Generation We inherits a world in which climate change and global pollution threaten an unprecedented environmental collapse—one that could even spell the end of human existence on this planet—because of unconstrained extraction and desecration of natural resources and reliance on carbon-spewing fossil fuels.

The so-called debate over global warming has long been settled—at least, to the satisfaction of the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue. There are still a few stragglers who deny the reality of global warming, pooh-pooh its importance, or dispute the role of human behavior in causing it. Most of these self-proclaimed “climate skeptics,” however, are either on the payroll of OPEC countries or corporate interests whose primary goal is to fend off action that will reduce their profits, or doctrinaire conservatives who pander to big business and whose ideology prevents them from admitting that freemarket principles can ever produce less-than-ideal results.

Obstructionists and shills aside, the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the world’s climate has been changing and is continuing to change at a rate that appears to be unprecedented in history. There is also agreement that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is an important contributing factor in this change, and that human activity—in particular the burning of fossil

fuels such as oil, gas, and coal—has played a major role in the creation and build-up of these gases. Even most conservative Republicans (who long denied the reality of global warming or the fact that human beings are contributing to it) and business leaders (whose companies will be dramatically impacted by any effort to reverse the dangerous warming trend) have largely come to accept these realities.

The questions now are: What are the likely impacts from the climate change processes that are already underway? What can be done, if anything, to avert a possible environmental catastrophe?

Because the current climate change is of a kind that has not happened since the end of the last ice age, and because massive climatic change inevitably includes complex side effects that cannot be fully understood or precisely anticipated with our current technology, scientists can’t fully predict the nature and extent of the damage or what it means to humans. There are signs that even forecasts made in the last decade may already be outdated. For example, the observed acceleration in summer melting of the Arctic icecap is occurring at a markedly faster rate than climate scientists had predicted. It is conceivable, by some models, that the icecap over Greenland could melt almost entirely in the next 50 years, releasing an amount of water so large it would cause ocean levels to rise more than 20 feet and submerge many developed coastal regions worldwide. No natural disaster or act of God in human history comes close to the sheer suffering, loss, and displacement that would result from such a crisis.

The notion that trends accelerate as they mature is even more sobering. As the melting of glaciers, permafrost, and poles continues, it systemically assists in furthering planetary warming so that an accelerator effect takes place. Take permafrost in the Arctic regions as an example. Once the ground melts, the frozen carbon-based elements in the soil start to decompose, emitting massive amounts of carbon in the process and multiplying the effect of the warming. The scariest part is that nobody can model or measure how profound the effect will be.

Here are some of the latest findings from the 2007 report of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

> Eleven of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

Between 1950 and 2000, average temperatures in the Northern

Hemisphere appear to have been the highest in at least the last

1,300 years. The likelihood that these trends were caused mainly by human

activities is greater than 90 percent.

> If current trends continue, the impact on climate during the twenty-

first century will likely be greater than that experienced during

the twentieth century.

> Among the effects to be expected are rising sea levels, more severe

and frequent storms and droughts, global deforestation, and dramatically

shifting patterns of rainfall.

> Human populations will suffer deaths—perhaps in the millions—

due to increases in malnutrition, heat waves, drought, infectious diseases,

and air pollution.

As for what can be done, we shift here from the area of science into that of public policy, involving government, industry, consumer behavior, and almost every other element of human society. In a later chapter, we’ll look at possible solutions to the climate change problem, focusing particularly on the leadership role Generation We will be called upon to play. But for now, let’s consider how our actions are contributing to the slow-motion ecological disaster we now see unfolding on our planet.

It was our turn to take umbrage at one of Maher’s verbal potshots when watching his September 11th show. What got our goat wasn’t Maher’s political position on an issue but the fact that he got an important fact so fundamentally, totally wrong.

It was toward the end of the program, during a segment focused largely (and ironically) on how badly misinformed the American public tends to be. Speaking about the massive environmental problems our planet currently faces, Maher threw out this comment:

“The sad part of it is that people are more skeptical of global warming now than they were ten years ago. Especially young people. This is really scary. Young people in great numbers think it’s a hoax [emphasis ours].”

Maher’s right that the right-wing, industry-driven canard that there’s no such thing as global warming–or, if there is, that it’s not caused by human activity and therefore there’s nothing we can or should do about it–is being swallowed by a growing number of Americans. But not the young. The fact is that today’s youth are a lot smarter about global warming than their elders.

Don’t believe us. Check out what Gallup reported after surveying over a thousand U.S. adults between March 5 and 8 of this year–the latest in their ten-year series of polls on attitudes toward global warming:

Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.

Disturbing, right? But what about young Americans? Here’s what Gallup found when they broke down the results by age:

Notably, all of the past year’s uptick in cynicism about the seriousness of global warming coverage occurred among Americans 30 and older. The views of 18- to 29-year-olds, the age group generally most concerned about global warming and most likely to say the problem is underestimated, didn’t change.

That’s right–contra Maher, young people are the one group of Americans who generally don’t buy the “global-warming-is-a-hoax” routine. In fact, Gallup’s figures show that the percentage of climate skeptics is lowest among Americans 18 to 29 years old, at 31 percent (versus 43 percent for those in their thirties and forties, 42 percent for those between 50 and 64, and a whopping 47 percent among the elderly).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx

Fact is, today’s under-thirty crowd, whom we call the Millennials, have long been the most pro-environment, anti-global warming generation in history. In the 2007 Greenberg Millennials Study (which we sponsored), conducted by the respected research firm of Gerstein | Agne, the more than 2,000 young people surveyed not only believed in the risk of global warming but also strongly favored aggressive action to reverse it. For example:

• Ninety-one percent of the Millennials surveyed agreed that “Man-made causes are destroying our environment and the Earth’s delicate ecosystem. As a result, we could see massive, irreversible damage to the Earth’s landscape during our lifetimes.”

• Ninety-four percent agreed that “Our country must take extreme measures now, before it is too late, to protect the environment and begin to reverse the damage we have done.”

• Seventy-four percent agreed that “We must make major investments now to innovate the next generation of non-fossil fuel based energy solutions.”

What’s more, our results have been matched by those of virtually every other respected opinion survey focusing on young people. According to the Pew Generation Next survey (2007), Millennials overwhelmingly believe the country should do “whatever it takes” to protect the environment, even if it means higher costs. The Magid Associates survey of Millennials (2006) found that young people are more likely than any other group to favor environmental protection, even if lower economic growth is the result. And in the Democracy Corps poll of Millennials (2007), sixty-one percent called global warming “an immediate threat” which demanded that we “start taking action now” rather than in some indefinite future.

Actually, a more accurate take on the Millennials was offered by one of Bill Maher’s guests on the same show–author Paul Rieckhoff, who commented,

I’ve seen a lot of young activists who are incredibly motivated by the impact of global warming on their lives, and a whole generation of people who’ve really been activated on a whole variety of social and political issues since 9/11. And if we’re looking for a common enemy, global warming could be that common enemy to rally everyone around.

And what about the next age cohort, the kids who today are under age eighteen? They’re following in the green footsteps of their big brothers and sisters.

As part of 2008 election coverage, author Susan Goodman surveyed 1,594 youngsters from the second to the ninth grades. What did they consider “the most important [problem] for our new president to work on”? You guessed it–global warming. (Iraq came in second, health care third.) And when fifth grades who took Goodman’s survey were invited to send a personal message to President Obama, they wrote letters like these:

“Lots of people care about global warming. I think if you could find a way to let people know that you care about our environment, you could set a good example. I bet you could make lots of people bike to places or recycle, or even use less electricity.”–Elise

“I would like you to be friendly to other countries and save our environment.”–Stephanie

“If global warming is not decreased it will become extremely dangerous. Many polar bears are dieing.”–Henry

“I think you should pay attention to global warming. Why? Because global warming is happening on our planet Earth where both you and I live.”–Erin

It seems that one fifth grader, named Ben, spoke for his entire generation when he offered the following succinct, four-part agenda for Obama’s first term: “No school on Fridays. Less homework. Stop the war. Stop global warming.”

Hey, Bill Maher–at least when it comes to global warming, the kids are all right. It’s the oldsters we have to worry about.

It is becoming abundantly clear that the impact of climate change is affecting our national security. The Washington Post and theWashington Independent covered the Truman Project’s involvement in raising public awareness on the issue, while Jon Powers examined the military’s concerns with climate change in theHuffington Post.  Craig Martin detailed the ways that climate change will create conflict and instability in The Baltimore Sun, and  Charles London focused on the humanitarian cost of climate change in The Register Citizen.

These are only a few examples of young Americans who served their country and now fight a legislative battle to free us from our dependence on foreign oil.

Imagine where the world would be if microprocessor technology had remained unchanged for more than a hundred years. That is precisely what has happened with oil, gas, and coal. We cannot afford to let these special interests control our energy policies any longer.

The potential benefits are so great they are almost incalculable. Having one or more new, clean energy sources to power growth in our nation and the world over the next century will:

> Produce millions of new jobs—some directly, in the new energy industry itself; others indirectly, in the new businesses made possible by the availability of an abundant, reliable source of clean new energy.

> Dramatically reduce the environmental damage caused by carbon emissions and make it possible for us to slow or even reverse the danger of global warming.

>Free the United States from its current dependence for energy on unreliable, often hostile foreign regimes.

> Stimulate history’s greatest-ever economic boom, fueling innovation, entrepreneurship, and business expansion.

> Produce a “positive domino effect” by unleashing the power of cheap energy to solve many other problems—for example, by making the current costly technology of desalination affordable and thereby making safe water available to all. This is perhaps the most outstanding humanitarian achievement of the project. It can effectively end starvation, turn deserts into oases, and make large-scale sustainable agriculture a global reality.

> Dramatically reduce the likelihood of wars over resources, defusing the economic tensions that profoundly complicate the already challenging task of forging peace in regions of the world such as the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, and Chechnya. People will be so busy industrializing, making money, and rebuilding infrastructure, they will have no desire to fight over resources.

The climate change legislation maybe delayed in the Senate, but Millennials are fired up and ready to fight!

Check out this You Tube video of Operation Free in Washington DC.

Last week the Truman National Security Project launched “Operation FREE”, in an impressive effort to move and refocus the national security debate to combat our nation’s over reliance on fossil fuels and major security problems caused by climate change. Now, I know some of you maybe wondering, what does climate change have to do with national security policy? Actually, it is pretty simple, if America does not restructure our dependence on fossil fuel energy in a way that also reduces climate change, we will not remain a global power.

Our military will be entrenched in humanitarian missions to save people inundated by floods and earthquakes. Our Navy will lose island bases to sea rise and ports to erosion, our dying electrical grid will remain vulnerable to hackers, and our oil purchases will continue to fund our enemies. The need to act on energy and climate will never menace peace and prosperity with the same emotional urgency as a terrorist attack or the outbreak of war – but the threat is no less grave.

The solution is to create cheap, domestic renewable energy. And that would require us to put aside politics and start working together. This is why the Truman Project is leading a nationwide advocacy campaign to make the national security case for acting on climate change and energy security now.

So why is all this relevant now? The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) will be up for debate in the Senate this September. We expect the same conservative screamers who are shutting down debate on health care to come out in full force. That is why the Truman Project is organizing veterans and progressive groups now, so we can stake out our claim early and be prepared to fight and win.

I am reaching out to you. If you know veterans or progressive organizations that want to weigh in on the climate and energy debate, please contact the National Field Director, Alex Cornell du Houx, at alex@trumanproject.org.

This is a joint venture between veterans, national security groups and yes, Millennials!

Please join www.operationfree.net.

F- Freedom from fossil fuel dependence

R- Right to affordable clean energy

E- Economic growth

E- Environmental security and renewal