This past weekend saw temperatures in the mid to upper 50s, putting a pleasantly sunny twist in what has generally been a long history of notoriously bitter Midwestern winters. As good as it felt ditching the extra pair of socks and mittens, it was still a bit unnerving. 2015 has been the warmest year in recorded history, and it seems 2016 may top that.
In the CBS Democratic debate in November 2015, presidential hopeful Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said climate change is the greatest threat to national security, going further to proclaim that it’s “directly related to the growth of terrorism.”
At a town hall in Coralville, former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton stated on the topic of the Syrian refugee crisis, “We have to ask ourselves: Why is this happening? Because of terrible governance, because of corruption, because of conflict, because of climate change; there are so many reasons people are being, in their minds, forced to leave and try to get to safety.”
Climate change has a hand in virtually every global and domestic issue, to varying degrees. From foreign policy, immigration, and American economic stability, it’s an issue worth astute and constant consideration.
And it’s an issue that will hit close to home. Climate-change projections are dismal for the Iowa agriculture industry. A study conducted by the Risky Business Project published statistics stating “the state could face likely declines in its signature corn crop of 18 percent to 77 percent — a huge hit for a corn industry worth nearly $10 billion.”
According to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, precipitation in our region has increased by 8 percent since the turn of the century (a consequence of climate change), which plays a significant role in hydrological disasters such as the 2008 Iowa flooding.
The United States is second only to China in greenhouse-gas emissions, and as a world polluter, the statistics are staggering. In 2013 alone, the United States was responsible for dumping an estimated 6,700 megatons (or a million tons) of planet-warming gases into the atmosphere, according to the EPA.
Environmentally inclined infrastructure and fossil-fuel alternatives are necessary investments in an age confronted with a century of ignorant or calloused environmental behavior. But those who are skeptical or stubborn ask a very good question: Where will we find the money to do this?
According to Time, the true cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is calculated to fall between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. In December of 2014, Bill Urban, a Pentagon spokesman, put the price tag of the U.S.-led air strikes in Syria and Iraq against ISIS to be at $1.02 billion, or $8.1 million a day. And according to the State Department, the United States spent approximately $35 billion on foreign aid during fiscal 2014.
The money spent waging wars to combat ideologies that have grown out of dire or strained economic situations, arguably catalyzed by global warming, could be used to rebuild American infrastructure in environmentally conscious ways.
The $35 billion used in foreign aid could be used to subsidize alternative-fuel technologies, which when looked at in a bigger picture, would help everyone on the planet through cutting American emissions.
The United States has always prided itself on being a model nation, either for our democracy, military, or economy. Now is the time to add another merit to the list and ascend to a model nation for environmentally conscious behavior.