After the testimony, the first question was asked by the chairman of the subcommittee, Rep Connie Mack. After making the administration repeat its priorities in the hemisphere (security, democracy, prosperity), he asked why $100 million in taxpayer dollars are being spent on the Global Climate Change initiative in the hemisphere. He indicated that the money doesn't fall under the three priorities and that given the current violence in Mexico and Central America, spending this money on climate change hurt the administration's focus on security.
Valenzuela responded by saying that security is the top priority with 48% of the budget for the hemisphere going to security initiatives like Merida, CARSI and CBSI. He also defended the climate change initiative as something the hemisphere wants to work on. Both are true points, but Valenzuela's response was lacking.
Here's what Valenzuela didn't say and what I would have liked to have heard:
Climate change is a security issue. Climate change, energy and environmental issues also have a direct impact on the long term prospects for democracy and economic prosperity in this hemisphere.
Higher temperatures are already starting to affect crop production in rural Colombia, harming the ability to consolidate the security gains made by Plan Colombia over the last decade. The reduced glaciers in the Andes are impacting farming in Peru and Bolivia, affecting food supplies for the citizens and economic prosperity for key regions of those countries, which will have an effect on stability and the presence of drug production. As sea levels rise, it will hit the Caribbean and coastal cities in Latin America, potentially increasing displacement and mass migration. In a region dependent on hydropower for a significant portion of its electricity, changes in river flows caused by droughts and floods will impact the ability for governments to deliver a stable power system. Climate change is incresing the number and intensity of disasterous weather events including heavy rains, mudslides, hurricanes and droughts,
All of those points above harm economic prosperity and create discontent among populations, which will weaken governments. That discontent can create new openings for leaders who perhaps are less than fully democratic. Weak governments also create the openings for transnational criminal organizations to thrive. And TCOs are what Southcom's commander calls the biggest security threat in the hemisphere. Additionally, Southcom spends an enormous amount of time preparing, training for and executing humanitarian relief missions for natural disasters, so climate change impacts that aspect of the US military role in the region as well.
The problem with Mack's question and Valenzuela's answer is that they treated climate change in a vacuum, as if the issue isn't related to the president's regional priorities. Security, democracy, development, energy and environmental issues are interrelated. Cutting climate change money, as Rep Mack wants to do, will harm US security priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean and strengthen autocratic leaders and criminal organizations in the future.
Dollars spent today in prevention and adaptation to climate change are likely saving tax payers billions of dollars down the road trying to fix the problems after climate change creates them. When the US spends money on climate change initiatives this year, it's an investment in the future of the region's security, democracy and prosperity.
Source: http://www.bloggingsbyboz.com/2011/04/climate-change-and-security-in-western.html
new nuclear power plants in usa nuclear holocaust what are the benefits of nuclear energy nuclear cardiology cme nuclear family definition
No comments:
Post a Comment