Environmental security

The term "environmental security" has been deployed as a doublespeak by which 'security' is proffered to imply 'domestic/homeland security' specifically dependent upon 'economic security' of the governing (i.e. contributing campaign dollars) corporations. Since 'patriotism' is spun to an equation of support for 'security', 'environmental security' becomes a phrase by which environmentalists and conservationists are painted as anti-patriotic.

If that seems convoluted, consider the following testimony before Congress which asserts that the motives of the Kyoto Protocol, treaty, and all who signed it, are economic rather than environmental. At least the U.S., in refusing to sign, has shown that its reasons for not signing were economic rather than environmental.


 * Statement of Dr. Henry A. Fischer
 * President, American Security Council Foundation
 * Submitted to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate
 * Full Committee Hearing to Examine Climate History and its Implications.
 * Tuesday, July 29, 2003
 * 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building


 * The bipartisan American Security Council Foundation (ASCF) was established in 1958, and we have always had a strong commitment to both national security and environmental security issues.
 * In conclusion, the five main arguments against the Kyoto Protocol are as follows:
 * In conclusion, the five main arguments against the Kyoto Protocol are as follows:


 * The claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.
 * CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters. Actually, it would be beneficial to our environment and the economy.
 * Kyoto would impose huge costs on Americans, especially the poor[see below].
 * The environmentalists who are hysterical over global warming were just as hysterical over global cooling.
 * The motives of Kyoto are economic, not environmental; that is, proponents favor handicapping the American economy through carbon taxes and more regulations.

The testimony incorporates a citation of a 1999 study by Wharton Economic Forecasting Associates which concluded that if the U.S. were to adopt the Koyoto Protocol, the results would be:
 * 2.4 million Americans would lose their jobs. Beginning with this loss, the nation would have close to a 10.5 % unemployment rate, which would increase as the economy spiraled downward.
 * The national GDP would decrease by 3.2%, or 300 billion annually.
 * Average household real income would decrease by $2,700 in 2010.

At present, those results are being achieved without signing the treaty or adopting the Protocol, as a direct result of global unrest.

Perhaps we'll start to see excuses that the current U.S. economic troubles were caused by the Protocol itself and the countries which support it. It is, after all, September 2003 and Iran is on the verge of accepting control and authority over Iraq in exchange for letting Halliburton run their nuclear facilities.

Regarding the "huge costs, especially to the poor", we glean from the testimony a clue in the statement that "Such costs would also be regressive, meaning that they would harm mostly poor families."

Regressive in this use indicates that costs incurred by adherence to the treaty (predominantly higher CEO compensations, and political financing and lobbying) would be transferred to consumers down the line until there is no longer any place to which the costs can be transferred.

This is more economic fandango, promoting the threat that negative consequence of profit-threatening regulations would be transferred to "the poor", which of course is true. Then it seems, oddly enough, that in absorbing their newfound utilities costs, they ("the poor" [sic]) can no longer afford to hold a job, hence the 2.4 million jobs "lost".

Contrast: human security, biosecurity, biosafety