Department Of Climate Defense - 2007, ground zero of environment - Red blogule to Philip Cooney - White blogule to the IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 4th Assessment Report* today in Paris. Yet another set of scenarios, and certainly not the worst case we've heard of so far. But considering the compromizes needed to produce it, this new finger pointing in our direction looks definitely frightening.

Philip Cooney resigned today. The White House Council on Environmental Quality's chief of staff had been on a hot seat for a couple of days and yes, global warming had something to do with it and yes again, human behavior too.The New York Times revealed how this former oil lobbyist edited many reports confirming both global warming and the impact of man. We can now measure the impact of one man, George W. Bush.

2007 is the ground zero of environment, where everybody gapes at the horror and starts to react. We certainly don't want the same leaders to take the same kind of decisions.
I'm sure the former next president of the United States would have done a better job. By joining the Kyoto community and putting more pressure on developping countries, Al Gore would have led the world to a slightly better trend at a decisive moment.

Gore wouldn't have prevented global warming, which is bound to rule for the next millenium at least. Besides, at the geological level, both Philip Cooney and the IPCC are insignificant. But we are enjoying global warming right now and what we are doing now is significant. At the personal, collective, national and international levels.

The IPCC does have a WMO / UNEP / UNO label, but the United Nations Environment Programme itself has no power. China and Russia are not likely to empower it that soon. Ditto at the WTO, even if Davos exposed interesting concerns across the entrepreneurial elite.

At the national level, I'd like the US to stand a little bit more sanely on this ground zero. Because this is also a matter of national security and defense. We are at war, we are defending our land, and the intervention of military is already often required. I'm not talking about financing federal environmental policies with the budget of defense : I mean defense should have its own environmental agenda, money to build natural fences, to fight the very causes of climate change. The budget of defense already contributes to R&D with civil applications, why not devote one fifth of it to the war on climate change ? For a change.


* download it at ipcc.ch