Preemption for the Planet

In making the case for the War on Iraq, President George W. Bush and his defense team have come up with a clear and uncompromising doctrine for a post-Sept. 11 world: preemption. This policy is based on the premise that if you wait until a clear declaration of war it will be too late. If the Iraqis attack us first, or aquire the means to menace the entire region, the large loss of life or politcal instability will be unacceptable. Therefore, we cannot wait for a “smoking gun” before attacking; instead we have to use past history and our best knowledge in order to make decisions about war and peace. This doctrine seems sensible. In the 21st century, the normal rules of warfare do not exist and so we must be vigilant about any encroaching threat. If we wait, it will be too late. In fact, this doctrine is so sensible that it should be extended to another arena of policy: environmental policy and, specifically, global warming.

The doctrine of preemption could not apply better to the case of global warming. Global warming is an issue that does not affect people on a regular basis, but could arguably be the most serious destabilizing national security threat in the 21st century. Global warming has the potential to change our earth far more dramatically than anyone dreamed possible. By the end of the century, we will have doubled the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, ravaged many of the oceans fisheries and destroyed a good portion of arable farmland. Rising water levels may cause the Bangladesh to descend into the Indian Ocean. Expensive dikes will have to be put up around Florida to prevent a similar occurrence. Nations will fight bloody, genocidal wars fo rights to waters equal or smaller in size than those of Lake Michigan. On the upside, you will be able to get a tan in Harvard Yard year round.

But aren’t these the rantings of a typically alarmist environmentalist? Well, guilty as charged. All these things will not necessarily happen in the next fifty or hundred years. Heck, maybe they will not even happen at all. By the time we find out, however, it will be too late. However, I should note that the scientific community is almost unanimous in its findings about the global effects of increasing carbon emissions and the threat of subsequent environmental disasters. The Earth is extremely delicate and relatively small changes can throw off its equilibrium. As a human race we cannot wait to discover the exact consequences of our actions. For example, in 1998, sudden flooding in China’s Yangtze basin due to deforestation caused over $20 billion worth of damage. Nobody could have been sure that this flooding would have occured until it actually did.

Bush must apply his doctrine of preemption to the potential crisis of global warming, and hopefully other environmental problems. Just as we can never be sure whether Saddam will really use his weapons of mass destruction against America or our allies, we cannot know the ultimate consequences of global warming until dramatic changes occur in the environment. The Bush administration has put aside any real policy discussion of global warming until further studies indicate the exact economic cost of increased carbon emissions. Somebody should tell them that the cost will probably be closer to infinity than zero. Biosphere II cost $200 million and could not support a small group of trained scientists for two years—$200 million multiplied by the number of people on Earth sure exceeds a sound budget.

The great part is that Bush simply has to follow his own doctrine in order to enact this policy. All he has to do is declare to the American people that, similar to the situation with Iraq, America cannot wait until the threat of global warming clearly presents itself. Based on current information, which clearly and strongly points to impending environmental disasters, he has decided to embark on a “bold new initiative” that promises to protect our Earth, reduce dependence on Middle East oil, and improve the public health for millions of Americans. And he could even throw in a few tax breaks for energy companies making the transition from fossil fuels to hydrogen fuel cells, solar power as well as other fuel-efficient technologies. While the $1.2 billion initiative to develop hydrogen as a fuel is a step in the right direction, any serious attempt to dramatically improve the environment for future generations would take much more money than the amount lost every year to budgetary rounding errors, spread over five years. A real environmental initiative would sure take some guts. One can only hope that Bush will have the foresight to enact such a plan.

Andrew J. Frank ’05 is an environmental science and public policy concentrator in Winthrop House. He is a member of the Environmental Action Committee.