STUDY: Enviro-Radicalism is the Threat to Nat’l Security, Not Climate Change

‘The dominant U.S. economy enables policymakers to spend more on military preparedness than any other nation…’

Progressive Democrats, Enviros Back Away from Carbon Tax 1

‘Yellow Vests’ Protest the Carbon Tax in Paris/IMAGE: AdcaZz via Youtube

(Michael Barnes, Liberty Headlines) Climate-change alarmists and supporters of the audacious Green New Deal allege that global warming is an existential threat to all Americans.

But a new study shows that the real risk to national security is actually the economic restrictions that climate doomsdayers want to impose.

Conventional climate-change wisdom asserts that rising temperatures are causing unprecedented global events like crop failures, droughts and extreme weather phenomena.

The negative impacts of these events, they say, will lead to civil unrest and violent social conflicts.

A proposed solution is to eliminate carbon-emitting fossil fuels and place sweeping renewable energy mandates on homes, businesses and the American economy to keep the homeland safe. But as the paper shows, climate activists are not just stopping there—such climate policies would also nullify the U.S. military.

“The United States sustains the most powerful military in the world, because the dominant U.S. economy enables policymakers to spend more on military preparedness than any other nation,” wrote James Taylor, senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute.

Taylor, who authored the study, added that proposals to restrict U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions and impose “expensive, jobs-killing energy sources on the economy” present a clear and present danger.

The U.S. has more combined coal, oil and natural-gas resources than any other nation in the world, and self-imposing restrictions to undermine the value of these resources would be utterly foolish, the study suggests.

“Carbon dioxide restrictions raise energy prices, which weakens the economy,” he concluded.

Other so-called climate corrective measures would put the U.S. at a distinct disadvantage to adversarial countries.

The Paris Climate Accord, for example, targets Western democracies with harsh carbon-dioxide limits and redistributive global economic mandates, but places nothing of the kind on third-world and emerging countries who are often hostile to the United States.

“Most climate activist groups also oppose nuclear power and hydropower, even though they are emissions-free energy sources,” Taylor wrote.

“In a climate activist’s ideal world, wind and solar power would provide nearly all electricity generation, while vehicles would be powered by batteries charged by wind and solar power,” the study says.

But wind and solar present their own geo-strategic problems, in addition to being far more expensive and unreliable than fossil fuels.

The country’s most threatening adversaries of China and Russia happen to dominate the market for rare earth minerals required to produce to renewable energy. China produces five times more rare-earth minerals than the second-leading global producer, while Russia is ranked third.

If the U.S. were to cede its leverage as fossil-fuel leader, then then it would be at the mercy of “the benevolence of China and Russia.”

Taylor also said the premise of blaming events like hurricanes, droughts and crop failures on modest warming is “speculative and dubious.”

Rather than emphasize even a slight reduction in fossil-fuel usage, the study recommends an even greater production of conventional domestic energy resources and a firm resistance to activist measures that would harm the American economy.