Today, Secretary Bodman came out in defense of U.S. policy toward global climate change. He said that the U.S. spends more on this issue than the rest of the world combined (not sure on what we’re spending it, I am afraid – barely anybody even knows there’s an office of renewable energy, or a renewable energy national lab, run by the Department of Energy). I saw some interesting words in this report, which have been repeated widely by news agencies. They got me thinking about something, and I did a quick web search.
**2002**:
“In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had **likely** produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.” (George Bush, words empasized by me) [IraqiThreat2002]
“Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a **likely** range of hundreds of miles – far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations – in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.” (George Bush, words empasized by me) [IraqiThreat2002]
” . . . the regime in Iraq would **likely** have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. ” (George Bush, words empasized by me) [IraqiThreat2002]
**2003:**
“UNMOVIC has also reported that Iraq has illegally imported 380 SA-2 (ph) rocket engines. These are **likely** for use in the al-Samud II (ph). Their import was illegal on three counts. Resolution 687 prohibited all military shipments into Iraq. UNSCOM specifically prohibited use of these engines in surface-to-surface missiles. And finally, as we have just noted, they are for a system that exceeds the 150-kilometer range limit.” (Colin Powell, words empasized by me) [UnitedNations2003]
This is interesting. The word “likely” appears in key speeches made by President Bush and Secretary Colin Powell. They never define what “likely” means. It turns out none of the above “likely” things were actually true, and like most of the other reasons for war they were sorely disproven. But based on that word, “likely,” the United States has invested over $200 billion in three years on this war. Much of that is supplementary spending, not even in the budget request and passed separately by the Congress.
Compare this to the language in the report from the inter-governmental panel on global climate change: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is **very likely** due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (Intergovernmental Panel on Global Climate Change, emphasis in original document). “Very likely” actually has a scientific definition in this document; it’s defined as meaning that, based on a statistical analysis of correlations between human activity and the effect in question, the probability of a relationship is greater than 90%.
And how much has the United States spent on this problem, one which a huge variety of data sources point to as a real effect which, while it has occurred without human action in the past, is currently liked to human action? Well, let’s take 2003, the year that the Iraq war started, as a benchmark. In that year, the U.S. pledged to spend 15% more than it had previously spent on global climate change. That amounted to $4.3 billion [Spending2003]. To put that into perspective, in 2003 the Pentagon spent $3.9 billion **per month** in Iraq [UsaTodayWarSpending].
The next time you hear the President, or a member of his Cabinet, or a member of Congress say that we’re spending more than all the nations on Earth on this problem, remember this: based on “likely”, we spent $4 billion a month in Iraq in 2003, and based on “very likely” we spend $4 billion a year on solving our own contributions to global climate change.
.. [IraqiThreat2002] “http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
.. [UnitedNations2003] “http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
.. [Spending2003] “http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2003/1121/epf511.htm”:http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2003/1121/epf511.htm
.. [UsaTodayWarSpending] “http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-07-cover-costs_x.htm”:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-07-cover-costs_x.htm
