Sbsp affirmative- arl lab- ndi 2011
***Warming Impacts*** Laundry List Impact
Download 1.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Turns Hegemony
- Warming causes instability – water and arable land
***Warming Impacts***Laundry List ImpactGlobal Warming Sucks – Laundry List Romm 10 (Jon, Editor of Climate Progress, An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/03/22/203850/an-introduction-to-global-warming-impacts-hell-and-high-water/, JG) In this post, I will summarize what the recent scientific literature says are the key impacts we face in the second half of the century if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. I will focus primarily on: Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States Sea level rise of 3 to 7 feet, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter Dust Bowls over the U.S. SW and many other heavily populated regions around the globe Massive species loss on land and sea — 50% or more of all life Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns” More severe hurricanes — especially in the Gulf Equally tragic, a 2009 NOAA-led study found the worst impacts would be “largely irreversible for 1000 years.” The single biggest failure of messaging by climate scientists (until very recently) has been the failure to explain to the public, opinion makers, and the media that business-as-usual warming results in impacts that are beyond catastrophic. For these impacts, terms like “global warming” and “climate change” are essentially euphemisms. That is why I prefer the term “Hell and High Water.” Business-as-usual typically means continuing at recent growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, which we now know would take us to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide greater than 1000 ppm (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm). We are at about 8.5 billion metric tons of carbon a year (GtC/yr) and, until the recent global economic recession, were rising about 3% per year. What is less well understood is that even a very strong mitigation effort that kept carbon emissions this century to 11 GtC a year on average would still probably take us to 1000 ppm — a little noted conclusion of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (see “Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution“). The scientific community has spent little time modeling the impacts of a tripling (~830 ppm) or quadrupling (~1100 ppm) carbon dioxide concentrations from preindustrial levels. In part, I think, that’s because they never believed humanity would be so stupid as to ignore the warnings and simply continue on its self-destructive path. In part, they lowballed the difficult-to-model amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle. So I pieced together those impacts from available studies and from discussions with leading climate scientists for my book, Hell and High Water. But now as climate scientists have sobered up to their painful role as modern-day Cassandra’s, the scientific literature on what we face is much richer. Let me review it here. Turns HegemonyWarming kills military ability – destroys bases and increases global conflictWald et al 9 (General Charles F Wald, Former Deputy Commander, Headquarters U.S. European Command, General Gordon R. Sullivan, Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, and Former Chairman of the CNA MAB, Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command, “Powering America’s Defense,” May 2009. Here, we reference some of the many ways climate change will adversely affect our military’s ability to carry out its already challenging missions: A changing Arctic forces a change in strategy. As the Arctic Ocean has become progressively more accessible, several nations are responding by posturing for resource claims, increasing military activity, expanding commercial ventures, and elevating the volume of international dialogue. Due to the melting ice, the U.S. is already reconsidering its Arctic strategy [73]. The change in strategy will lead to a change in military intelligence, planning, and operations. The Arctic stakes are high: 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered energy reserves are projected to be in the region (including 13 percent of the world’s petroleum and 30 percent of natural gas [74]). There are also valuable fish stocks and mineral resources. The relatively small number of heavy ice breakers in operation by Arctic nations suggests that no country currently has the ability to easily operate in the region for purposes of maritime security, humanitarian assistance, disaster response or forward presence. Damage to and loss of strategic bases and critical infrastructure. As sea level rises, storm waves and storm surges become much more problematic. Riding in at a higher base level, they are much more likely to overflow coastal barriers and cause severe damage. Recent studies project that, by the end of the century, sea levels could rise by nearly 1 meter [75, 76]. A 1-meter rise in sea level would have dramatic consequences for U.S. installations across the globe, including the loss of one of our most important forward operating bases: Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. At minimum, this amount of sea level rise would render it fully useless, without a single shot fired. Other significant military installations, such as Naval Station Norfolk, are at serious risk from rising seas. A 1- meter rise in sea level would also render useless numerous commercial and industrial installations that are important to ongoing military operations. If operations continue to be fuel-intensive, supply interruptions caused by loss of infrastructure could pose a serious threat to our troops. Storm intensity affects readiness and capabilities. The projected increase in storm intensity can affect our ability to quickly deploy troops and materiel to distant theaters. Increased conflict stretches American military. In other sections, we have noted the likelihood of increased global conflicts, which in turn increases the likelihood that American military forces will be engaging in multiple theaters simultaneously. In addition, at the very same time, there may be increased demands for American-led humanitarian engagements in response to natural disasters exacerbated or caused by climate change. These factors will require substantial changes in military strategies and operations; these factors will add to the already significant challenges facing current and future military leaders. They are part of a confluence of circumstances that will reshape the context for action. The destabilizing nature of increasingly scarce energy resources, the impacts of rising energy demand, and the impacts of climate change all are likely to increasingly drive military missions in this century. Warming causes instability – water and arable landNagl and Parthemore in 10 (John, president of the Center for New American Security, and Christine, fellow at the Center for New American Security, “Fueling the Future Force,” Center for the New American Security, September 2010. In addition to the security and financial costs, petroleum dependence creates environmental costs that are causing increasing concern among security analysts. Emissions from fossil fuel use contribute to changes in the global climate, which risk altering geopolitical relations, destabilizing regions of high strategic importance to the United States, increasing erosion and storm surges at coastal installations, and altering disease patterns.16 Melting summer ice in the Arctic is an early example; its geopolitical importance has risen sharply in the past five years as Arctic countries (and their potential shipping and natural resource customers) prepare to exploit newly navigable waterways and seabed resource deposits. Federal leaders from both major political parties, DOD’s civilian and military leaders, and security analysts of all stripes regularly reiterate concerns over the national security implications of the changing climate caused by high-carbon fuel consumption.17 Other environmental costs of fuel production can include heavy water use and diverting arable land to fuel production, both of which can trigger negative side effects if not managed properly. Factors such as greenhouse gas emissions (including from burning high-carbon fuels and from land use change) and the effects of fuel production on food prices should therefore constrain DOD’s energy investments in high-carbon fossil fuels or first-generation biofuels derived from food crops. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.74 Mb. Share with your friends:
|