To the editor:

The Journal-World reported on May 27 that Rep. Lynn Jenkins, along with the other Kansas representatives and a majority of the House, voted (along party lines) to bar the Defense Department from spending money to study the impacts of climate change on national security. While Jenkins stated her vote was to prevent a diversion of defense dollars to efforts the House GOP apparently considers non-defense related, other Republicans referenced the “climate change hoax.”

I will simply state that the scientific debate surrounding anthropogenic climate change is over. All that’s left to debate is the degree of impact, how fast it will happen, and what mitigation and adaptation strategies we will implement. The longer action is delayed, the less effective our efforts will be, something the military already recognizes.

Increasing climate crises, such as violent storms, drought, changing growing seasons, mass migration, pandemics, etc., will likely breed terrorism and destabilize governments or entire regions, requiring military action and/or humanitarian aid. It’s obvious that climate change is a threat to national (and global) security. While I am no fan of the military industrial complex, spending defense dollars studying this is prudent. Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and former head of Central Command, once stated that if we don’t address climate change now, “we will pay the price later in military terms,” including human lives. We need leaders who can set aside politics to make responsible decisions with respect to climate change.