In addition to helping voters get ready to ask clear, informative, difficult-to-sidestep questions of candidates in the 2024 races for Congress, anyone who cares about global warming needs to begin calling for Congressional hearings about it, during 2024. The reasons should be obvious:  the problems and threats are urgent (even dire), and time-dependent; voters need to understand what is truly at stake, and a number of key people, in positions of trust and with important information to share, need to be coaxed and urged to step forward, and share it. The good people will do so willingly; the bad people need to be compelled to admit what have been doing, using direct and pointed questions while they are under oath, and under penalty of perjury. 

 

            The list below contains suggestions, for topics that should be raised during the first batch of any such hearings.

 

            The next page AFTER this one, in this website, contains several additional potential topics, but those get into issues such as justice, fairness, and accountability, which can be argued about forever, without accomplishing anything. As such, they need to be actively and firmly set off to one side, so that they cannot become the things that paid disrupters and wrong-doers will seize upon, to further try to cloud and confuse the issues and questions of what needs to be done, now. They are included herein, because justice, fairness, and accountability are some of the most important supporting pillars of any decent and civilized society, and those on the wrong, parasitic, predatory, destructive side should be encouraged to ponder – starting now – how they, and their legacies, memories, properties, and offspring, are going to be treated, not by those in power now, but by either: (i) those who will be in power 20, 40, and 60 years from now, if indeed there are any such people; or, (ii) angry and violent mobs, who will indeed be seeking justice, but in forms that will focus heavily on revenge, rather than fairness.

 

QUESTION SET #1:

            What are the official positions, expectations, and beliefs, among the highest‑level officers and top strategic planners in THE UNITED STATES NAVY, on sea level rise – including past numbers, current numbers, and projections into the future (with info on levels of confidence)? In specific:

            (A) Do they believe and agree that, when all the world's oceans are taken into account, worldwide ocean levels rose by an average of 8 inches, during the 100 year span, between 1917, and 2017? As a brief aside, to explain that time span, American naval bases began to be heavily rebuilt in 1917, to get ready for World War I, and to help the Navy move away from coal-powered steam engines, to diesel engines; and, by 1917, the technology had developed to a point where experts could accurately measure sea level averages, despite any fluctuations caused by waves, tides, storms, etc.

 

            (B) Is it true that the U.S. Navy also expects average worldwide ocean levels to rise by another 14 inches, in JUST THE NEXT FORTY YEARS? And, if so, WHY is the Navy expecting THAT to happen?

 

            (C) Who, in Congress, has the U.S. Navy been telling these numbers and warnings to, over the past 10 or 20 years? Did ANY of those Congressmen or Senators indicate an actual understanding and grasp of those numbers, and what they mean? And, which members of Congress seemed to have the BEST understanding and grasp of the facts, problems, and threats lurking in those numbers?

 

QUESTION SET #2 (to be asked of military experts in this field):

            2A. Is it true that essentially ALL of the top planners, strategic analysts, and computer modelers, throughout ALL branches of the U.S. military, have reached a point where they now ALL believe, anticipate, expect, and predict, that climate change will become the single largest and most important factor, in America's international relations, and in triggering outright wars at dozens of locations, all around the globe? And, if it is not true that ALL of them agree with that statement, what is your best estimate of the percentages that do?

            2B. Do they believe that the border with Mexico needs to be fortified to a point where it can be defended – by military actions, which will need to include ‘shoot to kill' orders – in order to prevent hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of "heat refugees" from trying to move north, from Mexico and Central America, to escape from temperatures so high that they will be "rapidly lethal" to millions of people over 50 years old, in their countries? And, in what year did each branch of the military first begin to create computer models, and war-game scenarios, which began to weave in those types of predictions, as elements which had, say, a 30%, or 40%, or higher level of probability?

            2C. What are the assessments and opinions of the top-level experts, concerning books that have been published with "climate changes will lead to wars" warnings, such as Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats (G. Dyer, 2010), and Climate Wars: What People Will Be Killed For in the 21st Century (H. Welzer, 2015)? Which book do the experts believe is the single best and most informative book on that subject, for citizens and voters who are actively concerned, but who are not experts in the underlying studies, facts, and factors?

 

QUESTION SET #3:

            What do the Chief OPERATING Officers (COO's) of any Fortune 500 companies which have large and important outdoor operations say, and predict, about what they and their companies are thinking and doing, to get ready for global warming and climate change? And, ask the same question of the COO's of the 50 largest home and business insurers. Do ANY of those Chief OPERATING Officers – as in, even a single one? – simply dismiss and ignore the warnings from scientists, about changes in climate or sea levels, because they think it's all a hoax, as President Trump declared when he was in office? How many of those COOs still say that they think Trump was right, on that subject, now that Trump is no longer in office, and cannot direct the Executive Branch of the federal government to threaten or pressure companies into remaining silent, and passive, on that issue? How many are NOW willing to openly and publicly state (regardless of what they might have said while Trump was still in power) that they NOW think that Trump was badly wrong, badly misinformed, and badly misguided, on that subject? And, what do the COO's of home and business insurance companies predict is likely to happen, over the coming 10 years, to insurance premiums on buildings located in "coastal communities", as that term has come to be used?

 

QUESTION SET #4:

            What do genuine and serious experts, in both civilian and military positions, say and predict about "The Future of Florida"? What is their best assessment, as of now, of what is most likely to happen between now and 2100, and of the time frames which seem possible, and probable, for escalating damage caused by combinations of sea-level rise, and sinkholes? Do they foresee millions of refugees being forced to flee northward, from Florida, needing entirely new homes on higher ground? Do they believe that, between now and 2100, America will have to watch as an entire state becomes so badly battered, submerged, and destabilized that it no longer will be able to support "normal" government and civil society, with police and fire departments, utility companies which can provide public services, etc.?

 

​QUESTION SET #5:

            What are the best, most useful, most helpful things that America can begin doing, now, to prepare for the onslaught?

            As just one example, should we create some sort of "Coastal Transition Financial Agency", to try to help coastal residents not be simply left broke and penniless, when storm surges and waves begin tearing down their houses? Or, should an agency such as that be empowered to provide stopgap measures, as insurance companies decide to simply abandon the coastal regions, and no longer offer any insurance at all, to places they know will be destroyed? Should we consider, for example, a clear and understood transition period, lasting several years, where yearly insurance premiums for houses and other buildings will stop, and that money will be placed, instead, into some type of ‘cushion‑the‑blow' fund? Should building codes and zoning ordinances in all coastal regions be updated, to help places along the coast extend their ‘useful life' by at least a few years, in ways that are similar to New York City's “Zoning for Coastal Flood Resiliency” (ZCFR) laws, adopted in 2021?

            And, should Congress consider creating "utility companies for rebuilding", similar to other types of utility companies which provide things like electric power, natural gas, drinking water, and sewage removal? For those have never studied them, the laws that control utility companies evolved in ways which put them at controlled mid-points, to guard the public against the risks of abuse that arise from pure capitalism at one end of the spectrum, and outright socialism at the other end. Utility companies are privately owned, and profitable, and they issue dividends to their investors; however, the rates they are allowed to charge, and major investments they wish to make, must be approved by rate-setting commissions, which were created by state laws and which are designed to protect the public. They offer excellent examples of the problem-solving, deal-making, willing to compromise, balance-seeking approach to governing, which helped make America more stable, prosperous, and powerful, during most of the 20th century. That type of “bargain, negotiate, and find approaches and solutions that actually work” approach has been severely damaged, over the past 30 years, and has been pushed so far away from the playing field, it is no longer even on the sidelines; instead, it has been pushed out to where it is now beyond and behind the bleacher seats, where it can't even be seen from the playing field, and where any requests and pleas for reason and moderation are distant enough, and muted enough, to be safely ignored by those who only want to focus on getting re-elected. However, citizens and voters can at least hope that the massive disasters coming at us, due to global warming and climate change, might force Congress to shift back into a problem-solving mode, rather than its current "attack, criticize, refuse to compromise, and hammer any and all hot buttons, as hard as possible, and as often as possible" mode.

            So, Question #5, above, can be rephrased as follows: what would experts in finance, engineering, and ‘financial engineering' recommend, as the best ways for America to at least try to begin preparing for an unending and relentless series of climate‑related disasters?

 

QUESTION SET #6:

            Should America create some type of "public service period" which would either (i) require, or, (ii) enable and incentivize, people who have never spent any time in some sort of “public service”, to spend a year or so, working on projects that would serve the public good . . . such as, for example, helping clean up and rebuild towns and villages that have been devastated by flooding, fires, tornadoes, or hurricanes?

            To help put that question into better focus, there is more information here:

​