TheNextGeneration

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national security. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

HERE IS A FABULOUS MUST READ: A "green" commander at Fort Bliss, Maj. Gen. Dana J. H. Pittard sees energy conservation as a matter of national security

Posted on 1:58 PM by Unknown

At one Army base, a vision for a new shade of green

Maj. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, as commander at Ft. Bliss, moves to cut energy use, increase recycling, conserve water and more. To him, it's a matter of security.

Ft. Bliss environment
Maj. Gen. Dana J. H. Pittard, as commander of the Army's Ft. Bliss, pressed to set up environmental measures. (Sgt. Valerie Lopez / September 10, 2010)

by Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2013

EL PASO — The endless desert that makes up Ft. Bliss looks a lot like places where the United States fought its recent wars or where it might fight its next one. Tanks are manned by soldiers whose faces are wrapped against the blowing sand. Dust devils rise, stagger and fall to the desert floor.
The Army's 1st Armored Division, based at Ft. Bliss, served in Iraq and Afghanistan. For Maj. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, the division's past — and the scenarios for its future — have pushed him to change Ft. Bliss in ways that, at first, seem unrelated to warfare.
The 1.2-million-acre base, much of it firing ranges and training grounds, straddles Texas and New Mexico. It has an annual electric bill of about $23.3 million, and at the height of summer demand uses about 70 megawatts of energy, enough to power about 42,000 homes. When Pittard arrived, little was recycled. Thousands of brass casings were left on firing ranges. Drinking water was used to sustain the two golf courses and grassy parade grounds in the desert.
"It was criminal," Pittard said. "A lot of things here were criminal."
As base commander, Pittard moved to cut energy use and switch to renewables, increase recycling, conserve drinking water, build bike paths and test an experimental combat outpost that consumes less fuel and water.
As a result, the base's buildings used 27% less energy last year than two years ago. And while only 1% of its power now comes from renewable energy sources, that number is expected to jump sharply over the next several years as solar projects come online.
If a base is self-sufficient, it becomes less vulnerable to outside threats, such as power outages, Pittard believes. And if the United States and other countries husband their resources now, perhaps they could avoid future wars.
"Most of us have been deployed three, four, five times," Pittard said. "If we do something like reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East, maybe we'd be fighting fewer wars over there."
The Pentagon says it has made overhauling energy use a priority. The U.S. military is one of the world's largest consumers of fossil fuels, but by 2025, it plans to draw at least 25% of its energy from renewable sources. The Navy's fighter planes have begun to burn biofuel. The Pentagon is experimenting with plug-in nontactical vehicles at several bases.
Pittard could easily be the exemplar of the Pentagon's commitment to sustainability, given the scope of his work. Instead, he is the outlier.
"Some other bases have reached out to me to find out what we're doing, but most aren't as interested as we are in this," said Pittard, who is about to retire. "You look at what the senior leadership of the Army would want you to do, and this isn't even in the top 10."
Richard G. Kidd IV, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for energy and sustainability, maintained that although "changing organizational behavior is hard work," the Army's sustainability efforts have broad support. "They are one of four foundational values of the Army; they are in the top 10 lists of both the chief of staff of the Army and the secretary of the Army. … I think the real story here is how high a priority these topics have within an Army at war."
But a recent progress report on an Army sustainability initiative that includes Ft. Bliss echoed Pittard's concerns about the uphill fight sustainability faces: "Significant change is needed in how Army leaders, soldiers, civilians and contractors think, plan and operate."
A graduate of West Point, Pittard is unusual in the military for his embrace of issues a step removed from combat.
Born in Japan into a military family, Pittard calls himself a lifelong, if closeted, conservationist. He remembers learning to appreciate nature during his fourth-grade year in Portland, Ore. Starting in the mid-1980s, he spent about 10 years off and on in Germany, where he said he encountered greater environmental awareness than he had seen in the U.S. and made friends in the Green Party. He talks of the safari trip he took with his sons to Tanzania, and his glee at his older son's decision afterward to study zoology.
A onetime military aide to President Clinton, Pittard served in Kosovo and Iraq before assuming command of Ft. Irwin. There, Southern California Edison told him the base's power would have to be turned off for a few hours' work, which, he said, made him wonder, "'If these guys can just turn off my power like that, what could an organized, well-funded, well-planned terrorist operation do?'"
Ft. Bliss' across-the-board sustainability initiatives, down to the minutiae of tree planting and the kind of plastic cups used, make it seem like Portland with missiles.
"Our mission was to prepare our soldiers and units for combat," Pittard wrote in his valedictory letter to his division. "Additionally, our collective goal was to create the most healthy, fit and resilient community that is environmentally sound in America."
With past and future deployments overseas in mind, Pittard has also set up a prototype outpost, similar to where soldiers live in remote parts of Afghanistan, where the link between energy use and combat is explored.
It has a sophisticated system of interconnected diesel generators, or microgrid, that uses half the fuel in a week that a conventional outpost would, reducing fuel convoys that could attract enemy attacks. It purifies shower and sink water. Each aspect of energy use is analyzed, down to how often doors to the outside are opened.
"For a forward operating base anywhere in the world, you want it to be as self-sustaining as possible," Pittard said. "The fewer logistical convoys you have, the less vulnerable they are."
The Pentagon provides little money for sustainability efforts, so Ft. Bliss has had to figure out the financing of its many efforts.
Pittard hit the ground running, aware that he had only a couple of years to achieve results before his command changed. "Bureaucratic inertia is probably the biggest obstacle," he said. "People slow-roll you because they know you'll leave and they can wait you out."
The base recently announced construction of a 20-megawatt solar array, the military's largest renewable energy project. Already there are solar panels everywhere: on almost every roof in a townhouse development; by the new aquatics center where they heat the pool; by headquarters, barracks, dining halls; in parking lots where they also provide shade against the blazing heat.
Ft. Bliss is exploring other energy sources too, such as geothermal to power a new hospital and a waste-to-energy facility that would use El Paso's waste.
The base wants to use treated wastewater, or gray water, on parade grounds and golf courses. An aggressive recycling campaign has sent so much material to the recycling plant that the base has gotten money back to keep sports programs that other bases have cut because of budget reductions.
The veterans cemetery stripped hard-to-maintain grass and landscaped with decomposed granite, which reduced water use by half and made it look like a red-earthed Zen garden.
The new Ft. Bliss commander, Gen. Sean MacFarland, has pledged to continue the sustainability efforts. But once Pittard retires, it remains unclear whether anyone would remain in the Army's upper ranks who has his zeal for the environment.
In a recent speech, Pittard said of his son's study of zoology: "He absolutely loves this planet, and so do I. … It is our responsibility as temporary guests on the planet to sustain this beautiful place called Earth."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-green-army-20130701,0,2053637,full.story
Read More
Posted in national security, Neela Banerjee | No comments

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Obama DOJ formally accuses Fox journalist James Rosen of committing crimes under the 1917 Espionage Act

Posted on 7:58 PM by Unknown
Obama DOJ formally accuses journalist in leak case of committing crimes

Yet another serious escalation of the Obama administration's attacks on press freedoms emerges
Glenn Greenwald
by Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian, May 20, 2013

rosen
Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen had his emails read by the Obama DOJ, which accused him of being a co-conspirator in a criminal leak case. Photo: screen grab

(updated below — Update II — Update III)
It is now well known that the Obama justice department has prosecuted more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined — in fact, double the number of all such prior prosecutions. But as last week's controversy over the DOJ's pursuit of the phone records of AP reporters illustrated, this obsessive fixation in defense of secrecy also targets, and severely damages, journalists specifically and the news gathering process in general.
New revelations emerged yesterday in the Washington Post that are perhaps the most extreme yet when it comes to the DOJ's attacks on press freedoms. It involves the prosecution of State Department adviser Stephen Kim, a naturalized citizen from South Korea who was indicted in 2009 for allegedly telling Fox News' chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, that US intelligence believed North Korea would respond to additional UN sanctions with more nuclear tests — something Rosen then reported. Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist — something done every day in Washington — and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for "espionage."
The focus of the Post's report yesterday is that the DOJ's surveillance of Rosen, the reporter, extended far beyond even what they did to AP reporters. The FBI tracked Rosen's movements in and out of the State Department, traced the timing of his calls, and — most amazingly — obtained a search warrant to read two days worth of his emails, as well as all of his emails with Kim. In this case, said the Post, "investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material." It added that "court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist."
But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that the DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that not only Kim, but also Rosen — the journalist — committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information — something investigative journalists do every day — Rosen himself broke the law. Describing an affidavit from FBI agent Reginald Reyes filed by the DOJ, the Post reports [emphasis added]:
"Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, 'at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.' That fact distinguishes his case from the probe of the AP, in which the news organization is not the likely target. Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a 'covert communications plan' and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information. . . . However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so."
Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ — that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information — is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.
That same "solicitation" theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can "charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them." When that theory was first disclosed, I wrote that it would enable the criminalization of investigative journalism generally:
"Very rarely do investigative journalists merely act as passive recipients of classified information; secret government programs aren't typically reported because leaks just suddenly show up one day in the email box of a passive reporter. Journalists virtually always take affirmative steps to encourage its dissemination. They try to cajole leakers to turn over documents to verify their claims and consent to their publication. They call other sources to obtain confirmation and elaboration in the form of further leaks and documents. Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau described how they granted anonymity to 'nearly a dozen current and former officials' to induce them to reveal information about Bush's NSA eavesdropping program. Dana Priest contacted numerous 'U.S. and foreign officials' to reveal the details of the CIA's 'black site' program. Both stories won Pulitzer Prizes and entailed numerous, active steps to cajole sources to reveal classified information for publication.
"In sum, investigative journalists routinely — really, by definition — do exactly that which the DOJ's new theory would seek to prove WikiLeaks did. To indict someone as a criminal 'conspirator' in a leak on the ground that they took steps to encourage the disclosures would be to criminalize investigative journalism every bit as much as charging Assange with 'espionage' for publishing classified information."
That's what always made the establishment media's silence (or even support) in the face of the criminal investigation of WikiLeaks so remarkable: it was so obvious from the start that the theories used there could easily be exploited to criminalize the acts of mainstream journalists. That's why James Goodale, the New York Times' general counsel during the paper's historic press freedom fights with the Nixon administration, has been warning that "the biggest challenge to the press today is the threatened prosecution of WikiLeaks, and it's absolutely frightening."
Indeed, as Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler noted recently in the New Republic, when the judge presiding over Manning's prosecution asked military lawyers if they would "have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to WikiLeaks but directly to the New York Times?", the prosecutor answered simply: "Yes, ma'am." It has long been clear that this WikiLeaks-as-criminals theory could and would be used to criminalize establishment media outlets which reported on that which the US government wanted concealed.
Now we know that the DOJ is doing exactly that: applying this theory to criminalize the acts of journalists who report on what the US government does in secret, even though there is no law that makes such reporting illegal and the First Amendment protects such conduct. Essentially accusing James Rosen of being an unindicted co-conspriator in these alleged crimes is a major escalation of the Obama DOJ's already dangerous attacks on press freedom.
It is virtually impossible at this point to overstate the threat posed by the Obama DOJ to press freedoms. Back in 2006, Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales triggered a major controversy when he said that the New York Times could be prosecuted for having revealed the Top Secret information that the NSA was eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants. That was at the same time that right-wing demagogues such Bill Bennett were calling for the prosecution of the NYT reporters who reported on the NSA program, as well as the Washington Post's Dana Priest for having exposed the CIA black site network.
But despite those public threats, the Bush DOJ never went so far as to formally accuse journalists in court filings of committing crimes for reporting on classified information. Now the Obama DOJ has.
This week, the New Republic's Molly Redden describes what I've heard many times over the past several years: national security reporters have had their ability to engage in journalism severely impeded by the Obama DOJ's unprecedented attacks, and are operating in a climate of fear for both their sources and themselves. Redden quotes one of the nation's best reporters, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, this way:
It's a huge impediment to reporting, and so chilling isn't quite strong enough, it's more like freezing the whole process into a standstill."
Redden says that "the DOJ's seizure of AP records will probably only exacerbate these problems." That's certainly true: as surveillance expert Julian Sanchez wrote in Mother Jones this week, there is ample evidence that the Obama DOJ's seizure of the phone records of journalists extends far beyond the AP case. Recall, as well, that the New York Times' Jim Risen is currently being pursued by the Obama DOJ, and conceivably faces prison if he refuses to reveal his source for a story he wrote about CIA incompetence in Iran. Said Risen:
I believe that the efforts to target me have continued under the Obama Administration, which has been aggressively investigating whistleblowers and reporters in a way that will have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press in the United States."
If even the most protected journalists — those who work for the largest media outlets — are being targeted in this way, and are saying over and over that the Obama DOJ is preventing basic news gathering from taking place without fear, imagine the effect this all has on independent journalists who are much more vulnerable.
There is simply no defense for this behavior. Obama defenders such as Andrew Sullivan claim that this is all more complicated than media outrage suggests because of a necessary "trade-off" between press freedoms and security. So do Obama defenders believe that George Bush and Richard Nixon — who never prosecuted leakers like this or formally accused journalists of being criminals for reporting classified information — were excessively protective of press freedoms and insufficiently devoted to safeguarding secrecy? To ask that question is to mock it. Obama has gone so far beyond what every recent prior president has done in bolstering secrecy and criminalizing whistleblowing and leaks.
Goodale, the New York Times' former general counsel, was interviewed by Democracy Now last week and said this:

AMY GOODMAN: "You say that President Obama is worse than President Nixon.

JAMES GOODALE
: "Well, more precisely, I say that if in fact he goes ahead and prosecutes Julian Assange, he will pass Nixon. He's close to Nixon now. The AP example is a good example of something that Obama has done but Nixon never did. So I have him presently in second place, behind Nixon and ahead of Bush II. And he's moving up fast. . . .
"Obama has classified, I think, seven million — in one year, classified seven million documents. Everything is classified. So that would give the government the ability to control all its information on the theory that it's classified. And if anybody asks for it and gets it, they're complicit, and they're going to go to jail. So that criminalizes the process, and it means that the dissemination of information, which is inevitable, out of the classified sources of that information will be stopped.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: "What about the—
JAMES GOODALE: "It's very dangerous. That's why I'm — I get excited when I talk about it."
That was before it was known that the Obama DOJ read James Rosen's emails by formally labeling him in court an unindicted co-conspirator for the "crime" of reporting on classified information. This all just got a lot more dangerous.

UPDATE

Even journalists who are generally supportive of Obama — such as the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza — are reacting with fury over this latest revelation:


Ryan Lizza @RyanLizza
WP piece about another DOJ leak investigation is absolute must-read: http://m.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html … Tactics used against Fox's Rosen are outrageous.
7:01 AM - 20 May 2013
Lizza added:


Ryan Lizza @RyanLizza
Case against Fox's Rosen, in which O admin is criminalizing reporting, makes all of the other "scandals" look like giant nothing burgers.
7:23 AM - 20 May 2013

The Daily Beast's Eli Lake said this:

Eli Lake @EliLake
Serious idea. Instead of calling it Obama's war on whistleblowers, let's just call it what it is: Obama's war on journalism.
6:56 AM - 20 May 2013


Any journalist who doesn't erupt with serious outrage and protest over this ought never again use that title to describe themselves.

UPDATE II

Several other journalists have made some excellent points about the dangers presented by these actions, beginning with the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty:

Karen Tumulty         ✔ @ktumulty
The alternative to "conspiring" with leakers to get information: Just writing what the government tells you. @JamesRosenFNC
9:08 AM - 20 May 2013


That, of course, is precisely the point of the unprecedented Obama war on whistleblowers and press freedoms: to ensure that the only information the public can get is information that the Obama administration wants it to have. That's why Obama's one-side games with secrecy — we'll prolifically leak when it glorifies the president and severely punish all other kinds — is designed to construct the classic propaganda model. And it's good to see journalists finally speaking out in genuine outrage and concern about all of this.


Meanwhile, to convey just how warped this all is: it really is true that this very behavior of trying to criminalize national security reporting was a driving force of the worst elements on the Right during the Bush years; back then, I wrote constantly about the dangers to press freedoms such threats, by themselves, posed. Please just watch this 4-minute segment from a 2006 "Meet the Press" episode where the Washington Post's Dana Priest explains to Bill Bennett, who had called for her imprisonment, exactly what press freedoms and the law actually provide; Bill Bennett is who — and what — the Obama DOJ and its defenders are channeling today:

UPDATE III

Here's an amazing and revealing fact: after Richard Nixon lost the right to exercise prior restraint over the New York Times' publication of the Pentagon Papers, he was desperate to punish and prosecute the responsible NYT reporter, Neil Sheehan. Thus, recounted the NYT's lawyer at the time, James Goodale, Nixon concocted a theory:
"Nixon convened a grand jury to indict the New York Times and its reporter, Neil Sheehan, for conspiracy to commit espionage . . . .The government's 'conspiracy' theory centered around how Sheehan got the Pentagon Papers in the first place. While Daniel Ellsberg had his own copy stored in his apartment in Cambridge, the government believed Ellsberg had given part of the papers to anti-war activists. It apparently theorized further that the activists had talked to Sheehan about publication in the Times, all of which it believed amounted to a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act."
As Goodale notes, this is exactly "the same charge Obama's Justice Department is investigating Assange under today," and it's now exactly the same theory used to formally brand Fox's James Rosen as a criminal in court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/20/obama-doj-james-rosen-criminality
Read More
Posted in corrupt officials, national security, Threat to our democracy | No comments

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Climate Change is the Top Threat according to the Commander of US Forces Pacific

Posted on 9:09 PM by Unknown
by A. Siegel, "Get Energy Smart! NOW!" blog, March 9th, 2013

According to the Commander of U.S. Forces Pacific (PACCOM),

significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’
Admiral Samuel Locklear had a meeting the other day with national security experts at Tufts and Harvard. After this session, he met with a reporter who asked him asked what the top security threat was in the Pacific Ocean. Rather than highlighting Chinese ballistic missiles, the new Chinese Navy aircraft carrier, North Korean nuclear weapons, or other traditional military threats, Admiral Locklear looked to a larger definition of national security.

Locklear commented that “People are surprised sometimes” that he highlights climate change — despite an ability to discuss a wide-range of threats, from cyber-war to the North Koreans. However, it is the risks — from natural disasters to long-term sea-level rise threats to Pacific nations that has his deepest attention.
“You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”
Climate Change merits national security — military — attention for very pragmatic reasons.
The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”
And, Admiral Locklear is now — almost certainly with Joint Chiefs of Staff and Office of Secretary of Defense knowledge and support — taking this up seriously with other nations.
“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’
The Pacific region has seen some of the largest multi-national disaster relief operations. Operation Sea Angel in 1991, following a devastating typhoon on Bangladesh, involved numerous military forces — including the Chinese Navy. Similarly, many nations used military forces to respond across the Indian Ocean to the disastrous December 2004 Aceh Tsunami. Admiral Locklear is looking to the reality of mounting seas, more damaging severe weather, and looking to other climate impacts — and is working to set the stage for the region’s military forces to work together more effectively in responding to climate disruption driven disasters.

This interview is not an isolated comment by Admiral Locklear but an indication of increasing concern about and focus on climate change. In December 2012, he raised climate change in a speech to the Asia Society. From this speech highlighting the importance and complexity of the Pacific region. His first example of a non-region specific complicating issue:
this complexity is magnified by a wide, diverse group of challenges…challenges that can significantly stress the security environment…. 
– Climate change – where increasingly severe weather patterns and rising sea levels will threaten our peoples and even threaten the loss of entire nations…and of course the inevitable earthquakes and tsunamis will continue to challenge all of us in a very unpredictable way as our planet ages. Just as today our friends and partners in the Philippines are dealing with the challenges of the most recent super typhoon.
Admiral Locklear spoke a month ago to the U.S. Indonesia Society. In the speech, he linked climate change to the military, the need for resiliency and the ability for coping with mounting disaster relief requirements.
As Indonesia’s capabilities grow, the Indonesian military should also build on its tradition of contributing forces to U.N. peacekeeping operations…yet another area where the Indonesian and American militaries can collaborate more closely to increase the level of interoperability between our forces.

While resilience in the security environment is traditionally understood as the ability to recover from a crisis, using the term in the context of national security expands its meaning to include crisis prevention. 
With large populations vulnerable to the effects of climate change and natural disasters, both our nations have a significant interest in improving our ability to quickly respond and mitigate the ongoing risk these threats bring.

We learned how local communities prepare themselves for the inevitable disruptions are critical to the region’s efforts to maintain peace, security and prosperity. 
This means working on disaster response alone is no longer the answer for the types of scenarios that we face.
 
Disaster risk reduction through mitigation, planning, and recovery that starts at the community level is required if we are to create more resilient societies. 
Private businesses and communities must look within and beyond their current capabilities to ensure that they are prepared to handle what may occur as a result of some catastrophe.
Admiral Locklear as a strong voice on climate change issues might surprise some. Consider, for example, the range of Combatant Commander formal statements to Congress as to the discussion of climate change. Writ large, not much there — and Admiral Locklear is no exception in that list.
 
Admiral Locklear has mentioned climate change before, such as commenting that it would be a stress factor in Europe (where he commanded Operation Odyssey Dawn, the attack on Qaddafi’s Libya during the Arab Spring). That Admiral Locklear is putting climate change on the top of the long-term security challenge seems to be new — to be news.
 
That a four-star flag officer is publicly stating that climate change dominates the long-term strategic discussions in his command matters.
 
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2013/03/09/climate-change-is-the-top-threat-according-to-the-commander-of-us-forces-pacific/
Read More
Posted in Adam Siegel, Consequences to infrastructure, national security | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • James Hansen: Tar Sands and Dirty Tricks
    by James Hansen, September 13, 2013 The New Yorker just published (16 September issue) an excellent article "The President and the Pip...
  • Andrew Glikson: Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species
    by Andrew Glikson , The Conversation , March 22, 2013 It’s long been known that massive increases in emission of CO 2 from volcanoes, assoc...
  • Bombshell: Recent Warming Is ‘Amazing And Atypical’ And Poised To Destroy Stable Climate That Enabled Civilization
    by Joe Romm , Climate Progress , March 8, 2013 New Science Study Confirms ‘Hockey Stick’: The Rate Of Warming Since 1900 Is 50 Times Greater...
  • Real Pragmatism for Real Climate Change: Interview with Dr. John Abraham
    by John Stafford, OilPrice.com, March 26, 2013 At a time when extreme weather incidents are causing billions in damages, businesses, governm...
  • Steve Horn: State Dept Keystone XL Enironmental Reviewer Claimed Delaware Tar Sands Refinery Made Air Cleaner
    by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, July 18, 2013 A  DeSmogBlog  investigation reveals  Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM Group) , the co...
  • James Hansen interview (video) of why he retired from NASA to be more active in climate actions
    by Climate Science Watch, April 12, 2013 Sustainability Media Lab shot this video interview on April 10, 2013, with James Hansen on why he l...
  • Justin Gillis, NYT: Maverick climate scientist James Hansen retiring from NASA, can now take a more active role in lawsuits challenging states and the federal government over their failure to limit CO2 emissions
    Climate Maverick to Quit NASA by  JUSTIN GILLIS , The New York Times , April 1, 2012 James E. Hansen , the climate scientist who issued the ...
  • Exxon acting like national guard under martial law in Mayflower, Arkansas, Pegasus tar sands dilbit spill cleanup
    Arkansas town in lockdown after oil spill nightmare by  Suzi Parker , Grist, April 5, 2013 REUTERS / Jacob Slaton There’s one Exxon gas stat...
  • Steve Horn: State Department's out-sourced Keystone XL environmental impact evaluation performed without knowing pipeline's route!!!
    by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, July 8, 2013 The State Department's decision to hand over control to the oil industry to evaluate its own ...
  • "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years," by S. A. Marcott et al., Science, 339 (2013); doi: 10.1126/science.1228026
    Science  (8 March 2013),  Vol. 339, N o. 6124,  pp. 1198-1201  DOI:  10.1126/science.1228026 REPORT A Reconstruction of Regional and Global ...

Categories

  • 2012 temperatures (3)
  • 2013 temperatures (6)
  • acidizing (1)
  • Adam Siegel (1)
  • Adaptation (1)
  • Aerosols (7)
  • Africa (2)
  • Al Gore (1)
  • Alaska (6)
  • albedo (2)
  • albedo flip (5)
  • ALEC (8)
  • Alun Hubbard (2)
  • Amazon rainforest (1)
  • Andrew C. Revkin (2)
  • Andrew Freedman (1)
  • Andrew Glikson (1)
  • Andrew J. Weaver (1)
  • Antarctic bottom water (2)
  • Antarctic Circumpolar Winds (1)
  • Antarctic Ice Sheet -- Western (WAIS) (4)
  • Antarctic Oscillation - AAO (1)
  • Antarctic warming (1)
  • Anthony R Ingraffea (1)
  • Anthony Watts (1)
  • Arctic amplification (7)
  • Arctic melt season (1)
  • Arctic Methane Emergency Group (7)
  • Arctic Ocean (5)
  • Arctic Oscillation (5)
  • Arctic sea ice mean speed (4)
  • Arctic sea ice volume (24)
  • Argo (1)
  • Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation - AMOC (2)
  • Atmospheric CO2 (8)
  • Australia (6)
  • Barry Bickmore (1)
  • bees (9)
  • Benjamin Santer (4)
  • Bidder 70 (1)
  • Big Oil Big Coal (89)
  • Bill McKibben (11)
  • Black carbon (2)
  • BOEMRE (2)
  • Brad Johnson (1)
  • Brazil (2)
  • Brian Eister (2)
  • Canada (24)
  • Carbon sinks (2)
  • Catastrophic climate change (1)
  • Charles Monnett (3)
  • China (15)
  • Chris Mooney (1)
  • Civil resistance (33)
  • Climate Change Criminals (24)
  • Climate Denial Machine (47)
  • Climate modelling (5)
  • Climate Patriots (2)
  • Climate sensitivity (1)
  • CO2 draw-down (1)
  • Consequences to infrastructure (1)
  • contrails (1)
  • coral reefs (1)
  • Corexit (1)
  • corrupt officials (60)
  • Coupled ice-ocean model (3)
  • Coupled ocean–atmosphere model (2)
  • crop yields (9)
  • CRU e-mails (2)
  • CryoSat-2 (1)
  • cyclones (2)
  • Dana Nuccitelli (9)
  • Dansgaard–Oeschger event (1)
  • David Roberts (2)
  • David Spratt (2)
  • Deforestation (2)
  • deglaciation (1)
  • Denial psychology (9)
  • divestment (11)
  • Donors Trust (2)
  • Drought (9)
  • dust (1)
  • earthquakes (3)
  • East Siberian Arctic Shelf (1)
  • Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf -- ESAS (2)
  • Eemian (3)
  • Eli Rabett (5)
  • Elizabeth Kolbert (1)
  • Ellesmere (1)
  • ENSO (11)
  • Eric Rignot (1)
  • Extreme weather events (15)
  • Ferrel cells (1)
  • First Nations (9)
  • Flooding (7)
  • floods (1)
  • Forest fires (3)
  • fracking (47)
  • Fred Singer (1)
  • freshwater lens (1)
  • fugitive emissions (2)
  • Gareth Renowden (2)
  • Gavin Schmidt (3)
  • Geoengineering (1)
  • George Monbiot (2)
  • Gerald Meehl (2)
  • glacial runoff (1)
  • Global dimming (1)
  • glyphosate (1)
  • Graham Readfearn (9)
  • Greenland ice melt (21)
  • Greenpeace (3)
  • Greg Laden (3)
  • GrIS (9)
  • Hadley cells (2)
  • Hadley circulation (2)
  • Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (1)
  • Harrison Loony Tool Schmitt (1)
  • Heartland Institute (14)
  • heat dome (3)
  • Heat waves (13)
  • hockey stick (10)
  • Holocene thermal maximum (2)
  • hurricanes (1)
  • IceSat (2)
  • Igor Semiletov (4)
  • Inhofe (2)
  • Insurers (2)
  • Intertropical Convergence Zone - ICZ (2)
  • Jakobshavn Isbræ (1)
  • James Hansen (15)
  • Jason Box (10)
  • Jeff Masters (6)
  • Jennifer Francis (7)
  • Jeremy Grantham (1)
  • Jet stream (4)
  • John Abraham (15)
  • John Christy (1)
  • John Cook (2)
  • John Kerry (2)
  • Joseph Romm (12)
  • Josh Willis (2)
  • Judith Curry (1)
  • Julie Brigham-Grette (1)
  • Justin Gillis (3)
  • Katharine Hayhoe (2)
  • Kerry Emanuel (2)
  • Kevin Grandia (1)
  • Kevin Trenberth (14)
  • Keystone Principle (14)
  • Keystone XL (57)
  • Koch Industries (13)
  • Konrad Steffen (2)
  • Lake El'gygytgyn (1)
  • Leo Hickman (2)
  • Marc Morano (3)
  • Mark Boslough (1)
  • Mark Hertsgaard (1)
  • Mark Serreze (1)
  • Mass extinctions (1)
  • Mauri Pelto (1)
  • Medieval Climate Anomaly (2)
  • Meridonal heat transport - MHT (1)
  • Methane (2)
  • Methane Gun hypothesis (9)
  • Methane hydrates (11)
  • Michael Mann (20)
  • Michael Oppenheimer (2)
  • Michael Tobis (2)
  • Milne Ice Shelf (1)
  • Mitigation (1)
  • Monckton (6)
  • Monsanto (3)
  • Myles Allen (1)
  • Naomi Klein (1)
  • Natalia Shakhova (4)
  • national security (3)
  • Neela Banerjee (1)
  • neonicotinoid pesticide (9)
  • Nitrous oxide (1)
  • North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (1)
  • North Atlantic Oscillation (2)
  • Obama (1)
  • OccupyWallStreet (5)
  • ocean acidification (2)
  • Ocean chemistry (1)
  • ocean heat content (15)
  • Ocean salinity (2)
  • Ocean temperatures (4)
  • ozone levels (1)
  • paleo-climate (4)
  • Paleo-CO2 (2)
  • Patrick Michaels (1)
  • Paul Douglas (1)
  • PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation (4)
  • Peak food (10)
  • Peak oil (1)
  • Peak Water (3)
  • Permafrost (1)
  • Permafrost - subsea (2)
  • Permian mass extinction (1)
  • Peter Gleick (3)
  • Peter Sinclair (13)
  • Peter Wadhams (4)
  • Petermann Glacier (1)
  • Phil Jones (1)
  • Pinatubo rebound effect (2)
  • pine beetles (1)
  • Pine Island Glacier (1)
  • PIOMAS (3)
  • polar bears (5)
  • Polar jet stream (8)
  • Polar vortex (2)
  • Positive feedbacks (1)
  • Precipitation extremes (4)
  • radiative forcing (2)
  • Ray Weymann (1)
  • Raypierre (1)
  • resilience (1)
  • resource scarcity (3)
  • Richard Alley (3)
  • Richard Somerville (1)
  • Rick Piltz (2)
  • Robert Corell (1)
  • Roger Pielke Jr. (1)
  • Rossby waves (2)
  • Russia (1)
  • saltwater intrusion (1)
  • Scott Mandia (1)
  • Sea level rise (13)
  • sea surface temperature anomalies (1)
  • Sediment cores (2)
  • Shell Oil (4)
  • snow cover (3)
  • Snowden (1)
  • Solar activity (1)
  • solar radiation (1)
  • Soot (3)
  • Stefan Rahmstorf (5)
  • Steve Horn (13)
  • Storm intensity (1)
  • Storm tracks diverted polewards (1)
  • Stratospheric Sudden Warmings (3)
  • sulfoxaflor (1)
  • Tamino (1)
  • tar sands (57)
  • Ted Scambos (1)
  • Terracide (1)
  • These people are completely insane (7)
  • Thomas L. Friedman (2)
  • threat multiplier (1)
  • Threat to our democracy (49)
  • Tim DeChristopher (1)
  • Tipping elements (1)
  • Tom Steyer (1)
  • Tornado statistics (2)
  • TransCanada (3)
  • trees (1)
  • tropospheric water vapor (1)
  • Typhoon Yasi (1)
  • Van Jones (2)
  • volcanism (1)
  • WAIS (1)
  • Waleed Abdalati (1)
  • Walker circulation (2)
  • Walt Meier (1)
  • Water shortage (2)
  • William Krabill (1)
  • Willie Soon (1)
  • Wind pattern changes (2)
  • Wind power (2)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (500)
    • ▼  September (27)
      • James Hansen: Tar Sands and Dirty Tricks
      • Summer 2013 weather extremes tied to extraordinari...
      • Court rulings show judges accept climate science
      • DC judge denies another effort to derail Michael M...
      • Scientist Michael Mann named in top 10 influential...
      • Justin Gillis, NYT: A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for...
      • Top Obama aide Heather Zichal worked the Pavillion...
      • Call Sacramento. Vote NO on SB4
      • Graham Readfearn: The undiscerning climate bookshelf
      • Graham Readfearn: Australia's Department of Defenc...
      • Top Occupy Wall Street Cartoons
      • URGENT: phone your CA rep to prevent industry amen...
      • Tom Steyer, NexGen: Keystone XL bad economics for ...
      • Daily Mail Lies! No 60% recovery in Arctic sea ice...
      • Steve Horn: The Flip Side of Obama’s Keystone XL D...
      • Joseph E. Stiglizt, NYT: Why Janet Yellen, Not Lar...
      • "Global crop exposure to critical high temperature...
      • Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging th...
      • Margaret Heffernan: Dare to Disagree
      • "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2...
      • U.S. Becomes Largest Wood Pellet Exporter,Enviva, ...
      • Rebuttal to Michael Tobis' unsubstantiated attacks...
      • Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple ...
      • Steve Horn: "Frackademia" By Law: Section 999 of t...
      • MUST SEE, Peter Sinclair: No Slowdown in Global Wa...
      • Dana Nuccitelli: The Pacific Ocean fills in anothe...
      • Posts from August 2013
    • ►  August (78)
    • ►  July (74)
    • ►  June (56)
    • ►  May (62)
    • ►  April (105)
    • ►  March (98)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile