnerable populations away from coasts.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap-and-trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.

Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum, at least in the immediate future, are necessary because "climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming ... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link these effects to humans," said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

What is so hard for me to understand that many in my Republican Party will believe that Man Walked With Dinosaurs, the Earth is only 10,000 years old, Evolution is not real, and will even point to the increase of hurricanes, tornados, coastal flooding, that these are all caused as a sign from God of the Earth’s near end. But if you show them the science facts of “Cause and Effects” of these occurrences, they will parrot the nonsense from conservative talk radio and Fox programming that this is not proven nor the case. “It is just made up stuff and has not been proven.”

National Insurance Companies are canceling policies for home owners against wind and flood damage along the coastal areas, and in some cases whole states, because they have looked at the science facts and realized the odds of more and drastic occurrences of weather damage in the near future.

The Pentagon has been convinced enough it needs to know what kind of environment to prepare for to allocate its vast resources efficiently. Planning for future contingencies is a long-term process, as force structure and weapons systems have to be co-ordinate at least a decade in advance to make combat reaction plans to compensate and take into consideration that “Man Made Climate Change” will affect everyone in every country around the world.

National Academy of Sciences has collected the data and has scientifically proven that “Man Made Climate Change” is occurring.

But for the lemming dumb asses who choose to believe Rush Limbaugh or any of his like, or their local Fundamentalist Preacher, that “Man Made Climate Change” is not occurring….I am speechless as it is just incomprehensible for me that people are so ignorant.

But I see wearing a “T” Shirt makes it so for some!?!?!?

8 comments:

  1. The problem is that people feel much more comfortable with myths rather than reality. Also, simple solutions that seem to comfort them. Eliminate the deficit and the national debt, nevermind that the last time that was tried, the country found itself deep in a depression. Likewise, there is the myth that repealing all the depression era safeguards will bring about prosperity.

    The problem with climate change is that it requires people to change their lifestyle. Try to eliminate the reliance upon fossil fuels and other human contributors to climate change. The problem is that people have waited until it is far too late to do anything. Not to mention that change is frightening.

    Some people would prefer to hide from the truth since reality is far too frightening for them. No matter how much reality is intruding upon their world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Engineer- quite an excellent expose' and thank you for attempting to move this problem to the front burners so that Americans can see exactly what their past ignorance has precipitated. As Laci stated, 'The problem with climate change is that it requires people to change their lifestyle.'

    As you and I know, Engineer, America is much more 'conservative' than Europe and as a result, we don't like to change our comfortable lifestyles. We ignore the pending problem and hunker down hoping to 'ride out the storm.' Pun intended!

    I noted with some sadness that the Germans are refusing to use E-10 petrol for their autos in such great numbers, that petrol stations are no longer offering it. Many say that 'it may hurt their engines!' If the Germans are that selfish, then the entire world ought to shutter!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. First, a comment about the Germans disdain for e10, ethanol based fuels for their cars. The Germans are much more "green" than many industrialized countries. The cultivation of the organic material, corn and sugar cane used to produce ethanol is actually quite ecologically and socially destructive. The corn hybrids used are mostly produced by Monsanto and the intensive use of land for this kind of cultivation is incredibly destructive to the farmland itself. The results of intense hybrid corn production has already destroyed thousands of acres of land in the USA. It "burns out" the soil. Even worse is the destruction of the Rain Forests to create land devoted to short term ethanol crop agricultural use. This of course is happening legally and illegally in Brazil at a horrific rate. The destruction of the rain forest is as destructive and as much of a man made cause of global warming as the pollution caused by auto exhaust.
    The biggest problem of course with intensive ethanol agriculture is the huge amount needed and the immediate profit to be made with this material. The profit lure has destroyed much valuable agricultural land that should be devoted to food for humans. This mis use of one of our most important resources is contributing to the rising prices of grains and the lack of grazing land for live stock.
    Obviously, ethanol is not an answer, but it is a source of short term profit and a sort of lifeline to an entire industry that should have become obsolete. It is another dead end non solution which only prolongs the real problem.
    Of course if the Germans were so truly eco conscious, they'd bring back the zepplin.....

    ReplyDelete
  4. meanwhile, as the USA suffers through it's extreme weather, rainy cool springtime, we are experiencing our warmest spring on record.
    Here it is May 29th and we are in the midst of a real drought. It has not rained here in weeks, the major rivers are already at their lowest summer time levels and this department as well as 50 others here in France are under emergency water rules...you can't fill your pool, farmers are restricted from irrigation. I khave a large vegetable garden and I can't legally use the hose...I can do bucket watering....very tedious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. another comment about Germany. Today, it was announced that Germany will officially shut down all of it's nuclear poser plants by 2022.
    Does that mean they are going to go back to old carbon based energy production? No, they are embarking upon a futurist, progressive program that will put them light years ahead of the rest of the world.
    pay attention....

    ReplyDelete
  6. sorry for the multiple postings here...but why only 5 comments after such a great piece? It rained here finally...the first time in weeks....
    The latest news from Fukushima looks worse than ever...

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Nullius in Verba"
    Not really disputing what you have said here, but...
    Where's the Data???
    I have only dedicated a few hours to researching climate change and found it very difficult to get good data and very difficult to draw conclusions from the data I have found. I suggest you heed your own advice :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. You might qualify for a new government sponsored solar rebate program.
    Click here to find out if you qualify now!

    ReplyDelete