Recently the House passed the 2015 military budget of $601 billion. A budget which had bipartisan support. This budget contains billions in spending for unnecessary and outdated weapons systems. Weapons the Pentagon does not want. It seems that there is always a bipartisan desire to stay in office by keeping military spending flowing into many congressmen’s districts. Amazing, all those right wing deficit cutters exposing their hypocrisy. But this is not the issue on which I would like to focus.
The House, including Representatives Marino and Barletta, voted to prohibit the military from spending any of the funding in this bill on programs that address climate change. The level at which these gentlemen disregarded the future security of this country for the profits of their corporate masters and ideological beliefs is almost beyond comprehension. It does though present a consistent pattern.
Pentagon planners in their efforts to determine the future needs of the military do risk assessments. These planners have determined that climate change presents great risks all over the planet. Excessive flooding, drought, rising food prices, and mass migrations are just some of the forces that will upset political stability throughout the world. Many people don’t realize that rising food prices were a major causative factor of the “Arab Spring.”
Why would the Congress tie the hands of the military to confront one of the major risks we face? Is this a demonstration of ignorance, a rigid adherence to a flawed political philosophy, or the expression of allegiance to their corporate sponsors? The military is going to be faced with dealing with the results of climate change’s disruptions. Shouldn’t they be allowed to do what is necessary?
The military has been a leader in the development and use of solar energy. In remote areas of Afghanistan the dollar cost of delivering fuel is immense. Fuel convoys are also prime targets for the opposition. The ability to produce electricity in remote outposts without the need for fuel deliveries has been demonstrated to be very valuable asset.
A number of months ago I attempted to find out whether Representative Marino accepted the overwhelming consensus of science that climate change was happening as a result of man’s activity and this change presents great risks. After several calls to both the Williamsport and Washington offices of Congressman Marino, I received a call from one of his people in the Washington office telling me that Mr. Marino accepted the conclusions of scientific community. His voting record certainly doesn’t indicate this. Was I told the truth? Does Representative Marino feel compelled to follow the voting line of his party with no ability to think for himself? Do his reactionary, corporatocracy, and plutocratic political beliefs out rule the basic findings of fact? He has consistently voted for the short term profits of major corporations over the wellbeing of average citizens of this country.