In the August 8th edition of The New York Times, columnist John M. Broder, who writes frequently for the paper on global warming issues penned a column titled, “Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security.” Broder reported on recent studies and exercises conducted by the military that looked at the security implications of global climate change. He then concluded:

a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.

It is true that some people do have these views, but in what way is any of this news that merits front page coverage on the New York Times? None of the studies or exercises discussed in the article occurred recently. The article even notes that the National Defense University exercise discussed in the piece occurred “last December.”

Worse the article does not address concerns about the threat climate change legislation poses to our national security. A study by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis finds that the Waxman-Markey energy tax bill would make the United States about $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035. Much of this decline would be from reduced economic productivity and job loss.

A collapse in U.S. economic growth would result in even more draconian cuts to the defense budget, leaving America with a military much less prepared to deal with future threats. Indeed, if America’s military power declines, there would probably be more wars, not fewer. Likewise, a steep drop in American economic growth would lengthen and deepen the global recession. That in turn will make other states poorer, undermining their ability to protect themselves and recover from natural disasters.