On Sunday August 9, 2009, the front page of the widely read Sunday edition of the New York Times led with “Climate Change Seen as a threat to Security and Drain on Military“. This was striking for a few reasons: 1) this is not “breaking” news – rather it’s been reported and studied over the last few years; 2) National Interest prevails … remember the melting arctic ice cover; 3) the article does not focus on how much energy is wasted and the gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions that could be saved if energy was used efficiently.

First, kudos to the Times for putting this on the front page. Hopefully, it presented people with the opportunity to think about climate change from a different perspective if only for a fleeting Sunday morning. However, there have been reports and studies over the last few years that make the same argument and connection (see National Security and the Threat of Climate Change – circa 2007 – by the Center of Naval Analysis).

The Times’ article, in a nutshell, is saying (without saying it) – LOOK, if people don’t do something NOW to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then the U.S. will be faced with LOTS of problems in the near future. The laundry list of problems includes “‘raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics’, military and intelligence analysts say.”

Regardless, U.S. National Interest seems to prevail no matter the issue. It’s a rallying cry to a certain extent. But something really jumped out at us as we read the article – “Arctic melting also presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition.” It was that last part – “undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition.” Oil and natural gas.

So as our planet signals that it’s in dire straights due to our greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. National Interest only sees black gold. In retrospect, it’s really not that shocking.

What does shock us is that our National Interests are so focused on procuring raw energy resources, maybe even fighting for it. The article did not mention ways to combat greenhouse gas emissions or efficiently using the energy resources we already have.

The majority of people waste these resources day in and day out, because, at the end of the day, most raw energy resources are converted into electricity somewhere down the line so that you can plug in and charge your cell phone or laptop. Around 80% of the energy you draw when charging such a device is wasted due to vampire energy loss and in ac/dc conversion when using non-Vampire Proofâ„¢ charging products. If 80% of those energy resources were saved, then that reduction of greenhouse gas emission would help curb the quickening of climate change – reducing the threat as we work to solve other climate change catalysts and causes.

“The energy that most effectively cuts costs, protects us from climate change, and reduces our dependence on foreign oil is the energy that’s never used in the first place.” – Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Envrionmental Protection Agency