News broke last month that the Trump administration is putting together a red team to cast doubt on the NCA and various reports explaining how climate change is a national security threat. Seems the denial playbook that has operated for decades and killed millions is alive and well.
While real national security experts are adamant that this new alternative-facts climate advisory panel would itself be a threat to national security, industry propagandists, like those at Heartland, have other ideas. This week, the Koch and Mercer-funded organization put out a press release for a new policy brief arguing that climate action is the real threat to national security.
The brief doesn’t seem to have gotten any actually media pickup, but since we know polluters have a direct line into this White House, it’s probably worth taking a look at the report’s main arguments. After all, it’s likely only a matter of time before someone slaps the White House seal on it…
Heartland argues in the report that because fossil fuels are cheap, and “energy prices closely correlate” with the unemployment rate and economy broadly, anything that reduces fossil fuel use will raise prices. The economy suffering from higher energy prices, in turn, means we can’t spend as much money on the military. But even if that whole “correlation isn’t causation” thing didn’t apply, this argument falls apart when renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels--which is already happening.
Other points in the report are similarly silly. The brief argues that by exporting fossil fuels, the US can undercut Russia’s influence. But exporting renewables would do the same thing, without also aiding Russia by contributing to the warming. Just this week, two acting military officials told the Senate how Russia is now able to move weapons systems around the rapidly melting North Sea due to climate change.
The brief also tries to argue that renewables rely on rare earth metals, most of which are mined in China, meaning we would be beholden to another country for materials needed to build our energy infrastructure. But this is true of basically any technology, from calculators to phones to photovoltaics, so not exactly much of an argument for anything.
After that, the brief spends a few pages engaging in garden variety climate denial arguments (drought, greening, sea level rise) to try and disprove the fact that climate change is a threat multiplier. It focuses heavily on cereal crops, arguing that because yields have been growing lately, warming must not be bad for them. But no evidence is provided to show that it’s warming, and not improvements in agricultural technology or farming practices, that have improved crop yields. Apparently, agricultural innovation denial is now a thing.
Will these transparently bad faith denial arguments find a home in the proposed White House Panel? Perhaps. But maybe not.
In describing the plans for the proposed panel to review climate science, former BP scientist and key red team booster Steven Koonin told the Washington Examiner that the White House panel will send its final report to the National Academy of Sciences for review. He apparently thinks it will raise legitimate issues with how the government reports characterize climate science, so submitting to NAS is a smart way to ensure a high quality product. That way there can be “real dialogue” if the panelists “generate some valid criticisms,” but if not, and it’s “a bunch of administration hacks who write an adversarial review,” then “the academy will call them out.”
Judging by Heartland’s report, the latter is exactly what will happen with this alt-fact advisory board.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: