More Top Stories:

Time to Be Frank: Linking Terrorism and Climate Change Is Ridiculous

President Obama certainly knows how to use a red-hot news hook to highlight his agenda.

This week, during the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris, he appeared to conflate climate change with terrorism. Coming hot on the heels of the ISIS massacres in the “City of Light,” that kind of rhetoric was bound to get people’s attention.

In a CBS This Morning interview, he asserted that global warming will put people in desperate straits. And when “human beings are placed under strain,” he added, “then bad things happen. And if you look at world history, whenever people are desperate …  that’s when ideologies arise that are dangerous.”

In addressing terrorism (aka dangerous ideologies) in the same breath as global warming, Obama leaves the impression that the two are connected. But a close reading shows that he stops short of claiming a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the two issues.

In Paris, for example, he framed the need for international cooperation on climate issues like this: “And in some ways, it [climate change]’s akin to the problem of terrorism and ISIL.” “In some ways” and “akin” are weasel words that suggest a linkage without really making one.

The administration has a habit of gauzily tying global warming to rising terrorism. In Paris, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes argued that “the instability that we see in parts of Africa and the Middle East … can be magnified by the effects of climate change and extreme drought and extreme disruption.” And in October at the Universal Exposition in Milan, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “Now, I’m not telling you that the crisis in Syria was caused by climate change. … But the devastating drought clearly made a bad situation a lot worse.”

The claim is always carefully hedged, but clearly the White House wants us to believe that climate change—once it really kicks in—will create or exacerbate all sorts of national security problems, including terrorism. It’s a great technique for generating a sense of urgency.

But the rhetorical construct, while interesting, is weak.

There seems to be no strong quantitative (i.e., empirical) evidence to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between changes in the climate and conflict. Moreover, as others have noted, how humans respond to change—be it climate change or any other type of change—is a matter of choice, not destiny.

Violent conflict aimed at grabbing land and other natural resources is certainly one possible response. But so, too, is cooperation. Indeed, that’s exactly what the nearly 200 countries are trying to do at the Paris climate conference. The administration must believe that cooperation is a viable response. Otherwise, why burn the fuel to fly to the Paris negotiations?

Climate change activists have been trying to create a sense of urgency about their concerns for nearly 50 years. It’s what sparked the first international Earth Day activities—only then the alarm was over global cooling.

While doomsday predictions still crop up (Al Gore, you’ll recall, warned us that the northern polar ice…

 if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.


Opinions posted on are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
%d bloggers like this: