Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThe White House Blocked My Report On Climate Change - That's Why I Resigned After 10 Yrs At State
EDIT
The bottom line of written testimony was this: Climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security over the next 20 years. In developing this assessment, I drew from peer-reviewed scientific studies and findings of the governments own scientists. This conclusion was hardly new. The intelligence community has repeatedly warned of the dangers that climate change poses to national security. Earlier this year, for instance, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, warned in the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment that, Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. (On Sunday, President Trump announced that Mr. Coats would step down shortly, to be replaced by one of his biggest defenders, Representative John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican.)
In blocking the submission of the written testimony, the White House trampled not only on the scientific integrity of the assessment but on the analytic independence of an arm of the intelligence community. Thats why I recently resigned from the job I considered a sacred duty, and the institution I loved. As a tenured professor trained in physics and chemistry, I was admittedly an unusual fit for the intelligence community. I likely would never have considered the move if not for a program run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science that connects Ph.D. scientists to roles within the U.S. government to shape and inform policy. I found a home in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the oldest civilian intelligence agency in the government and well known for its history of analytic sharpness and courageous dissent.
Science has long intersected with intelligence analysis. Indeed it would be difficult if not impossible to elucidate the ramifications of nuclear materials, near-Earth objects, infectious diseases and many other pressing national security concerns without a deep understanding of the foundational science of each. This too applies to climate change.
EDIT
I take great pride in the many positive and productive interactions I had with senior officials in my 30 months in the Trump administration. But the decision to block the written testimony is another example of a well-established pattern in the Trump administration of undercutting evidence that contradicts its policy positions. Beyond obstructing science, this action also undermined the analytic independence of a major element of the intelligence community. When a White House can shape or suppress intelligence analysis that it deems out of line with its political messaging, then the intelligence community has no true analytic independence. I believe such acts weaken our nation.
EDIT
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/opinion/trump-climate-change.html