skip to main content

Natural Resources Defense Council

Switchboard

Jake Schmidt's Blog

Faithfully Securing our Future: New Coalition Pushes for Global Warming Action and Adaptation Support

Faithfully Securing our Future: New Coalition Pushes for Global Warming Action and Adaptation Support

Countdown to CopenhagenA new coalition of U.S. Representatives, faith and military leaders unveiled a new push to secure strong global warming policy and ensure that the most vulnerable throughout the world are supported in efforts to adapt to the impacts of climate change.  This effort was launched with the support of U.S. Representatives Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Tom Perriello (D-VA).

The group launched a major new advertising and email campaign to push for action to address global warming (listen to the ad here and see the press release), bolstered by new polling that shows a strong majority of American's, Catholics, and Evangelicals support action on global warming pollution (see poll results here).

This campaign also focused on the need to ensure that sufficient international adaptation funding is included in the final legislation to ensure that "the most vulnerable populations in developing countries have the resources they need to proactively adapt to climate change". 

When I told some "non-climate" people about the make-up of this coalition -- not normally aligned groups -- their eyebrows rose a bit.  It seemed a curious collection -- military, religious, and Members of Congress -- why are they working together to address global warming?

Well it actually makes more sense than you would think.

A growing collection of religious organizations have recognized that addressing global warming is:

"a moral duty to care for God's creation and to care for the needs of those who are contributing the least to climate change but bearing the brunt of its burden", as Congressman Tom Perriello put it.

And a number of powerful voices in the military and security community have begun to stress that the impacts of global warming will increase "threat multipliers" around the world.  As Rear Admiral Stuart Franklin Platt, USN Ret, a highly-decorated Vietnam veteran stated:

"Global climate change is one of the greatest threats to our national security both because it literally threatens the very planet we inhabit and because the droughts, famine, and floods it creates threaten to destabilize regions around the world."

And of importance to the international global warming negotiations occurring as we speak, this group has recognized that one of the key elements to address these "moral" and "security" challenges is to support the most vulnerable countries and populations around the world in adapting to impacts of climate change. 

As I discussed here and as an NRDC alum discussed here, the discussion draft released by Chairmen Waxman and Markey included some key provisions to support international adaptation efforts.  What wasn't spelled out was the source of the funding for these efforts and the amount of money provided to address the international adaptation challenge.  And a lot of groups, including NRDC, are working to ensure significant funding for international adaptation (and see here).

This is a critical piece of the puzzle that needs strong support as US legislation moves towards becoming law and as the US climate negotiators go into Copenhagen with as many tools as they can get to secure a strong international global warming agreement.   

This group of religious, military, and Congressmen are calling for just such international adaptation funding to be provided in the global warming bill.  This is a very helpful push at a critical juncture.

So let's go forth and faithfully secure our future, by addressing climate change and supporting international adaptation efforts!

Tags:
adaptation, climatechangenegotiations, copenhagen, copenhagencountdown, energyandclimate2009, globalwarming, UNFCCC, waxmanmarkey

(bookmark or email this entry)

Comments

Dave PercyMay 7 2009 07:03 PM

All humans will suffer from controls on global warming emissions. I’m a meteorologist and a sea ice forecaster for NOAA. I have studied and observed Atmospheric Science for 45 years. I just look at the facts. The earth has cooled since its peak in 1998. The temperature trend rounded the curve and the cooling accelerated in 2007. Antarctica has a yearly net ice gain, which increases with each passing year. The Arctic is beginning to see a net increase this year. I predict the Northwest Passage will remain closed this summer but the Northeast Passage will probably open. Incidentally, the northeast passage was open for a few years in the early 20Th century. Sure, there “was” a well documented warming from around 1850 to 1998. Even more interesting is how the great climate models never verify a forecast, and, missed the current 10+ year cooling trend.
If it makes sense to enact measures to reduce CO2 emissions when experts forecast warming, then surely it also makes sense to emit extra CO2 when experts forecast cooling. Or perhaps not.
Perhaps any link between climate change and carbon dioxide is not so strong or important. Consider the historical record.
The tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased through the twentieth century. And yet, during that time, global average temperatures rose till about 1940, fell till about 1975, rose again till 1998, and then dropped away again. It is not surprising, then, that despite claims “the science is settled,” thousands of scientists disagree with forecasts of dangerous man made global warming.

History again provides useful guidance.

Dave Percy Anchorage, Alaska

Bronwyn BeistleMay 11 2009 11:54 PM

Waxman-Markey seems to be heading in the direction of giving away a great deal of carbon allowances (around 55%?). Assuming that we get that percentage of allowances given away, and assuming that the goal is set at 14% reductions (a little low for my liking), what will the effect of such a domestic decision be on our international negotiations? We keep hearing that the U.S. has to put its money where its mouth is as far as our domestic plans are concerned--will the current incarnation of Waxman-Markey be good enough for the international community?

Comments are closed for this post.

We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.

Clean Energy Common Sense

OnEarth: NRDC's award-winning magazine

Citizen journalism from the OnEarth magazine website

Day Five of No Impact Week: Lights Out
by Solvie Karlstrom
The Not-So-Badness of Guides to Green Living
by Emily Gertz
No Impact Week Day Four: Foreign Foods
by Solvie Karlstrom

Read more

Fresh Conversation

Feeds: Stay Plugged In