Soon after the most recent Paris terror attacks the Omaha World-Herald printed a letter saying that President Obama is wrong to fight climate change – he should be fighting ISIS instead.  ISIS, the letter writer contended, will “destroy our way of life much faster than climate change.”
And so it may – without ever setting foot on American soil, the Paris attackers have sent many of our politicians into a reactionary frenzy.  There are strident calls to stop accepting Syrian refugees and/or impose religious tests on them.  Just as after 9/11 we eagerly surrendered our privacy, moral decency (by resorting to torture) and mentality (by invading Iraq which played no role in 9/11), many are now happy to abandon openness, compassion and religious tolerance.
It’s easy sometimes to miss the proverbial forest for the trees, but the “trees” of terrorism are just one part of a much larger forest.  For years our military and intelligence agencies have been warning about the security threats posed by climate change.  Climate change creates refugees, and with refugees often comes violence.
Just last March researchers at Columbia University and the University of California demonstrated the strong connection between the prolonged global-warming-intensified drought in Syria and the civil unrest there.  The drought which began in 2007 (well before the appearance of ISIS) forced 1.5 million people from farms in Syria’s north into the cities, a migration that contributed to social unraveling and eventually civil war.
Though there were other factors leading to the breakdown of Syrian society, including a million refugees from Iraq and the brutality of the Assad regime, this report has been called the “single clearest case ever presented of climate change playing a part in a conflict.”
Something similar happened right here nearly 1,000 years ago.  The climate back then had long been favorable for growing corn, beans and squash and the Native American population had boomed.  But then came a devastating drought. Crops failed again and again; people had to either move away or starve.
Archaeological records indicate that at this same time warfare broke out on the Iowa and South Dakota sides of the Missouri River.  Indians there weren’t directly affected by this drought and had been living in small, scattered settlements prior to this time.  Yet they soon abandoned these small villages in favor of large ones surrounded by wooden palisades.  These people were most likely attempting to defend themselves against refugees from here (and like many advocate today, did so by building walls).
While I doubt Nebraskans will ever go to war with Iowa and South Dakota (at least I hope things never again get that bad), it’s a home-grown reminder that when people are desperate violence often ensues.
A year ago then-Secretary of Defense and former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel – who had pooh-poohed global warming while serving in Congress – touched on this danger when he unveiled a Pentagon report on the impact of climate change on national security.

“Droughts and crop failures can leave millions of people without any lifeline and trigger mass migrations, “Hagel observed.  Who exactly is prepared to resettle and assimilate them?  Europe clearly isn’t and America is already struggling to deal with millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom are refugees from poverty and drug violence.
ISIS may well be a more immediate threat than climate change.  But if climate change is left unaddressed ISIS is merely the harbinger of greater violence to come.  We need to fight terrorism in every way we can, and this includes by fighting the conditions – including global warming — that are breeding it.

In May of 2012 TransCanada informed me that the new Keystone XL pipeline route – a second routing necessitated by objections to the first route passing through so much of the Sandhills – would cross a portion of our farmland.  I explained that no, it wouldn’t because my family had drawn up a conservation easement held by the Nebraska Land Trust which attached covenants to our deed prohibiting this and other destructive activities on our property.  He had never heard of such a thing so naturally he scoffed.  Before long TransCanada sent us an offer of $15,000 to cross our protected property, an offer we refused.
In the coming months the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted a review of this new route and the public was invited to comment.  We submitted a copy of our deed with a letter explaining what a conservation easement is and why we had one.  Our property contains numerous Native American remains as well as environmentally sensitive wooded wetlands.  Over 100 species of birds have been identified there (many migratory) and at a time when this area is losing habitat at an alarming rate, these last remaining areas need protection.
We attended the meeting at the local Fairgrounds in December of 2012 and when we introduced ourselves to DEQ representatives they knew who we were.  They said they had held a special meeting about our property and that neither TransCanada nor the DEQ had any desire to disturb it.  They even thanked us for caring enough to legally protect our land.
But even though our property was spared I still opposed the pipeline for two reasons.  The first was because of the severe environmental harm that would result from a spill.  And though a smug TransCanada engineer had assured us the pipeline would never leak anywhere, I wasn’t so sure.  Pipeline spills have increased dramatically in recent years and most are the result of corrosion and faulty welds.  TransCanada got in trouble for bad welds and using damaged pipe on the southern section of the route from Oklahoma to refineries in Texas (refineries owned in part by Saudi Arabia) and had decided against using the latest leak detection technology.
Leaks would be all the worse because the Keystone XL pipeline would be carrying “Dilbit,” diluted bitumen, a substance so toxic that if it spills the vapors can kill.  And since it is heavier than water, any leak above the Ogallala Aquifer would sink, contaminating our water supply with cancer-causing chemicals.  Dilbit is so far removed from crude oil that the IRS doesn’t even classify it as petroleum.  This, in turn, exempts TransCanada from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.  As a result TransCanada’s liability in the event of a spill would be limited to an amount far below potential cleanup costs.
My second objection was philosophical.  We fought the Revolutionary War to stop a foreign government from denying us our rights.  Yet here was a foreign corporation – not even a government – being allowed to condemn private property across the United States.  We were told we’d benefit economically, but promised tax revenues from the first Keystone pipeline were less than half of what TransCanada had predicted. And only 35 permanent jobs would be created by this second pipeline, many outside Nebraska.  This seemed scant reason to surrender individual property rights to a foreign corporation.
In rejecting the Keystone XL last week, President Obama noted that it was neither “a silver bullet for the economy” nor “the express lane to climate disaster.”  And I agree.  But for people living near the pipeline’s proposed route the risks clearly outweighed the benefits. I say good riddance and I hope we’ve finally heard the last of the Keystone XL.