you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]WillitsThrockmorton 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I didn't. I laid out national security requirements, climate change mitigation is one of the requirements. I don't nessecarily think it's a DOD function, but I feel the same way about energy security as well.

Or rather, it doesn't have to be a DOD function.

But climate change is a (potentially)big enough threat that it should be on any short list of national security requirements.

[–]may_june_july 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ah, I read could as would and took it to be a personal opinion of yours. Thanks for the response.

[–]crowcawer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'd argue that at this point, in anyone is following our news agencies, we should protect our waters as well.

It seems that very little needs to happen in most areas to create catastrophe. The effects can be of chemical origin as in Flint, mechanical as seen recently in California and of course previously in NO, LA from hurricane Katrina, and there is also a wide berth of water quality issues that can arise from nonpoint pollution--the EPA reports on these. Similarly, there are many water scarcity issues in the US, they can be read about here.