Skip to main content

The Pentagon: A major threat to the climate

The U.S. Congress and Senate are arguing over whether to give the U.S. military $750 billion or $725 billion in its upcoming spending bill. With either of the figures the U.S. military will continue to grow unchecked, will continue to be the world’s largest military, and will continue to suck resources from other important American projects like diplomacy, environmental restoration, and caring for the unfortunate of the world. 

Because of its aggressiveness, because of its revered status in the American mind, and because of its obscene cost, the United States military is the greatest threat to national security that our nation faces.

In June Brown University’s Cost of War Project released a report pointing out that the U.S. threatens national and global security in another way. 

The U.S. Department of Defense poses a grave threat to the planets climate because of its huge fossil fuel usage.

The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuel in the world, writes Brown University.

Much of this gas-guzzling is attributed to the military’s aggressive and expansive endless war since 2001. Between 2001 and 2017 the United States emitted 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.

“This is equivalent to the annual emmissions of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the amount the U.S. currently has on the road,” Brown writes. “If the Department of Defense were a country, its 2017 emmissions alone would have made it the 55th largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, greater than the entire industrialized countries such as Portugal or Sweden.”

A third of the military’s fuel consumption went to war making activities such as the so called War on Terror. This, the report points out, is the equivalent of destroying nine million mature trees and their carbon sequestration capacity.

Brown points out that the military’s biggest gas guzzlers are its military jets.

In recent years the U.S. military has actually been reducing its fossil fuel usage by turning to efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy. Nevertheless, it remains, by far, the governments largest consumer of fossil fuel.


Climate activists should care about the military’s huge war-making  carbon foot print. If the United States were to end its war making in the Middle East and turn towards more fuel efficient diplomacy we would all be safer.

You can read a summery of the report here  https://tinyurl.com/y4mn9ttl


And the entire report here: 

Comments

  1. Stan sent the comment below to me via email. Thanks Stan. - Tim

    The very same Department of Defense has been losing sleep over the predicted widespread civil unrest that will result from climate change. Can't have it both ways; either they continue to consume fossil like there's no tomorrow, or they start acting responsibly.

    Stan Sattinger

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Let us all walk in the foot steps of John Lewis

By John King In Selma, Alabama, on Sunday, March 7, 1965, John Lewis, standing in the lead of a long line of marchers, looked down from the crest of The Edmund Pettus Bridge at the line of police armed with clubs, whips and truncheons and said, “I am going to die here.” Lewis intended to lead the marchers from Selma to the capital Montgomery, to demand access to voting for Black people in Alabama. Sheriff Jim Clark lowered his gas mask and led the deputies, some on horseback and some on foot, into the line of marchers. Under swinging clubs and hooves trampling, Lewis was the first to go down. Women and children were not spared. Choking and blinded by tear gas, they were struck by clubs and truncheons wrapped with barbed wire. Lewis, with a fractured skull and a severe concussion, almost did die. The nearby Good Samaritan Hospital did not have enough beds to care for the injured marchers. A nation watched in horror as news footage of that bloody day appeared on T

More Republican dirty tricks

  As a Blue Dog Corporate Democrat, 7th District Rep. Collin Peterson’s votes in Congress go against the beliefs and convictions of progressive voters in our district. I’m one of those progressive 7th District voters. Like most average voters I rarely actually encounter my Member of Congress. However, I recall three encounters with Rep. Peterson over the many years I’ve been stuck with him. I met him at Mikey’s Restaurant, on Main Street in Long Prairie, when he was first campaigning for a seat in Congress. We were both young then and he was full of energy and inspired in me a sense of hope for positive change. Besides, I’d met the Republican incumbent. He was an older man who, it seemed, was operating on dead batteries. I was happy to vote for the energetic Peterson. Some years later I was a delegate to the DFL District convention in Bemidji. Peterson opposed a woman’s right to choose abortion. He was being challenged by a woman who supported the right to that choice. I gave my

Step aside Republicans; Minnesotans want electric vehicles

Late last month Senator Paul Gazelka, the Republican leader of the Senate, told the Minnesota Reformer that the Republican controlled Senate would likely fire the acting Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Laura Bishop, if the Agency, at the behest of the Governor, went ahead with the Clean Car Rule. The rule would require automakers to increase the number of electric vehicles they deliver to Minnesota auto dealers. Gazelka told The Reformer that he’d had “a conversation” with Bishop about the rule. Bishop has not been confirmed by the Senate. Gazelka, and his Republican colleagues, claim that electric vehicles are too expensive and that the rule would be a burden to Minnesotans. Gazelka, and the rest of his Party are wrong. They aren’t paying attention to the economics of EV ownership and they are not paying attention to consumer preferences. Way back in September 2019, Consumer Reports reported on a study of Minnesotans they had done in collaboration with the