Fossil Fuels Are Good For U.S. National Security, New Study Reports

A new study, “Global Warming Energy Restrictions Threaten U.S. National Security,” shows climate change is not a danger to U.S. national security.

By Linnea Lueken

190225-N-GC639-1039 SOUTH CHINA SEA (Feb. 25, 2019) The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) transits the South China Sea at sunset, Feb. 25, 2019. The John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group is deployed to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations in support of security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Ryan D. McLearnon/Released). US Navy
(Note: This image replaces the original image in this post.)

Benefits from Warming Found

A review of all risk factors reveals that imposing carbon dioxide restrictions on the U.S. economy would diminish, rather than enhance, American military preparedness.

The use of fossil fuels benefits the United States and its national security, states the report, published by The Heartland Institute, which also publishes Environment & Climate News. On the other hand, laws and regulations proposed to fight climate change, such as federal and state restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide taxes, and subsidies for select renewable energy technologies, endanger national security, the report states.

Large increases in crop yields, which have provided the United States with unparalleled food security, are a result of modest warming since the late nineteenth century, the study finds.

The United States has more combined coal, natural gas, and oil resources than any other nation in the world, the report notes. This energy dominance provides the nation with economic advantages, increased international leverage, a greater ability to help our allies economically and militarily, and expanded military power.

The study notes energy costs largely determine economic performance, including the development of technological innovations, all of which enhances military and diplomatic power. Because every proposal to fight climate change would increase energy costs and reduce its reliability, implementing these policies would make the United States more vulnerable economically, geopolitically, and militarily, especially to global competitors such as China and Russia, the study reports.

Says Warming Reduces Threats

Global warming alarmists are wrong to claim climate change increases global tensions through bad weather and drought, says James Taylor, a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute and author of the report.

“Alarmists frequently assert global warming is a threat multiplier because it will cause crop failures, droughts, and extreme weather events that exacerbate political and military tensions,” said Taylor. “However, the science clearly shows as our planet has warmed, crop yields regularly set records nearly every year, and there has been no increase in droughts, or hurricanes, or any other extreme weather or climate events.

“To the extent global warming is impacting threat multipliers, it is reducing geopolitical and economic threats,” Taylor said.

Cure Worse Than Disease?

Climate regulations restricting fossil fuel use or raising energy prices undermine the U.S. economy and national security, says Taylor.

“A strong economy is absolutely necessary to fund and support a powerful military,” said Taylor. “By imposing expensive, economy-killing energy sources on America, global warming alarmists would severely undercut national security.

“Economic prosperity is important to sustaining a military able to combat threats to Americans,” Taylor said.

To enhance national security, Taylor writes, policymakers should (1) encourage greater production of U.S. domestic conventional energy resources, (2) encourage optimal use of domestic conventional energy resources in the American economy, (3) support more U.S. conventional energy exports, and (4) resist calls to impose carbon dioxide restrictions on the economy.


The Report:

James Taylor, “Global Warming Energy Restrictions Threaten U.S. National Security,” The Heartland Institute, March 5, 2019: https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/global-warming-energy-restrictions-threaten-us-national-security

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “Fossil Fuels Are Good For U.S. National Security, New Study Reports

  1. At last, looks like there are some adults in US Govt, particularly in threat analyses. I hope this the beginning of the end of the phony global warming nonsense.

    • Don’t get your hopes up. As far as I can tell, this is a report by the Heartland Institute, not part of the government.

      What we need is for congress critters to pay attention. This is increasingly hard because more and more politicians are afraid to stand up to the CAGW bull crap. They will only stand up and be counted if they think doing so will get them more votes than it loses.

      • CB, they ought to remember that Trump won by taking that risk of standing up against the tide of PC thinking.

          • Firstly, Rick Perry is the best Secretary of Energy in the history of the agency and the first to actually focus on domestic energy production.

            Secondly, there’s nothing wrong with what he said…

            Rick Perry, the Trump administration’s energy secretary, several times at the conference referred to the importance of cutting greenhouse gas emissions through technologies including nuclear power, carbon capture and natural gas to replace coal for power generation. He even had some conciliatory words for Ms Ocasio-Cortez and other proponents of the Green New Deal, saying that while he might disagree with their means, he hoped they could agree on some of their goals, including helping China and India curb their emissions.

            Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/rick_perry_has_surrendered_.html#ixzz5j1r25Ll8
            Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

            David Archibald is flat out wrong. While there is no urgent need to curb CO2 emissions, increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not “wholly beneficial.” At concentrations below 1,000 ppm, it may not be particularly harmful; but above that it does start to affect marine geochemistry and, all other factors held equal, it does lead to a slightly warmer lower troposphere.

            • Nuclear power is good.
            • Carbon capture at a reasonable cost is not bad.
            • Carbon capture for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery is VERY good.
            • Replacing coal in an economically efficient manner is good… Even though coal-fired power plants can be “clean,” it’s still not as “clean” as natural gas or nuclear power.
            • Helping India and Red China curb their emissions is also a good thing, a very good thing… Because they make very little effort to operate coal-fired plants “cleanly.” CO2 isn’t the only type of emission from coal-fired power plants.

            Secretary Perry is committed to maintaining and expanding the use of nuclear power and coal because they are the most resilient components of the grid. He’s also views AGW as a minor problem that can be addressed in an orderly and economically sustainable manner… Much the same way that every actual skeptical climate scientist views it, people like Judith Curry, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, etc.

            The alarmists are only about 97% wrong.

  2. Re: “Large increases in crop yields, which have provided the United States with unparalleled food security, are a result of modest warming since the late nineteenth century, the study finds.”

    I’d have said that the improvements are a result of multiple factors, a major factor being the beneficial “CO2 fertilization” effect and improved drought resistance which result from higher atmospheric CO2 levels, and a likely minor factor being the modest warming trend since the late nineteenth century. (Perhaps that’s what the report actually says; I’ve not read it yet.)

    • Dave

      I’d add the benefit of fossil fuelled technology.

      Irrigation systems, tractors, fertiliser and more

        • Paul & David, I agree with you both (as usual).

          The quoted phrase is part of this press release, only. It’s not in James Taylor’s summery, nor in the actual Report.

          It appears to be based on a misreading of the Report, which actually says (correctly):

          The beneficial crop yield trends are supported by trends regarding global foliage and global soil moisture. NASA satellites have measured a substantial greening of Earth during recent decades, illustrating ongoing improvements in crop yields are not merely the result of better fertilizers or agricultural technologies. Vegetation is becoming denser and is extending its reach into previous desert and semi-desert landscapes throughout the world. Scientists have identified higher atmospheric carbon dioxide and better climate conditions as the primary contributors.

          • Even the corrected quote is in error. It does no good for a farmer to plant and harvest record yield crops if they cannot be sold. They cannot be sold if there is nowhere to deliver them, if they cannot be processed / packaged in a resalable form, and then delivered to an end user elsewhere in the world. NONE of those downstream efforts are possible without the efficient use of energy – natural gas, electricity and oil for transport. Slightly warmer and a little more CO2 – although beneficial – have very little to do with larger crop yields.

        • David Middleton stated….above 1000 ppm CO2 effects marine geochemistry….leads to slightly warmer lower troposphere temperature.
          With respect to the first statement what studies support that position? I’ve never seen any white papers on the subject except Tom Segalstat’s in ICCC in New York—Heartland files.
          With respect to the latter this article suggests otherwise.
          https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/04/global_warming_and_settled_science.html
          Many of the articles on this site ( being half brain dead can recall any ) seem to be in direct conflict with your statements?
          You are clearly more astute than I on the subject but these statements are confusing–at least to me. Please clarify.

  3. Why should we give this Taylor guy any credence; and why does he want to boil the oceans, dry out the farmlands, flood the cities, and devastate the resiliency of our proud military servicemen (&womens)?

    He was a good singer in his time, but what does he know about climate. He should go back to singing.

    • Someday, that might be EVs, but for now ICEs are still the most practical. We need a “miracle breakthrough in battery tech.

  4. The photo associated with this article:

    Russian Navy Sovremmey-class destroyer in foreground I believe.
    The rest are also Rusian navy destroyers or frigates. Baltic fleet probably.
    Just sayin’

  5. Most everyone I know from the WWII greatest generation is gone but I would be sad if any of them had seen reports stating the obvious like this in place of more important issues like readiness and capabilities. Misplaced or out of date priorities greatly increased the danger of WWII for America in the run up to war and CO2 is one of the newest diversions from critical thinking. Where are the Gen. Billy Mitchell’s or engineer John Walter Christie’s of today?

    • Particularly if the report stating the obvious was accompanied by a photo of the Yamato… 😉

  6. Let’s have the best of both worlds.
    Continue to use coal to produce our electricity. We have 600 years of coal available.
    Use natural gas and LPG for building space heating and industrial production of daily products.
    Oil is to be used for transportation.
    Let’s turn the CO2 in the combusted exhaust into money and more jobs. https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo
    Let’s consume our natural gas efficiently. https://www.SidelSystems.com
    Vehicle mfg’s are doing an awesome job increasing the efficiency of these modes of transportation.
    Now we have the best of all worlds.

    • Hey, Sid Abma, Old Buddy, Old pal, good to hear from you.
      I have got a great hot tip for you. This is so special, I am only going to share this with you. I will never breathe a word to anyone else. You ready?
      Have you heard about ZECCOM, the revolutionary Zero Emissions Coal Combustion process? It is so revolutionary that it just keeps going around, and around, and around. It’s like the Energizer Bunny, you can not stop it from going around. That’s how revolutionary it is.
      Anyway, ZECCOM is promoted by one Richard Hood. I noticed he does not have a cool cartoon video on YouTube explaining the wonders of ZECCOM like you do.
      Here is your opportunity of a lifetime. Help Richard Hood make a cool cartoon video on YouTube for his system just like yours. Then you can combine both processes into one integrated package and Sell Them Both! It will be Fabulous.
      Do not thank me. Happy to help.

    • Sid, I think you might do even better to replace some of that coal with the waste we currently toss in the ocean or bury in landfills to contribute to atmospheric methane. Every community should be able to reduce its FF consumption by generating electricity burning waste. The technology would be perfected by now, if given the same funding that has been available for “renewables”.

  7. A generation or two ago, it was universally understood that the US was victorious in WWII, in part because it was nearly self sufficient in all things required to prosecute the war. Energy, and especially oil, was a huge part of the puzzle. Indeed, historians have gone on endlessly about how oil, or the lack of it, shaped strategy of all the major players throughout the war.
    For the US. in the early years, before there was the battle of the Atlantic, there was the battle of the East Coast. German U-boats ran amok all up and down the US Eastern seaboard and the Caribbean, sinking tankers left and right, often within sight of land. This was made worse by the fact that Canada was critically dependent on oil shipments from the US. and the U-boats were very successful sinking those tankers as well.
    The whole situation was very “touch and go” during those early years.
    The greenies want to restrict our access to our own energy supplies. This is exactly what Germany tried to do to us. By no coincidence, this is exactly what we tried to do to the Japanese later in the war. The greenies tell us it is for “national security”. For who, exactly? Certainly not for us.

    Lessons hard won, and eventually forgotten.

      • Yes, indeed. DonM knows his history.
        Today, the typical college student knows all about Global Warming but could not tell you what WWII was about, never mind who fought in it.

        • The rebelliousness of youth ignores history’s lessons as non sequitur. They only exist in their own ‘brave new world’ as pioneers on an imaginary ‘new frontier’.

      • DonM March 22, 2019 at 3:07 pm
        “weren’t we doing that to the Japanese even before the war (with Japan)?”

        As a result of Japan invading Korea and China, in 1933, and then destroying many cities, and generally slaughtering, torturing, raping, enslaving, starving, bombarding, destroying stuff and wot-not.

        If the insinuation is the US started WWII in the Pacific via oil sanctions, it didn’t. Japan most certainly did start it though, and that war began many years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US was entirely right and fully justified to sanction the oil supply of Japan – it would have been totally immoral not to in the circumstances. Though the US should perhaps have been more forceful about it in the years earlier, and then the war would not have been anywhere near as bloody or costly as it became.

        • I can not let this stand:
          “oil sanctions”
          You make it sound so diplomatic and economic and good and just.
          And the Japanese were such murderous monsters. So what!

          The Truth:
          The US commenced unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan in 1939!
          That is two full years before Pearl Harbor.
          Note this and note it well:
          1) The US was not at war with Japan. These were acts of war.
          2) Unrestricted meant that Japanese commercial shipping was targeted.
          3) Under international maritime law, which the US subscribed to, an unannounced attack on a commercial ship was international terrorism.
          4) Had the US, at any time decided that Japanese conquests were brutal and needed to be stopped, The US could have declared war and then had at it. The US chose not to do that.

          For more information, visit the US Navy Submarine Force Museum and Library in Groton, Connecticut. You will find numerous exhibits and references concerning actions of US submarines against Japanese shipping prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor and subsequent declaration of war.

          “oil sanctions”
          Ha! Indeed.

          [I can find no such information about US sub attacks prior to Dev 7, 1941. Mod]

          • “Pete” Galantin crewed or commanded US subs from pre-war to the end of WWII.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_J._Galantin
            After the war, he wrote book which was his memoirs, and an account of his experiences of the war. It is a good read, actually.
            “Take Her Deep!”
            https://www.amazon.com/Take-Her-Deep-Submarine-Against/dp/0671736515

            In it, he talks at some length about US submarine actions against Japanese shipping prior to the outbreak of war.

            Also, as I mentioned, the Sub. Museum. A display will show an artifact or a partial log book from American sub against a Japanese tanker, and dated Aug. 1940. Another dated June, 1941. An another….
            Eventually:
            Hey! Wait a Minute! What’s going on here?
            Ever since that day, I have always wondered how many tourists went through all the displays and never realized what they were looking at.

            It is not something that got taught in school, that’s for sure.

          • Tony L

            Nope. I have read Take Her Deep. Nothing in that about attacking Japanese shipping before 1941.

            There is ZERO reference that I can find on American subs attacking Japanese subs prior to Dec 9 ,1941.

            The Americans started sanctions in 1939, gradually tightening them.

            But there is ZERO record of the atrocities you mention.

    • Little known secret. Hitler was the originator of the ‘green’ movement. Even though he is dead, his perfidy still lives on.

  8. Times were, you would just wipe out the enemy, scorched earth and salt the ground.
    Nobody wants to go back there.

  9. I wonder how far off Drone Warships are? (not the little ones, but great big ones)

    When you no longer have to protect the crew, or feed them, or make lots of room for them, the ship design can get really interesting. You can add armor in ways that simply are not practical with humans aboard. They will need AI to run in situations where communications are unavailable. You might even want a few crew to allow for the “Human” in decisions where weapons will be used offensively.

    Small to medium ships can remain fossil fuel based, but bigger ships need to be nuclear based so that they can range about without refueling. Nuclear ores will become strategic more than fossil fuels in the future, but it will be a while.

    Aircraft carriers will have to take on aircraft fuel of course, until Tesla builds an all-electric F35C. (Yes, that was /sarcasm, it turns out people sometimes take these kind of comments seriously)

  10. USS Stennis,
    2 modern, pressurized lightwater reactors running HEU.

    Navy nuclear power… now there’s both a sustainable energy source and a zero-carbon emission source.

    • ‘The original photo was of Russian ships. Without fossil fuels for its combat aircraft and escort ships, USS Stennis would be floating “sustainable energy source and a zero-carbon emission” target.

  11. So, the logical conclusion is:

    One of the biggest threats to our National Security is the Democratic Party with their GND and their intimate and incestuous ties to the Deep State (aka the Elite State).

    The Deep State (entrenched high level unelected bureaucrats and their millions of minions + their propaganda wings in the MSM and Academia… supported by Deep State Crony Capitalists) is obviously the biggest threat to our Constitutional Rights and Individual freedoms. They just keep chiseling away decade after decade. Now they are in a full court press with the never ending persecution of Trump and the Invention of and Sponsorship of the Climate Change fraud.

    This fraud has evolved into a large Industry THAT IS LARGELY FINANCED BY ITS TAXPAYING OPPOSITION…and is now largely self sustaining due to large constituencies that have grown from decades of huge subsidies.

    If the fragility of Alarmists’ claims could just get wider exposure, it would collapse in ridicule. All of their predictions have been either wildly inaccurate or completely 180 degrees wrong. Worse, their emissions goals would barely improve the problem according to their own wrong numbers…let alone fix it.

    Transparency would reveal that there is no problem and it would reveal a $50 Trillion plan that wouldn’t even fix the problem even there was a problem.

    How the hell have they been able to sell this to anyone outside the Deep State (the Deep State are NOT themselves BELIEVERS…look at their CO2 behaviors O)?

    The Climate Change fraud is solely the offspring of the Deep State.

    The Deep State and the US Constitution cannot coexist for long.

  12. This whole matter of “Global Warming ” is as I understand it to be the
    point 8 C, i.e. .8C, dated from 1880, but have any calculations been
    made that allow for the probable temperature during the MWP, then the Ice Age, which went on for a few hundred years , and now as we slowly come out of that long period of cold, that we are measuring a tiny increase to the present still cold of only a point .8C of a increase in warmth.

    What has this return to a bit of what was the temperature back in the days of the MWP got to do with a increase in CO2. After the cold it gets a bit warmer again, so why blame poor CO2, for what is simply a return to that warmer time.

    So let the Green “Scientists” prove that CO2, in the atmosphere, not their
    laboratories, actually makes the atmosphere warmer.

    I am of course not asking where the MWP came from, not much CO2 being produced back then, so it must have been natural. Still the Greenies could be asked that question.

    MJE VK5ELL

Comments are closed.