By Chris Talgo

Given the state of affairs in Ukraine and the Middle East and the rise of China as a chief U.S. adversary, one would assume that the Department of Defense has its hands full combating real threats to U.S. national security. One would also assume that under the fraught geopolitics of the current world, the Department of Defense (DoD) would be harnessing its precious resources toward identifying future menaces that literally pose an existential threat to the security of the United States.

Climate change does not constitute a current threat to U.S. national security. However, the leaders of the DoD think otherwise. In fact, the DoD believes that the climate crisis is a “national security priority.”

On December 11, the DoD announced it is very concerned with climate change in Africa because “climate-stressed areas are a recruiting opportunity for terrorist groups.” Accordingly, the DoD declared, “The consequences of inaction on climate will be severe, and our allies and partners will face growing security challenges as a result.”

Tragically, this is only the latest example of the DoD being sidetracked fighting climate change.

More concerningly, this is part of a much larger effort to reorient the primary focus of the nation’s military from preventing real-world threats to abating the nonexistent threat of climate change.

In September of 2021, the DoD released its Climate Adaption Plan, which states, “The Department of Defense (DOD) has identified climate change as a critical national security issue and threat multiplier and top management challenge… [and] must take bold steps to accelerate adaptation to reduce the adverse impacts of climate change.” As expected, the 32-page plan outlines in intricate detail how the DoD must “integrate climate change adaptation and climate resilience across agency programs, management of real property, public lands and waters, and financial services.”

One month later, the DoD released its Climate Risk Analysis, which explains that, “Climate change is reshaping the geostrategic, operational, and tactical environments with significant implications for U.S. national security and defense. Increasing temperatures; changing precipitation patterns; and more frequent, intense, and unpredictable extreme weather conditions caused by climate change are exacerbating existing risks and creating new security challenges for U.S. interests.”

Soon after, the DoD announced that the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force had all created “Action Plans” to mitigate the so-called climate crisis. Here is a brief snippet from the Navy’s Action Plan: “The Department must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and draw greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, stabilize ecosystems, and achieve, as an enterprise, the nation’s commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.”

In case you’re wondering, the other two branches of the military have also pledged to be “net zero” by 2050 under their Action Plans.

Of course, the DoD’s pivot to fighting climate change rather than ensuring that U.S. national security is its ultimate priority comes courtesy of the Biden administration.

As Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin wrote, “On January 27, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, making it administration policy that climate considerations will be an essential element of U.S. foreign policy and national security.”

Fortunately, the Biden administration will be gone soon. Unlike Biden, President-elect Donald Trump understands that the attention of the U.S. military should be laser-focused on protecting the nation from viable threats instead of reducing its carbon footprint.

In 2017, Trump eliminated the term “climate change” from the list of worldwide threats in his National Security Strategy. Rather, Trump made it clear that his administration would focus on Russia, China, and other nation-states that pose a critical danger to U.S. interests.

Moreover, Trump pointed the finger at previous presidents who put “American energy under lock and key” while articulating that he “embraces a future of American energy dominance and self-sufficiency.”

During Trump’s first term, American energy dominance was achieved as the United States became a net oil exporter for the first time in 75 years. Unfortunately, much of this progress was undone by Biden, who “mobilized a whole-of-government effort” to fight climate change. 

However, what Biden undid Trump can redo. When Trump returns to the Oval Office on January 20, 2025 he will do everything in his power to ensure that the U.S. military is solely focused on protecting U.S. national security. He will also unleash the American energy sector like he did during his first term, which will further cement U.S. hegemony. The days of the DoD being preoccupied with fighting the weather are over. Going forward, the United States and the world writ large will be safer.

Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is editorial director at The Heartland Institute.

Originally posted at American Thinker

The recent discussion paper published in Science by Adamala et al. examines an emerging frontier of synthetic biology: the creation of “mirror life.” This concept involves organisms composed entirely of mirror-image biological molecules, a departure from the homochirality seen in all known life. While the field holds tantalizing possibilities, the paper paints a sobering picture of the dangers that mirror life could unleash.

What is Mirror Life?

In biological terms, “chirality” refers to the handedness of molecules, akin to how our left and right hands are mirror images but not superimposable. In nature, life is homochiral—DNA and RNA are right-handed, while proteins are left-handed. Scientists, however, are on the cusp of being able to synthesize entire organisms made from molecules with reversed chirality. These mirror organisms, if realized, would operate entirely outside the framework of Earth’s biological ecosystem.

The Allure of Mirror Life

The potential applications are significant. Mirror molecules resist degradation and immune responses, opening possibilities for more durable drugs and innovative therapeutics. They could also aid in basic research and provide insights into the origin of life. Yet, as the paper stresses, the creation of mirror organisms goes far beyond these applications and risks unforeseen consequences.

A Pandora’s Box of Dangers

The discussion paper underscores several critical risks posed by mirror life, particularly mirror bacteria. The authors write:

“Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria would likely evade many immune mechanisms mediated by chiral molecules, potentially causing lethal infection in humans, animals, and plants. They are likely to evade predation from natural-chirality phage and many other predators, facilitating spread in the environment.”

Furthermore, the paper highlights the invasive potential of mirror organisms:

“We cannot rule out a scenario in which a mirror bacterium acts as an invasive species across many ecosystems, causing pervasive lethal infections in a substantial fraction of plant and animal species, including humans. Even a mirror bacterium with a narrower host range and the ability to invade only a limited set of ecosystems could still cause unprecedented and irreversible harm.”

The authors express particular concern about the ability of mirror bacteria to bypass natural containment mechanisms, stating:

“Biocontainment and biosafety approaches might be proposed to reduce these risks.
…
However, escape from these safeguards through evolution or human error could occur. Multiple auxotrophies would reduce but not eliminate the chance of escape.”

Why Pursue It?

Despite the alarming risks, the benefits of creating mirror organisms seem relatively limited. Alternative methods can already produce mirror biomolecules for therapeutic and scientific purposes without constructing living mirror cells. As the authors argue:

“Foreseeable benefits of the creation of mirror bacteria are limited. Mirror biomolecules have scientific and potential therapeutic applications that are worth pursuing; however, although mirror bacteria could plausibly help to manufacture them, such molecules can be made through other means.”

A Call for Precaution

Adamala et al. propose several urgent measures:

• Banning research aimed at creating mirror organisms.
• Enhancing oversight and regulation of enabling technologies.
• Monitoring purchases of materials essential for synthesizing mirror molecules.
• Convening global discussions to align governance strategies.

The paper concludes with a call for action:

“Unless compelling evidence emerges that mirror life would not pose extraordinary dangers, we believe that mirror bacteria and other mirror organisms, even those with engineered biocontainment measures, should not be created. We therefore recommend that research with the goal of creating mirror bacteria not be permitted, and that funders make clear that they will not support such work.”

A Responsible Path Forward

Mirror life research epitomizes the dual-use dilemma in science—technological advances that promise benefits while simultaneously posing severe risks. As we stand on the brink of realizing such life forms, the choices we make now will determine whether we safeguard the planet or unleash a biological revolution fraught with peril.

This discussion paper is not merely a warning; it is a plea for global foresight and action. The stakes are high, and the time to act is now.

H/T Roger Pielke Jr.