Have you seen the viral video of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg calling for “vegan grenades,” “battery-powered fighter jets,” “biodegradable missiles”?

It’s a deep-fake parody, a satire. But, sad to say, it’s not that far from reality in the minds of some U.S. military policymakers.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin said in 2021, “We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does.”

The climate crisis an existential threat? I know, I know, President Biden has called it that. So have lots of other people.

But is it really?

Not if we take seriously what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said about it in its 2018 special report, Global Warming of 1.5 °C. And just what did it say? Well, on p. 256, it said, “Under the no-policy baseline scenario, temperature rises by 3.66°C” from before the Industrial Revolution, which equals 2.46°C from 2018, “by 2100, resulting in a [gross world product] loss of 2.6% ….”

That might sound bad—a 2.6 percent reduction in the total value of a year’s production around the world—but what else will be happening between now and 2100?

Among other things, barring a war that slows economic growth a lot more than did World Wars I and II, gross world product will be rising at around 3 percent per year (as it did over the twentieth century), according to the Center for Global Development, making it about 9 times what it was in 2018.

World population will also be growing, likely reaching about 10.3 billion in 2100, according to the UN Population Division.

Put all those numbers together—gross world product rising to nine times what it was in 2018, and population rising to 10.3 billion, and unrestrained global warming reducing gross world product in the year 2100 by 2.6 percent—and gross world product per capita in 2100 will be about 8.8 times what it was in 2018—despite unrestrained global warming from now till then.

Let me put that differently so its significance is clearer: In 2100, even if we did nothing between now and then to slow global warming, average income per person in the world would be almost nine times what it was in 2018.

Is that what you expect when told that climate change is an “existential threat”?

I didn’t think so.

Nonetheless, the Biden/Harris administration is determined to make fighting climate change a central task of the American military, and while it’s not bent on using battery-powered fighter jets with biodegradable missiles and issuing vegan grenades to soldiers, it is bent on electrifying as much of our military as it can, all in the name of fighting global warming.

A year ago, FactCheck.org labeled former President Donald Trump’s claim that the Biden administration wanted the military to move to electric tanks false. But just a few months earlier, Bloomberg Law had reported, “The military’s grand vision of an all-electric fleet of tanks is being stymied by a battery sector that’s not even close to delivering the power the Army needs, according to two Pentagon officials.”

So, there’s at least room for argument over whether the military intends to switch from tanks powered by Jet A, a kerosene fuel that delivers over 50 times as much power per kilogram as Tesla’s top-end battery, to battery-powered tanks.

But the military itself, under the Biden-Harris administration, has made it clear that it does intend to convert as much as possible of its vehicle fleet from gas, diesel, and kerosene to batteries.

The Rand Corporation reported last year, “The Army plans to deploy fully electric non-tactical vehicles … by 2027; hybrid tactical vehicles (i.e., not tanks) by 2035; fully electric tactical vehicles (i.e., again, not tanks) by 2050,” and “fielding anti-idle technology in less than 25 percent of Army light, medium, and heavy tactical vehicles by Fiscal Year 2027.”

For clarity: tactical military vehicles are built for combat and operational purposes in potentially hostile areas; non-tactical vehicles are built for support and logistics. Tactical vehicles include tanks, armored personnel carriers, Humvees, and infantry fighting vehicles—apparently all but tanks in store for electrification by 2050. Non-tactical vehicles include cargo trucks, buses, ambulances, and utility vehicles for transporting supplies or personnel.

Anybody who’s ever fought in a war can tell you, though, that those non-tactical vehicles are crucially important in combat areas.  They carry soldiers, weapons, ammunition, food, and other supplies to where the fighting’s going on—and where the fighting’s going on can change in a matter of hours, quickly putting those vehicles right in the midst of combat, whether they’re meant for that or not.

It’s going to be really interesting to see how the U.S. military will ensure there are charging stations, fed by reliable electric grids, sprinkled around theaters of war. And are they going to ask enemies to politely decline to fire on these vehicles during the long times they need to recharge their batteries, instead of the few minutes it would take them to refuel?

Nonetheless, Sherri Goodman, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security under President Obama and now Secretary-General of the International Military Council on Climate and Security (yes, there really is such a thing!), insists, “The Department of Defense now sees combating climate change as central to its mission.”

If that’s the thinking of whoever takes the Presidential oath of office next January 20, America’s ability to defend itself—let alone intervene in defense of its allies—will be at enormous risk.

All in the name of preventing gross world product per capita in 2100 from declining from 9 to 8.8 times what it was in 2018.

I’ll let you decide whether you think that’s wise.

This piece originally appeared at AmericanThinker.com and ahs been republished here with permission.