Thanks Joseph for the links. Some of the most interesting analyses about climate and energy are coming out of the military.

It's especially important to involve the military and other conservative sectors in an alliance to deal with climate change.

Among other conservatives coming on board are some evangelicals, some libertarians and what I would call traditional conservatives (patriotic, smalltown, old-fashioned).

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Like most of the others on the Board, owing to conflicting reports, I entered our discussions with skepticism about the arguments surrounding climate science and about the factors that might drive climate change. But with all the scrutiny we could muster, all of us came to see that there are some areas of broad agreement in the scientific community.

After examining the evidence and potential destabilizing impacts of climate change, the Admiral came to three conclusions. Refreshingly, each conclusion addresses big-picture systems thinking:

The first is to highlight that link between climate change and energy security. One can describe our current energy supply as finite, foreign and fickle. Continued pursuit of overseas energy supplies, and our addiction to them, cause a great loss of leverage in the international arena. Ironically, a focus on climate change may actually help us on this count. Key elements of the solution set for climate change are the same ones we would use to gain energy security. Focusing on climate is not a distraction from our current challenges; it may actually help us identify solutions.

The Admiral's second conclusion is that working with other nations, especially China, is a requirement. And the third conclusion is about the importance of a proactive strategy:

My third point: For military leaders, the first responsibility is to fight the right war, at the right time, at the right place. The highest and best form of victory for one's nation involves meeting the objectives without actually having to resort to conflict. It's a process of trumping the battle, if you will. It takes a great deal of planning, strategy, resources and moral courage, but that is the higher art form for a servant of the nation.

That seems to be a reasonable way to think about climate and security. There are a great many risks associated with climate change, and the costs are uncertain. But if we start planning and working now, we may be able to meet our security objectives, and mitigate some of those battles.

The potential and adverse effects of climate change could make current changes seem small. Facing and sorting these challenges, for our nation's leaders, can be daunting. It will require vision, proactivity, courage and thoughtful articulation. What we cannot do is wait.

If only we could find some civilian leaders who thought this way.

grist.org

The average vet has a much more jaundiced opinion about the wisdom of using force than the average person whose only exposure to the military is on the teevee and in "Top Gun" style movies.  Even vets who served only in peacetime tend to have a much better understanding of Murphy's Law, the inescapable fact that things don't always go as planned, as well as a much bettter appreciation for the fact that rank times IQ tends to be a constant, all of which are virtues in civilian policy positions.

The 5% Project

In this light the very predictable consequences of Bush's Ethanol drive,
[in terms of raising global traded-food prices to levels that will be unnaffordable for the poorest 20th and a struggle for the next 10th],
were very clearly foreseen and were triggered as a means of generating the poverty & strife on which the profiterring of the corporate state thrives.

This is one example of the reality of "A victory for the nation without a battle."

It is the use of economics as warfare.

Regards,

Billhook