Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So before the military can defend our nation or conduct training exercises they must consider how their actions will impact climate change. This coming from an administration that uses tons of fuel to make speeches or fly from DC to NYC for a date night.
The insanity of liberalism never ceases.
For any problem, choose the polar opposite of a well considered, common sense solution, and you will have the "liberal solution".
I don't know how much more liberal idiocy the nation can take.
There is a list going around about the 38, (I think) TOP military personnel being removed from their positions because Obama doesn't like their advise. Many chose to resign rather then go along with Obama's actions.
I would love to see that link, something tells me you don't have one.
"Norfolk Naval Station's vital infrastructure wouldn't survive the kind of powerful storms and widescale flooding that rising seawaters are expected to bring by the second half of the century. And those conditions would likely get even worse in the following decades.
That's the conclusion of a three-year case study of the naval base, conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, which analyzed computer storm models based on varying degrees of sea level rise."
So before the military can defend our nation or conduct training exercises they must consider how their actions will impact climate change. This coming from an administration that uses tons of fuel to make speeches or fly from DC to NYC for a date night.
Did you actually read the article you linked to? The order is that the military should account for how climate change can affect their planning and resulting effectiveness, not that they have to consider what impact the military's actions might have on the climate.
Did you actually read the article you linked to? The order is that the military should account for how climate change can affect their planning and resulting effectiveness, not that they have to consider what impact the military's actions might have on the climate.
Did you actually read the article you linked to? The order is that the military should account for how climate change can affect their planning and resulting effectiveness, not that they have to consider what impact the military's actions might have on the climate.
Something that they have been doing for quite a few years.
From 2008:
The Marines, who pride themselves on being bold, want to build the state's largest photovoltaic solar farm and a biofuel electricity-producing plant on base, both of which would not only meet all of the Marines' power needs by 2015, but exceed them, officials said.
...
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires federal agencies to produce or procure 3 percent of their energy from renewable energy sources from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal 2009. The goal increases incrementally to 5 percent and 7.5 percent in 2013 and beyond."
"The U.S. military is increasingly focused on a potential national security threat: climate change.
Just last month the U.S. Army War College funded a two-day conference at the Triangle Institute for Security Studies titled "The National Security Implications of Global Climate Change." And tomorrow, a group of 11 retired senior generals will release a report saying that global warming "presents significant national security challenges to the United States," which it must address or face serious consequences."
Did you actually read the article you linked to? The order is that the military should account for how climate change can affect their planning and resulting effectiveness, not that they have to consider what impact the military's actions might have on the climate.
Of course they didn't read the article...they just inferred what they wanted and ran with it.
The earth is warming, that much is irrefutable by all but those that have go sooo mental over the topic that they refuse to acknowledge basic stuff (You know, like how Wisconsin is no longer 90% under ice).
So, whether you think it's a natural trend, completely man-made or so combination of the two....it's wise for our military to consider building bases etc. in wise locations so they don't wind up like New Orleans which was WARNED FOR YEARS that they'd completely flood if hit hard by a CAT 3 or stronger.
Did you actually read the article you linked to? The order is that the military should account for how climate change can affect their planning and resulting effectiveness, not that they have to consider what impact the military's actions might have on the climate.
Yes so basically they don't have to do anything differently. Just Obama talking to hear himself talk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading?
