« Previous Post | Next Post »

Editor's Inbox

Impacts of Climate Change

Climate change poses unique challenges to U.S. national security and interests. Yet current approaches and methods for understanding climate change and its impact fall short in their efforts to help us anticipate and prepare for these eventualities. This white paper is intended to help imagine potential impacts of climate change and the develop alternative analytical approaches for understanding climate change disruptions.

In this paper, we explore several of the possible impacts of continued, relatives unrestrained greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next half-century. These impacts, although not always highly likely, are plausible. In particular, we focus on already stressed systems that are vulnerable to being driven over the edge or past a tipping point by either radical or gradual shifts in climate. By doing so, we offer an alternative, analytic approach -- a "system vulnerability approach" -- to understanding and anticipating climate change disruptions. We conclude by considering both the security implications of the climate impacts discussed in this paper, and the analytic opportunities provided by the systems-vulnerability approach.

To read the full report, created by the Global Business Network (a Monitor Group company), click here.

Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.

Comments (9)


Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

Yousuf Hashmi:

I have downloaded and gone through the report .

This is a powerful document and should be saved for future references .The report discuss a link between environment change and global disturbances of social and political infrastructure.

The report paints a pessimistic view of future but fails to suggest any meaningful solution.

today all nations are in a race of increasing production growth rate. they are in demand of increased energy and therefore dependent on fossile fuels.

Alternate energy so far is expensive and therefore poor nations can not afford . This is causing excessive atmospheric pollutions.

In seventies we found that the oceans and rivers are polluting. All nations joined hand , it took 20 years and the problem is now well under control.

today a general awareness is increasing to address the issue. i hope very soon we will see the legislations binding all nations to control emissions and pollutions.

John Johnson:

Having worked in the environmental industry for the last 20 years, I've watched in horror as we all go along our gifted lives without taking action for our home, our planet EARTH. It's amazing that it has taken the American public so much longer to accept Global Warming. When someone tells me it's just another one of those issues liberals like to push on everyone else, I just want to scream. I've always said this may be the Golden Age. Next, we will be fighting for natural resources & then a mass migration of humankind. That's probably to far out in the Gore Zone for most people but it's TRUE... And, it may be to late. JJ.

Chris Trask:

I have also tried to look at the full report in any form, including attempting to access by way of the Global Business Network website at www.gbn.org. No download from any site was possible, and shortly after attempting a download from www.gbn.org, access to that site was abruptly terminated and no further access has been possible. It's obvious that this report, in any form, is being denied to the public, and any further attempts to access it are probably a waste of time.

Alan G. Arthur:

I have tried on several occasions in the past two days to look at the full report. Each time I am told that there are "porblems" with the download.

Dick Traeger:

A multitude of good analyses exist on impacts of warming. A multitude of political generated analyses exist to generate funding, scare people etc. Few if any have suggestions on broaching the future.
Most ignore the fact that we generate the gasses, not our SUV (unless we drive it), not the power plant (unless we use electricity). Consequently the 1-1 corelation of population growth with warming is rarely mentioned. The big problem - social-is how to maintain the current level of gases with a projected doubling of the earth's population in the next 40 years. Improving automobile milage etc is good but has zilch impact compared to twice the number of us driving. Check Gore's book among others/


It is proper to post the article. However, there is nothing new in it. That the major news outlets are just now starting to publish articles as above, is disgrace, especially as they were most generous to all the global warming sceptics for the last 10 years or so.

The article reflects THE INCONVINIENT TRUTH about the uncertanity of the TIPPING POINT'S location within the process of global warming. That Swiss Re and the other major re-insurance companies have taken global warming into consideration indicates the JUDGEMENT OF RISK. What the politician does or does not with respect the insurance business is totally unconnected to reality of the foreseen damage. The damage is real, compensation, if any, is a cost, either it gets paid or not.

The problems e.g. migration of biota {North or South, up the mountain or not] is all experienced for many years, especially in the northern areas of the N. Hemisphere. While the Hurricane season in the Atlantic was not bad, the Typhoon season was worse than expected. So were many of the signs of Global warming, such as long term earlier and earlier break-up of river-ice, the thawing of permafrost, etc. It was most convinient for BIG MONEY BUSINESS and their surrugates, the MEDIA to disregard these stories [though they were regularly published in scientific journals].

That the politician and big business did not take steps for the last 10-15 years will just make the life of our children, especially the unborn more difficult.

Dave Engbrecht:

It appears that talking about global environment change has been so politicized by people like Al Gore, that bringing up real science, as the op-ed article does, is buried far away from the front page. What is the carrying capacity of this planet for humans? We may be technologically able to increase it for the foreseeable future, but sooner or later, nature will "bat last". Is that good, bad, or a normal consequence of population ecology? The displaced population of New Orleans may simply be "lucky" and ahead of the curve of migration.

Charles Blankstein:

The op-ed piece says I can see the original report by going to Postglobal but I do not see how to do that.
Also, the blue color makes this quite difficult to read. I suggest a color change.
Thank you.

PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.