• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon: Climate change threatens military installations (1 Viewer)

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Apr 18, 2013
Reaction score
Political Leaning
Pentagon: Climate change threatens military installations


Flooding, drought and wildfires driven by climate change pose threats to two-thirds of the U.S. military's installations, the Defense Department said in a new report required by Congress. The authors of the report, which the Pentagon delivered to Congress on Thursday, note that it probably underestimates the full extent of risk to military facilities because it only looks at likely impacts over the next two decades. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said the world needs to become carbon neutral by 2050 to prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius, which would lock in many of the most catastrophic effects of climate change. “It is relevant to point out that ‘future’ in this analysis means only 20 years in the future,” the report said. “Projected changes will likely be more pronounced at the mid-century mark; vulnerability analyses to mid- and late-century would likely reveal an uptick in vulnerabilities (if adaptation strategies are not implemented.)” President Donald Trump has regularly dismissed climate science, including reports like the the National Climate Assessment published in November by federal scientists that showed climate change was hitting all regions of the United States.

The Pentagon report focused on 79 installations across the armed services. It said 53 installations currently experience recurrent flooding, 43 face drought, 36 are exposed to wildfires, six are undergoing desertification and one is dealing with thawing permafrost. More installations will feel those climate stressors in the future, with 60 sites projected to see recurrent flooding, 48 confronted hurt by drought and 43 threatened at risk of wildfires. The report builds on a number of other Pentagon reports that have called climate change a “threat multiplier” that can alter DOD priorities, such as mass migration and humanitarian aid missions fueled by extreme weather events. The fingerprints of climate change can disrupt everyday military operations, the report said. Installations such as Norfolk Naval Base face persistent vulnerabilities like sea-level rise. The Pentagon said it needs "to better understand rates of coastal erosion, natural and built flood protection infrastructure, and inland and littoral flood planning and mitigation." Climate change has contributed to “country instability issues,” where rainy season flooding and desertification in Africa as well as flooding in the Pacific region have stressed military missions, it said.

It seems the Pentagon didn't receive the Trump/Hays memo regarding climate change.

Related: DoD: Majority of mission-critical bases face climate change threats
The report is behind a Leftist pay wall.
The report is behind a Leftist pay wall.

I had no problem accessing Politico which has an expert guy covering the Pentagon, military and armed forces issues.

The report is required by congress so Pentagon restated its long term position more than well enough to stir the deniers. Pentagon is virtually unanimous on climate change and thus they're used to being assailed by the anti science right wing.

Keep in mind congress votes on promotion of all officers from lieutenant to general/admiral and pays 'em. In particular generals and admirals get promoted by a promotion board consisting of generals and admirals who make the recommendation directly to congress. Now that Mattis is gone Pentagon looks more to congress and the armed services committees than they had to while Mattis checked the orange rogue lapdog of Putin. Senate committee chairman now is Inhofe of OK and in the House it's Rep. Adam Smith of WA.

Inhofe who notoriously threw a snowball outside as conclusive proof earth is not warming has the major Ft. Sill artillery/missiles center in his ok state. My buddy since junior rotc in high school and who retired as ltc in the NG came back from Ft. Sill his first time with a q&a quickie: "Why doesn't Texas slide away into the Gulf of Mexico? Cause Oklahoma sucks." Fortunately Rep. Chairman Smith has the major naval facility of Bremerton in his state in addition to the major army base of Ft. Lewis. Washington and British Columbia together hold back the Pacific btw.
The report is behind a Leftist pay wall.

I've provided two sources, there's always a novice that can't figure out how to get around a paywall.

On the the other hand, if your simply don't like the Pentagon message, tough nuts.
Considering the high number of US bases world wide, the odds are high that they will be effected. Look at what happened to Tyndall. Eglin next?
I've provided two sources, there's always a novice that can't figure out how to get around a paywall.

On the the other hand, if your simply don't like the Pentagon message, tough nuts.

Lack of interest in this thread suggest otherwise. Any other time you would be railing against the MIC.
Yea, climate change is going to affect just about everything. The problem isn't that there just aren't enough articles about how climate change will hurt one thing or another. The problem is that most of the people who support doing nothing are older and understand that it won't affect them all that much in their lifetimes. It will just hurt their grandchildren which seems to be an acceptable sacrifice to them.
Lack of interest in this thread suggest otherwise. Any other time you would be railing against the MIC.

Progressives know it's useless to talk to people who think the universe was created by fiat in six days with a day of rest by the omnipotent but burnt out creator. All of it only six thousand years ago besides. So calling 'em creationists is an understatement. I call 'em fossils instead. Acid rain dancers.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom