February 27, 2004

Global warming: a threat worse than terrorism?

I took a look at this piece in The Observer on Monday, then set it aside. It seemed slightly hysterical. After all, the authors of the report on which the story is based say its contents represent the “worst case.” As it has been digested in the political, scientific and environmenal communities, however, the report for the Pentagon has taken on a life of its own. The report, done by a couple of futurists (one of whom, at age 82, is known as Yoda), was never “secret,” as the Observer suggested and has been released publicly. Nonetheless, the worst case it forsees is, indeed, bad: Global warming leads to the melting of glaciers, which in turn flood the oceans with fresh water, leading to severe cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Shorelines encroach on coastal cities. The shutdown of warming ocean currents plunges Britain into winters of Siberian intensity. Europe and America become fortresses trying, perhaps futilely, to protect the food, water and energy resoures their populations need. Military confrontations over natural resoures – including possible nuclear war – would be come commonplace. And so forth. The scariest part of the report is that this could all happen quite suddenly – as in the next 5 to 15 years, according to the report’s authors, Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. They write: "The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable—to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security. “We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. “We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately." Tom Regan of the Christian Science Monitor has a good overview of reactions to the report and several links to articles about it. Now, will our “war president” also become a “global warming president?” Well, in five years it'll be someone else's problem.

Posted by tbrown at 02:53 PM

Finally – something pertinent about Mel’s movie

I’ve steered clear of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of The Christ” for the same reason I’ve steered clear of “Kill Bill” and DVD rental of “The Wild Bunch.” Gratuitous gore doesn’t interest me. A question that goes far beyond my parochial personal tastes, however, is the historical context of Mel's flick and how it relates to anti-Semitism in the past and present. I’ve been looking all week for some sensible information on this and I’ve finally found it on the blog of Middle East expert Juan Cole, who ought to be on everyone’s favorites list. It’s my must-read post of the week.

Posted by tbrown at 02:46 PM

Does Greenspan want to destroy Social Security?

Yes, says Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post (free site registration may be required). “ … over the last week, in a remarkable series of talks, Greenspan has decided to cash in his personal credibility, as well as the reputation of the Federal Reserve System, to push a radically conservative agenda while serving as cheerleader for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign,” writes Pearlstein. “Greenspan was in full Republican dress Wednesday during his appearance before the House Budget Committee. Describing the long-term deficit outlook in bleak terms, he urged Congress to cut back on future benefit levels for Social Security and Medicare -- not coincidentally, the necessary political predicate to the private accounts that top the Bush-Cheney agenda. “Then, without missing a beat, Greenspan declared that it would be a bad idea to try to balance the budget by raising taxes in any way, effectively embracing the lunatic notion that cutting taxes will generate more government revenue, not less, by stimulating additional economic growth. This theory, of course, was disproved both during the 1980s, when taxes were cut and the deficit swelled, and the 1990s, when taxes were raised and deficits turned to surplus. It also suggests the intriguing proposition that the optimal tax rate is zero, which no doubt has some appeal to Greenspan's inner libertarian.” Blogger Billmon also has an excellent post on the “The Two Faces of Alan Greenspan.”

Posted by tbrown at 02:43 PM