Editor,
In Whidbey News-Times’ Oct. 11 coverage of candidate debates, commissioner candidate Rick Hannold was described as doubtful that we should fight climate change.
“I feel it’s just part of the natural course of things,” said Hannold, according to the News-Times.
State Rep. Dave Hayes is similarly averse to fighting climate change; he earned a rating of exactly zero from the League of Conservation Voters, in part for his votes against climate change-related legislation during the last session.
Both of these candidates, seeking support in Navy-friendly Oak Harbor, should know better. It’s widely understood by today’s military leadership that climate change represents not just a threat to our economy, our food supply and our coast, but it actually threatens American national security as well.
Adm. Samuel Locklear, commander of the vast U.S. Pacific Command, said in a 2013 interview that climate change was the No. 1 threat to his security environment. This is a striking assertion from the man responsible for security in the regions around China, North Korea and India.
The Navy has been concerned for years about climate change, establishing Task Force Climate Change in 2009 to begin planning for this unfamiliar world, including the upcoming rush to exploit Arctic resources and the problems naval bases face from rising seas. To wit, a 2013 National Academy of Sciences paper listed Whidbey Island Naval Air Station as one of 34 Washington locations that will be the first to drown due to sea level rise.
These warnings are not new, however. In 2007, the Center for Naval Analysis convened a panel of retired senior admirals and generals to detail how climate change hurts American security. The report, available at www.cna.org, noted, “When climates change significantly or environmental conditions deteriorate to the point that necessary resources are not available, societies can become stressed, sometimes to the point of collapse.”
Adm. Joseph Lopez continued in a chilling premonition of the current ISIS crisis: “Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror.”
The CNA updated its report this spring, writing, “The projected impacts of climate change will be more than threat multipliers; they will serve as catalysts for instability and conflict.” This is strong language in the academic parlance used by national security professionals; it says climate impacts will not merely worsen existing conflicts, it will cause them.
The military panel concluded, “We are increasingly concerned over the lack of comprehensive action by the international community to address projected climate change issues. The United States has an obligation to take a leadership role.”
Then this week, the Pentagon, led by Republican Chuck Hagel, released a new Climate Change Adaption Roadmap, noting that flooding in military facilities such as Hampton Roads, Va., has already been observed.
“Politics or ideology must not get in the way of sound planning,” Hagel wrote.
So why the climate denialism from our local politicians? Why does Mr. Hannold, running for commissioner in an area economically dependent on NAS Whidbey, look the other way in the face of this building threat to our sea-level base? Why does Mr. Hayes support status quo policies which, according to military commanders, increase danger to American military personnel? Why did Commissioner Jill Johnson end the county’s universal recycling program at a time when energy conservation cannot be overemphasized? Why is state Sen. Barbara Bailey so silent on this critical challenge, which screams out for leadership?
These politicians demonstrate through negligence that they are ill-equipped to handle today’s complex challenges.
Supporting the troops is more than a bumper sticker. This election season, beware the phony patriotism of candidates who drape themselves in flags while pedaling the climate denialism known to endanger the military they profess to honor.
Support our troops by supporting candidates willing to assume the duty of solving America’s climate problem.
Bob Hallahan
Oak Harbor
