The military has pundits in the media, often openly ‘former pentagon official’. They promote the military industrial complex, a conglomerate of companies that keeps itself alive by making itself necessary apart from being the major instrument to securing fossil fuels and nuclear.
A number of initiatives and reports have come out of the Pentagon and other defence organizations around the world concerning climate change and energy. The above video shows the positive attitude and targets concerning renewables which is also slightly confuseing. The US navy is experimenting with algae fuels for it’s fleet and airforce. The issue of energy seems to be separated from climate change, informing different analysis.
While the korean penisula is turning into a nuclear powerkeg, the video above is about the effect of ice melting from the Arctic. The transportation route that opens up becomes a sensitive connection to the US. This is somewhat far fetched concern because it’s questionable whether global trade will be as extensive as it is today. For many this new sea route is a financial Walhallah.
Sealevel rise may be 6 feet in this century because of thermal expansion, something that is not mentioned in the IPCC report. For the Navy and all kinds of other coastal infrastructure this matters a lot. Admiral David Titley mentiones refineries in jeopardy, but this should be the least of our concerns. We should have sufficient renewables by then.
Ocean acidification is mentioned to be a concern with respect of people living of the sea. That of course is not the main problem. The big one is the anoxic ocean turning toxic. So the analysis above is purely towards commercial interests, not security it seems.
There is one big reason why armies would protect the carbon based economy. It is because big navies and armies and airforces exist only because of the energey dense fossil fuels. The modern war manchine is 100% dependent on it’s energy sources. Historically it’s easy to trace back the strength of f.i. the brittish navy to it’s conquering Iranian and other middle east fossil fuel sources. So a fair question is : Will we have big armies in a post petro world. Because there’s still a lot of gas and coal the likely answer is: yes. Will we need them though? The answer is no.
Questions about pentagon use of fossil fuel before she was shot in the head
The questions asked above about Pentagon fuel use are really about the US army not doing a good job being an ‘independent fighting force’ at all. She doesn’t get that because the army defends and secures US oil, the cost for that fuel is arbitrary. Money has value becuase of the actions of the Pentagon to secure fuel, not because society decides it has. This is again the carboncredit view of money, banking. The backbone of all currencies is some force that secures the fuel we want to be able to buy with it. When that fails, like in brittain at the moment (the run out of gas and can’t take Falkland oil) you see the currency (Pound) collapse.
General Dempsey on Energy Security
Energy security is the core business of the defense if you will. It also determined whether you can pack a punch. In that respect war has become much more expensive. During WOII supporting one soldier on the battlefield required 2 gallons of fuel, now it is 22 gallons. Energy determines how long soldier can stay out on patrol. "If you want to find a patrol just follow the trail of batteries".
A british perspective
In the video above Rear Admiral Lionel Jarvis mentiones the effects of severe coastal weather can create urban stressed areas and cause new disease patterns. According to him the frequency of natural diseasters is increasing.
Quite a different portrayal of CG as a global holocaust. Audio is distorted.
The rapport discussed predicts mass population shift. A drought triggered water war can have effects on carbon fuel security. It is very easy to make an alarming analysis. Those are also easier to shoot down by Fox news, (partially owned by an oil Prince). The video below does a better job, being more specific about the implications of the green energy transition.
More common sense analysis
"Is er a potential for the same competition and dysfunction regarding the necessary inputs for renewables as we see for the fossil fuel supply". Another relevant real strategic concern mentioned above is geoengineering in the form of ‘stealing rain’ by seeding clouds that where supposed to empty in neighboring country. With the Naga foundation in mind (where experience is being build regarding both evaporation and rain) this may open up a whole science of rain seeding and breeding.
Pushing for climate action in poor countries. Why notat home?