• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • “War on Climate Change” Will Not Advance Security or Freedom

    In his speech to the UN on climate change, President Obama warned that the “security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, our safety—are in jeopardy” and that “we must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.”

    This message of fighting climate change in order to ensure national security has become a major element of mainstream environmental rhetoric, so much so that many have likened the battle to a full-scale “war.” While examples of this are numerous, a few stand out: in a speech given at Oxford this summer, Al Gore said that the fight against climate change can be compared to the way in which “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.” Likewise, Britain’s Environment Agency Chief Executive, Lady Young, has said that the fight against climate change is “World War Three…We need the sorts of concerted, fast, integrated and above all huge efforts that went into many actions in times of war.”

    The Obama Administration has emphasized many times that the fight against climate change has two goals: to reduce carbon emissions on the one hand and to strengthen national security on the other. The problem is that this legislation cannot achieve both goals together but can only achieve a reduction of emissions at the expense of national security and the economy. According to James Carafano, a leading expert in defense and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation,

    “A sharp decline in economic productivity would likely have a deleterious impact on U.S. security. For example, a collapse in U.S. economic growth would result in even more draconian cuts to the defense budget, leaving America with a military much less prepared to deal with future threats. Indeed, if America’s military power declines, there would probably be more wars, not fewer. Likewise, a steep drop in American economic growth would lengthen and deepen the global recession. That in turn will make other states poorer, undermining their ability to protect themselves and recover from natural disasters.”

    If the Obama Administration decides to fight this war on climate change, the United States will ultimately lose, coming out of the battle with a weaker economy, weaker security, and weaker personal freedoms. Unlike World War II or the Cold War, when America sought to advance the security of nations and the cause of freedom, this war on climate change will do much to weaken national security and shackle the freedoms of Americans. In its wake, the government will have unprecedented control over the energy industry: the development of fossil fuels will no longer be an option for Americans and the government will decide what kinds of energy can be produced or purchased.

    As the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference draws near, the words of President Reagan again become relevant. In his famous “tear down this wall” speech towards the end of the Cold War, Reagan argued that freedom is an essential ingredient for the security of nations:

    We believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.”

    Reagan’s words remind us that policies that weaken defense, the economy and personal liberties are not the answer in our efforts to keep America safe and free.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to “War on Climate Change” Will Not Advance Security or Freedom

    1. Freedom of Speech TX says:

      Al Gore's comparison with Winston Churchill's call to save civilization is insulting. Simply put, they don't make them like Churchill anymore.

      Al Gore has acquired great wealth. He must be a closet capitalist! Good for him. He will acquire more with this global warming scheme.

      But his legacy will be a far cry from what he envisions…

    2. Bruce Dunn Rocheste says:

      Total agreement! This is just one of the constant stream of legislation that is being piled on American citizens. The common factor in all is the tremendous cost, accompanied with freedom atrophy. 2010 can't come soon enough.

    3. Chuck TN says:

      How can we stop these things?

    4. dlamrine says:

      I think it is time to ask Al Gore and is lot to shi=ow the scientific proof they have to prove thier case if they cant then shut the hell up and let us get on with life. Global warming is as phony as Al Gore

    5. der schwarze Ritter says:

      Al Gore is a modern-day Elmer Gantry without the religion.

    6. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      The worst thing about all of this is one thing.

      It is one thing to destroy our wealth but to give it to the rest of the world as some sort of reparations? These global comrades have to be rubbing their hands together with glee. They are almost there and they can taste it. They finally have a malleable person who thinks just like them.

    7. Nicolai Alatzas says:


      You guys are getting your panties in a bunch over something that just won't happen.

      Senate ratification of an international treaty requires not just 60 but 67 votes. Say 34 senators rally to block such a treaty—senators from, oh, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Thus can representatives for 22,540,352 people—7.4% of the population—block the will of the other 281,519,372. Indeed, senators representing 7.4% of Americans can thwart the entire world's efforts to address the climate crisis.

      Killing a treaty is easier than killing a clean energy bill. Why, killing a clean energy bill requires representatives for 25,289,049 people—fully 8.3% of the population!—to thwart the will of the remaining 278,770,675. (If you're keeping score, the guilty parties here would be: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Iowa.)

    8. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      If the red want any of these bills dead they will do it.

    9. Michael Guy, Canonsb says:

      Everything the Obama Administration does is at the behest and in obedience to the Socialist International- Chinese politburo.

      The other source of power and control over the Democrats and the White House are the International Bankers and Investment firms, such as Goldman Sachs, These Wall Street plutocrats have financed and controlled the progressive movement since 1913 when the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank was endorsed and foisted by the progressive Woodrow Wilson Incidentaly, these same firms who control the Fed also funded Leon Trotsky and the Bolshevik revolution. Plutocrats like Armand Hammer and George Soros have influenced one world communism since 1917.

      The final center thay controls the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress are the regulators, bureaucrats and would be petty dicators in the various agencies in Washington. The EPA is a fine example of a totalitarian, tyrannical organization bent upon desstroying any American business that competes in the world market against China.

      Every aspect of the Obama Administration, the liberals in Congress and the Courts can be seen in light of the benefit, empowerment or enrichment in the collusive triumvirate of evil; China, Manhattan and Washington.

      Nuclear disarmament, Cap and Trade, and every other item on the one-world, liberal, socialist agenda of the Democrats has this in common. Always ask who benefits from the Democratic policies?Beijing, Wall Street and Washington. Just as Benedict Arnold wanted us to become peasants,ruled by foreign lords; so do the progressives.

      Mike Guy

      or re-iterated

      It appears China acts as the major director of the Obama Administration. Perhaps that is why Timothy Geithner was there; to receive orders?

      If you want to demonstrate against the policies and agenda of this administration, perhaps we should start at the source of power;Beijing.

      If, " He who pays the piper calls the tune," or ,"The borrower is the servant of the lender,"are true aphorisms, then the financiers and creditors of "Hope and Change" certainly call the shots. All large loans are made with terms, conditions and pledged collateral beneficial to the lender. Every aspect of this administrations policy and agenda benefits communist China: Cap and Trade and nuclear disarmament are examples.

      The other source of power and control over the progressives and Obama Administration are the Wall Street banking and trading concerns.

      In fact, we could call it the Manhattan plutocracy that controls the progressives and their president. This Manhattan oligarchy controls not only the likes of Goldman Sachs, but The Federal Reserve Bank, IMF,and US Treasury. This administration borrows from some of these elite financiers, to give billions in bailouts for their fellow colleagues. For example, as a reward for loans from the Fed,( with our taxes pledged as collateral), these institutions will be granted a monopoly of the cap and trade ration cards. Like Timothy Geithner, the so called "retired" executives of these Wall Street concerns enter high positions in government. Later, when their tour of "public service" is done, they return to lucrative positions with the Wall Street firms. Perhaps, the Tea Parties ought to convene in Manhattan as well.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.