CNN personality Newt Gingrich lambasted John “Kerrey” in a series of tweets on Monday for the Secretary of State’s recent remarks on climate change. Secretary Kerry said that global warming is “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
Gingrich’s position on global warming has repeatedly flipped. In a 2007 appearance with then-Senator Kerry, Gingrich said action on carbon pollution should be taken “urgently.” This week, he called for Kerry’s resignation for making similar comments in a series of misspelled tweets.
“The most direct reaction to kerrey’s global warming speech is to ask if he is completely out of touch with reality.”
“If kerrey believes his global warming speech it is a terrifying prospect for American policy. He is making policy in a fantasy world”
“Does kerrey really believe global warming more dangerous than north Korean and iranian nukes? More than Russian and Chinese nukes? Really? ?”
“Every American who cares about national security must.demand Kerrey’s resignation.A delusional secretary of state is dangerous to our safety”
Gingrich’s criticism of Kerry could be caught in the crossfire of previous Gingrich remarks, as he has argued that climate change is a serious threat in previous years. In 1989, Gingrich co-sponsored legislation saying “global warming imperils human health and well-being” and represents “a major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” In 2007, Gingrich said “mandatory carbon caps” is “something I would strongly support.”
Most notably, Gingrich stood on stage with Kerry in 2007, saying that the country should “urgently” take “most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere,” calling himself a “green conservative.”
Global warming and nuclear weaponry are very different kinds of global threats. In particular, as Nicholas Stern, John Kerry, the U.S. Department of Defense, and many others have pointed out, rapidly accelerating global climate change is a “threat multiplier,” a destabilizing force that increases the risk of armed conflict over resources and forced mass migrations. We are already seeing this in action, experts point out. For example, the polluted climate helped precipitate the ongoing Syrian conflict. For those concerned about the threat of nuclear war, global warming is considered a serious risk factor.
It may be informative to compare the scale of nuclear conflict with that of global warming on a purely energetic basis.
The nuclear arsenal of North Korea is estimated at 12 to 27 “nuclear weapon equivalents”, with less than a dozen warheads, each with an explosive potential of about 10 kilotons of TNT (46 terajoules). Iran is not known to have any nuclear weapons. Russia’s estimated nuclear stockpile is 8500 nuclear weapons, and that of China is estimated at 250.
Greenhouse pollution adds 250 terajoules of heat energy to the climate system every second. Thus, global warming adds more heat energy to the planet than the equivalent to the explosive yield of the estimated nuclear arsenal of North Korea every five seconds, and the equivalent of the nuclear arsenals of North Korea, China, and Russia combined every thirty minutes. Every hour, the planet warms at the heat energy equivalent of the entire global nuclear arsenal.
As Kerry said in 2009, “we live in a country where if you dismiss the threat posed by terrorism, you would be laughed out of the political mainstream. But if you dismiss the threat of climate change, you might just find yourself a leadership position inside the Republican Party.”