Walter Russell Mead of the American Interest claims that the "global warming movement" is dead. He blames both the IPCC (the UN body) and the University of East Anglia (of climategate fame) for pursuing a shortsighted strategy of overhyping the threat posed by global warming, thereby emboldening opponents of reform.

More important, however, was the lack of a viable political plan:

[Opponents of climate change] were never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing international system.  The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.  As it happened, the movement never got to the first step — it never got the world’s countries to agree to the necessary set of treaties, transfers and policies that would constitute, at least on paper, a program for achieving its key goals.

While the movement has lost momentum, climate change, of course, is unfortunately not dead. We continue to burn to ashes the earth's finite resources at our own peril. A central issue here, which does not get much attention, is our flawed method for calculating GDP. GDP was never meant to measure national welfare, only domestic production (or "economic activity"). 

If car accidents increase in America, then GDP rises-- because consumption of replacement parts, lawyer services, and mechanic services all increase. Although we are clearly worse off as a society, GDP bumps up. The same logic applies to the environment. If we cut down the entire Amazon rainforest, make a cabinet out of a tree and burn the rest of the wood, Brazil's GDP increases-- GDP doesn't include costs. It didn't include costs when the Soviet Union diverted rivers away from the Aral Sea for irrigation. GDP went up, but at the cost of the world's 4th largest freshwater lake, which had provided food, water, and recreation for millions. Why was this not accounted for? Because unlike humans, Mother Nature gives away her bounty for free. Thus, we take these benefits for granted.

At the heart of economics lies the elegant concept of cost-benefit analysis. We need a new national indicator that at least attempts to make such a calculation, including the environment. Yes, estimating the value of trees and lakes is difficult. But we do such things all the time- when governments sell logging and fishing rights, or when private property is damaged. Regardless, GDP already puts a value on the environment: $0. We can do better.

The obstacles facing reformers who wish to avert climate change are monumental. Efforts to protect the natural world for our descendants will be fruitless without a change in perception. We must begin by changing the way we calculate our national welfare.

Last fall, the CIA opened a new center for studying the effects of climate change on national security. The Pentagon is following suit by including climate change as a security threat in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.

The CIA also restarted a program, scrapped by President Bush, to share satellite data with climate change scientists. The CIA controls one of the most sophisticated satellite imaging networks in the world. Incidentally, these satellites gather invaluable data on arctic ice levels and glacial melting. 

Of course, the CIA’s entry (or reentry) into the field of climate change offers tons of new fodder for conspiracy theorists. Political opportunists are also taking the opportunity for cheap shots, claiming that Obama is using resources for climate change that should be used to combat terrorists. In reality, the CIA already gathers more satellite imagery than it can analyze by itself, and satellites have limited usefulness in combating al-Qaeda anyway. Climate change is also expected to increasingly contribute to future conflicts, including the emerging “cold war” for arctic resources.