The Center for Climate and Security (CCS), a security think tank with an Advisory Board of senior military and national security experts, believes that the President’s stated decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement will have serious, negative strategic implications for the United States. Backlash to the decision will damage U.S. national security in a number of ways, and will afford the U.S. no security benefits. It is clear that the President’s senior-most national security team understands this. Further, it remains to be seen what ‘re-entry’ after renegotiation means, as that is very unclear. It is therefore critical that the U.S. return to the international table in order to ensure that the U.S. both plays a leadership role in addressing the security implications of climate change, and maintains and broadens its strategic alliances and partnerships.
Home » climate and security » CCS Statement: Decision to Withdraw from Paris Agreement Damages National Security
CCS Statement: Decision to Withdraw from Paris Agreement Damages National Security
2 Comments
Leave a Reply
Featured Project
We should not be surprised by Mr.Trump’s seemingly contrarian views on Climate. He has shown repeatedly that he has a poor understanding of scientific fact. He actually seems to be belligerent in his attitude toward scienctific and political realities. His behavior seems to show a need to display control and sound judgment. But Trump’s actions and attitudes have been predictable because of the seemingly endless and shameless lies he told and his display of disgusting vulgarity during his campaign. Those postures helped to distract critics and critics antagonists. An article in an issue of the Atlantic Monthly published during the campaign campaign suggested that Trump was emotionally disturbed. If true, and their presentation is persuasive, one might predict that Trump’s decisions would be determined primarily by whether they served his emotional needs rather than whether they were sound, that is,salutary for the country and for the world. The Atlantic’s suggestion clearly went unheeded by the majority of voters. Many voters were probably unaware of the article or, having read it, paid little or no attention to it. But was the Atlantic’s suggestion sound? We must pay close attention to Trump’s words and the reasons he gives for his decisions. We must be sure to remember the astonishing decision Trump made today. It flys in the face of current strongly supprted scientific fact.
It only took us decades to get an agreement, and Nicaragua with its 90% renewable energy did not sign because the felt it was not strict enough (true) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/dont-compare-trumps-paris-decision-to-nicaraguas-theyve-embraced-renewable-energy
And then this, 87% of the IPCC projections factor in negative emissions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q4_763sHVo , and it is unlikely (>66% confidence) to breach the 2C target, according to the latest Global Catastrophic Risks report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GA8VmYLhEs