portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

environment | government | sustainability

Leaked Pentagon report warns of environmental disaster

Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report
Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report
LONDON (AFP) Feb 22, 2004
A secret report prepared by the Pentagon warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism, The Observer said on Sunday.

The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon advisor but was covered up by "US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "obtained" by the British weekly.

The leak promises to draw angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and President George W. Bush's skepticism about global warning -- a stance that has stunned scientists worldwide.

The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies," The Observer reported.

The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.... Once again, warfare would define human life."

Its authors -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California -- said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue.

It "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", they were quoted as saying.

Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include:

-- Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.

-- by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California

-- Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.

-- "catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.

Randall, one of the authors, called his findings "depressing stuff" and warned that it might even be too late to prevent future disasters.

"We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years," he told the paper.

Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper that the threat to global stability "vastly eclipses that of terrorism".

Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said.

"It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat," he said.

Coming from the Pentagon, normally a bastion of conservative politics, the report is expected to bring environmental issues to the fore in the US presidential race.

Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having "misled the public".

Its 38-page report, which it said took over a year to prepare and was not time to coincide with the campaign season, details how Washington "systematically" skewed government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on issues.

Critics of the report quoted by the New York Times denied there was deliberate misrepresentation and called it politically motivated.

The person behind the leaked Pentagon report, Andrew Marsall, cannot be accused of the same partisan politicking.

Marsall, 82, has been an advisor for the defense department for decades, and was described by The Observer as the author of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plans for a major transformation of the US military.


homepage: homepage: http://www.salvationinc.org/

look at its authors 27.Feb.2004 08:25


***Its authors -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California -- said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue.***

Why would big business fund and participate in this kind of study? To make more money!

Read it for yourself here 27.Feb.2004 11:21


Full DOD document available for download:

. 27.Feb.2004 12:28


Regardless of whether they think they can make money on it, or that they just realize that their days of making money may be over when it happens, this is a very plausible scenario and SHOULD be a national priority.

Scientists already measured a change in the Gulf Stream last year which is a possible indicator of the report scenario. Other scientists have been saying exactly what this report says. The significance of this report is not the info, but who is saying it.

Making money? Shocking! 27.Feb.2004 13:41


Dear Secret, You are dismayed that the capitalists might view a climate disaster as a money making opportunity? That is very silly. It is their life's purpose to find ways to make money, even if it is fixing the problems they caused. It is also pretty silly to imply that if they make money it is bad. Who else is going to do it? Not our government, and if they did you would find some conspiracy in it, too. If you have a house built and in a few years the roof leaks, you might call the builder to fix it. She made money building the house, now she makes money fixing it. She is not evil (I hope). Shit happens and we deal with it. Maybe the big corporations make some money fixing the damage they did before. So what? Someone has to do it. Do you have the resources to take this on? I don't and I doubt Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or ELF does either. I will just be thankful as hell if someone or something (a corporation) will just get started, soon.