What are the various ties between climate change and foreign oil dependency?

Question

(Note: This question is basically about what would be best for the USA)

There was a question asked recently about some retired generals and their support for carbon legislation:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtwrWiWEKofA0ntZVZekmUD_5nNG;_ylv=3?qid=20100429102055AAw9dOH

It was my contention that the primary thrust of their objective was not to save the climate but to reduce foreign dependency on oil, especially from unstable regimes or areas where oil money could get into the hands of terrorists. As well, another problem is the US has to be bedfellows with some unsavory sorts of people (i.e. governments) as you couldn't just tell them what you really think of them. For proof of that, they showed Saddam Hussein what they think of him and that hasn't turned out very well at all.

You know, I actually think they have a very good point (about the problems of oil dependency). However, is it wise to mix two different issues and try to link them together?

If the only problem was climate change due to CO2 emissions, then good solutions could include geoengineering, renewable energy, reducing fossil fuel use and carbon sequestering.

If the only problem was oil dependency then geoengineering and carbon sequestering wouldn't help at all but drilling in Alaska, extracting oil from domestic tar sands and increasing local coal mining and opening more plants would be helpful (but obviously not for climate change).

If both problems were true, then nuclear energy, renewable energy and reducing CO2 emissions would be beneficial for both while the other solutions would only be beneficial for one or the other.

So what is your basic view on the ties between climate change and oil dependency? What would change if CO2 emissions are not the problem they are made out to be from a policy perspective?

What policies seem to make sense to go ahead with at full force, go ahead with with some caution, to put off until more is certain about the future or those which would be bad in all circumstances?

Do you agree it might be unwise to try to create one (or more policies) to solve two very large problems with different specifics?

Answer 1

It's not just our dependence on foreign oil. The US military has long said that climate change poses a threat to national security as well. Perhaps you missed the very beginning of the letter in question.



"Climate change is making the world a more dangerous place. It's threatening America’s security. The Pentagon and security leaders of both parties consider climate disruption to be a “threat multiplier” – it exacerbates existing problems by decreasing stability, increasing conflict, and incubating the socioeconomic conditions that foster terrorist recruitment. The State Department, the National Intelligence Council and the CIA all agree, and all are planning for future climate-based threats."

http://www.trumanproject.org/files/misc/Truman_Project_-_Clean_Energy_Ad.pdf



Here's another example:



"Global warming is now officially considered a threat to U.S. national security.



For the first time, Pentagon planners in 2010 will include climate change among the security threats identified in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Congress-mandated report that updates Pentagon priorities every four years."



"Among the scenarios that concern security planners is the melting of the massive Himalayan ice mass....Retired Air Marshal A.K. Singh, a former commander in India's air force, foresees mass migrations across national borders, with militaries soon becoming involved."



"Analysts at the National Intelligence Council are trying to develop a set of early warning signs that could suggest where the next famine might arise or which countries are in most danger of being destabilized as a result of dramatic climate changes."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495



There are many more examples of the Pentagon and military officials specifically stating that climate change and oil dependence are both national security threats. That's why passing a comprehensive climate and energy bill - as Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are attempting to do in the USA - is a smart way to proceed. Which is what the 33 retired military leaders stated at the end of their letter.



"We call on Congress and the administration to enact strong, comprehensive climate and energy legislation to reduce carbon pollution and lead the world in clean energy technology."

Answer 2

I don't think there was a big connection between dependence on foreign oil and climate change. We are dependent on foreign oil whether or not the climate changes, and if our petroleum use stays the same or increases we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil forever, since there simply is not enough oil in the US to support our dependence. You can drill all you want, it will help things a little bit, but the odds of us finding a Ghawar in ANWR or offshore are minuscule.



The oil dependence is not the largest factor, I think climate change driving food and water shortages is much more important to international stability.



Oil, coal, and nuclear (non-breeder reactors) are all non-renewable sources of energy and we will run up against shortages of any of those in relatively short time periods. At some point we probably will need to face up to these facts, or just be driven away from these fuels by the high prices. It think it's a matter of what terms we want to approach these problems, our own or those defined by shortage economics.

Answer 3

changing climates could impression super numbers of people throughout great factors of the international. however the aspects could finally end up being thoroughly distinctive from what earlier existed. Temperate climates could exchange into sub tropical with some factors turning out to be barren area particularly than plains. Tundra could disappear and temperate climate could replace it. of course, this assumes that there are actually not any self-correcting mechanisms interior of earth's climate structures. If our climate is the huge-unfold stress in allotting warmth income frivolously over the entire international then it should additionally be the huge-unfold stress in cooling the planet, no? worldwide warming is merely acknowledging will improve in international temperature. climate exchange encompasses plenty extra advantageous issues and is way less obvious in the present day. Of suited venture in the present day could desire to be the drastic help of tropical rainforest alongside the equator with the intention to realize extra farming land. an exceptionally undesirable decision certainly.

Answer 4

If they're right about CO2 then the big culprit is coal, which is 99.5% domestically sourced.