Republicans Refuse to Expand Climate Change Analysis in Intelligence Authorization

I will have a few posts on the Intelligence Authorization that passed the House Intelligence Committee last week.  (h/t Steven Aftergood)

But before I talked about what made it into the bill, I’d like to highlight what isn’t in it: language requiring the Intelligence Community to consider climate change. The minority views reveal,

One of the bill’s weaknesses is that it does not do enough to enhance analysis of the national security implications of climate change, which the Intelligence Community refers to as environmental indications and warning. Whether by driving competition for scare [sic] resources, by opening the Arctic, or by increasing sea level and storm surge near our naval installations, climate change will have profound, destabilizing effects which need to be understood, anticipated, and accounted for. There may be disagreement about the causes of climate change, but the national security consequences are so significant that they cannot be ignored.

The intelligence community has been delving into this area in recent years (and appear to have renamed climate change “environmental indications and warning”). But thus far, the IC has stopped short of treating climate change as the threat to the US it clearly represents.

It appears Democrats on HPSCI tried to change that. And Republicans refused.

Someday the climate deniers will be held responsible for leaving our country vulnerable. And the Democrats will have left a record of those who should be held responsible.

8 replies
  1. bloopie2 says:

    The military and NASA are fully on board with the concept of ‘dealing with climate change’, since many of their facilities are on the seashore. Idiots like those referenced above would never survive in a real organization where one has to deal with reality rather than wishes.

  2. bloopie2 says:

    Off topic ,but Jonathan Chait strikes again in his latest New York Magazine post.

    “There is no official bureau of journalists. Perhaps years ago it was possible to construct a distinction between “journalists” and “regular people.” Journalists disseminated their ideas via television, radio, or newspapers, and regular people had to settle for voicing their opinions at the local bar, or, if they were especially agitated, on a sandwich board. But social media has collapsed the distinction completely. Anybody can call themselves a journalist now. Therefore, allowing “journalists” to publish secret government documents means allowing anybody to do it.”

    Gee, isn’t that what the First Amendment is all about?

  3. anonymous says:

    OT but as Obama and Kerry fade off into the sunset, maybe someday they’ll realize that Edward Snowden and Vladimir Putin were actually their best allies, the best friends that ‘America’ could have had . . . but . . . it’s too late.

    • wallace says:

      quote”Someday the climate deniers will be held responsible for leaving our country vulnerable. And the Democrats will have left a record of those who should be held responsible.”unquote

      Pan emptywheels Samurai sword of wit and blistering tempered steel resolve.

  4. wallace says:

    opps..sorry anonymous. I quoted Marci by mistake and left my reply to you. apology.

  5. s says:

    The irony here is that the Pentagon actually has done some planning since Jimmy Carter’s glorious Global 2000 report.

    @bloopie: Actually, Glen Greenwald, and perhaps Marcy (whom am I to assign her identity!) do a specific type of work, in the established journo circles it’s characterized as that of being a “Civic Journalist’ and is documented by definition in the profession’s manuals and published ethics criticism. Sorry, it’s buried in my library of involuntary chaos but if I get a chance I’ll post it. In no way do either Marcy, Glen, or the like really share much space with other types of journalists, whether they manage book reviews or stick to regional op-ed pieces. yet honestly I don’t believe anybody that isn’t thoroughly knowledgeable in journalist ethics can be considered a journalist at all. It’s intrinsic to the work product.

  6. s says:

    Gosh dang, I know this is far afield from the subject of the post, but bloopie and the question of what is a journalist just never much defined gets. And don’t know if my previous response to bloopie on Glen, Marcy, regarding civic journalism will have posted, but here’s some links:

    Pew Center for Civic Journalism:

    “At its heart is a belief that journalism has an obligation to public life – an obligation that goes beyond just telling the news or unloading lots of facts. The way we do our journalism affects the way public life goes. Journalism can help empower a community or it can help disable it.”
    The link contains the below topics:

    Media Matters: Voters are People
    by Jay Rosen for The Nation magazine

    Teddy White Would Have Approved
    by Stan Cloud of the Citizens Election Project

    etc etc

    Covering Politics Civic Journalism Style
    by Rick Thames of the Charlotte Observer

Comments are closed.