Pentagon: Climate Change Poses ‘Immediate Risks’

"The Department of Defense sees climate change as an ‘immediate’ risk and is taking steps to assess those risk and respond to them according to its newly unveiled Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.

The document, released on Monday, is an update to the agency’s first climate roadmap released in 2012. But rather than being a slight tweak, it provides a major overhaul of how the military views the challenges that climate change poses in the near- and long-term to its training, operations, supply chains and infrastructure around the world…"±+Full+Feed


I hope they send boots on the ground this time.

After they fix the climate, maybe they can do something about that pesky ISIS that wants to rule world.

Ma-a-ajor :rolleyes: on this one.

These are the statements of the reporter, a left wing think tank spokesman and Obama’s pup, Chuck Hagel. But then, Hagel has probably been instructed to pay more attention to nonexistent climate change than defense. After all, why would anybody defend the people when they’re about to make them freeze in the dark anyway?

"The Department of Defense sees climate change as an ‘immediate’ risk and is taking steps to assess those risk and respond to them according to its newly unveiled Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.


Don’t forget about Putin and China!

I hope they send boots on the ground this time.


Most if not all of the progressives who preach the religion of AGW won’t even make the necessary sacrifices.

Good idea, since CC is part of the cause of such conflicts around the world…then maybe FISIS (the much worse than ISIS terrorist take-over group that will form 15 years from now) won’t get much traction. But I still think the military is capable of chewing gum while walking and paying the banjo at the same time, so I don’t think they need to withdraw all efforts against ISIS in order to address CC.

How Climate Change Helped ISIS -

Is climate change destabilizing Iraq? -

Even without considering how CC is impacting weather, it has been known for a very long time that weather can increase conflict and crime.

In the Pentagon/government budget wars this is referred to as the ‘flavor of the month’. To get things funded, you portray them in accordance with the ‘flavor of the month’ that’s of interest to the political decision makers. The President’s administration creates the budget for the service- if the DoD wants a bigger piece of the pie and more funding- they’ll portray whatever initatives they want to pursue using the ‘flavor of the month’.

ETA: Expect the Navy to use this rationale to support an increase or accelerated buy of the maritime patrol aircraft since they can drop BT buoys for ocean temperature sensing to fill in the data gaps. And to procure surveillance/oceanographic ships with the same rationale-- stuff they’ve historically been short of and need to support anti-submarine warfare. Administrations have been reluctant to fund as a priority over air-combat, electronic warfare, replenishment of armament used during the conflicts, increased SPECOPS Forces. Navy hasn’t been able to get the funding based on the increase and improvement in quality of other nation submarines across the Pacific, but maybe portraying their usefulness in combating the flavor of the month might shake some dollars loose…

I doubt if many of you get this but I read this article and this immediately came to mind:

There’s a hold up in the Bronx,
Brooklyn’s broken out in fights.
There’s a traffic jam in Harlem
That’s backed up to Jackson Heights.
There’s a scout troup short a child,
Kruschev’s due at Idlewild
Car 54, Where Are You?

Obviously car 54 has more important things to do-like fighting climate change

Omigosh! :eek::eek: The Middle East has largely become a desert? Who would have ever imagined it would happen?

“Climate Change”, is there anything it can’t do?

Well the DoD is hoping it will help them protect their existing budget/programs–perhaps even get a bit more at the expense of some other government department.

Recall that when Lawrence of Arabia was leading Arab troops in World War I it was jungle fighting…

Now that I think about it, you’re right! And, of course, Moses led the Hebrews through the Sinai rain forest.

Lynn, does anyone believe a word coming from anyone working for Obama anymore? :confused: If such a person exists, he or she ought to awake from (his) slumber.

The Pentagon has been into the CC issue well before Obama. They (unlike us) have to think ahead and be prepared.

I guess it is not only my Christian and moral upbringing, but also my being a Girl Scout as a kid that has made me more keen about CC and its future threat than most people, who’d rather ignore it bec it is insulting to them and might take up some of their time and treasure, even tho I’ve been trying to tell people for 25 years that we’re saving money by mitigating CC. People just think I’m lying, I guess.

How is the Pentagon supposed to deal with climate change? Bomb it back to the Ice Age?

And here I thought that our troops trained to fight in extreme weather conditions…

Shouldn’t the Pentagon be more concerned about ISIS?

Oh and I believe in climate change, it’s called Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter.

Use it as a justification to defend their existing programs.

You need to understand that the budget isn’t just something done once at a specific time of the year. It’s in constant flux, folks are always after a piece of your Total Obligating Authority (TOA), every program/project/weapon system is constantly being audited and having to prove it’s relevance on an almost daily basis to protect its funding. There are always emergent priorities and situations where folks at every level are looking for funding.
For example, in the budget cycle after the president submits to congress in february, they and their staffers review it and put in ‘plus-ups’. They have until September (if they pass the appropriatons and authorizations bills on time) to mess around with the budget. The Pentagon hates ‘plus-ups’ because they aren’t an increase to TOA, the vast majority of ‘plus-ups’ don’t give the DoD additional funds. They direct the DoD to shift funds within their TOA to a specific program or project a congressman likes. So, somebody’s program has to get cut to pay that bill. The cascading affects of delays to that program have to be accounted for, what won’t be delivered or will be delayed- how will it eventually affect war-fighting plans etc.

So, the Pentagon and the various programs defend their budgets by doing everything they can to demonstrate relevance-- putting in and using the latest ‘flavor of the month’ and ‘buzzwords’ that the administration and civilian’s leadership have shown to be a concern to them. If you say you want to drive a nail, everybody will tell you their project is a hammer.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit