RSN Fundraising Banner
Why We Can't Ignore US Military Emissions
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51132"><span class="small">Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher and Patrick Bigger, YES! Magazine</span></a>   
Tuesday, 09 July 2019 13:00

Excerpt: "The U.S. military's carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks, and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels."

F-A 18 F Super Hornet takes off from an aircraft carrier. (photo: Getty Images)
F-A 18 F Super Hornet takes off from an aircraft carrier. (photo: Getty Images)

Why We Can't Ignore US Military Emissions

By Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher and Patrick Bigger, YES! Magazine

09 July 19

The U.S. military’s carbon footprint is bigger than 140 countries combined. To seriously address climate catastrophe, we must dismantle its vast infrastructure.

he U.S. military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks, and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels. Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the U.S. military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries. If the U.S. military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.

In 2017, the U.S. military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. The U.S. Air Force purchased $4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the Navy $2.8 billion, followed by the Army at $947 million and the Marines at $36 million.

It’s no coincidence that U.S. military emissions tend to be overlooked in climate change studies. It’s very difficult to get consistent data from the Pentagon and across U.S. government departments. In fact, the United States insisted on an exemption for reporting military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This loophole was closed by the Paris climate accord, but with the Trump administration due to withdrawal from the accord in 2020, this gap will will return.

Our study is based on data retrieved from multiple Freedom of Information Act requests to the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency, the massive bureaucratic agency tasked with managing the U.S. military’s supply chains, including its hydrocarbon fuel purchases and distribution.

The U.S. military has long understood that it isn’t immune from the potential consequences of climate change—recognizing it as a “threat multiplier” that can exacerbate other risks. Many, though not all, military bases have been preparing for climate change impacts like sea level rise. Nor has the military ignored its own contribution to the problem. As we have previously shown, the military has invested in developing alternative energy sources like biofuels, but these constitute only a tiny fraction of spending on fuels.

The American military’s climate policy remains contradictory. There have been attempts to “green” aspects of its operations by increasing renewable electricity generation on bases, but it remains the single largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world. It has also locked itself into hydrocarbon-based weapons systems for years to come, by depending on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations.

Not green, but less, military

Climate change has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail for the 2020 presidential election. Leading Democratic candidates, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and members of Congress like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for major climate initiatives like the Green New Deal. For any of that to be effective, the U.S. military’s carbon bootprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties.

Our study shows that action on climate change demands shuttering vast sections of the military machine. There are few activities on Earth as environmentally catastrophic as waging war. Significant reductions to the Pentagon’s budget and shrinking its capacity to wage war would cause a huge drop in demand from the biggest consumer of liquid fuels in the world.

It does no good tinkering around the edges of the war machine’s environmental impact. The money spent procuring and distributing fuel across the U.S. empire could instead be spent as a peace dividend, helping to fund a Green New Deal in whatever form it might take. There is no shortage of policy priorities that could use a funding bump. Any of these options would be better than fueling one of the largest military forces in history.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+1 # DongiC 2019-07-10 06:09
Can the US military be environmentally tamed? Can it reduce the huge amount of hydrocarbons that it spews into the atmosphere on a daily basis? Does it, in fact, care about the health and safety of the world? Or is it just one more existential threat that a capitalistic society offers to a battered world.

If God is fighting the Devil on the chessboard of human history and good slugs it out with evil in the same locale, then, who is winning at the present time? Trump and his base in the US plus a whole slew of right wing dictators from Putin to Kim Un Jong to Mohammed Bin Salman to several others in the Philippines, Poland, Italy, Hungary, Brazil and Honduras are marking time and growing stronger.

We are drifting toward a planetary apocalypse and America is in the forefront of those who pollute. Will we accept a destiny of dirt and corruption or will we rally to the Progressive cause? The ball is in our court; how do we play the game? The life of Jeffrey Epstein does not encourage me. Nor his treatment by our legal system.
0 # tedrey 2019-07-10 08:41
Ameliorate climate change. Reduce economic disparities. Handicap aggressive wars. Sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

Oh, also slow the continuing concentration of power and profit in a nationalistic oligarchy?
Forget it; can't touch.
0 # PABLO DIABLO 2019-07-10 09:46
"We have met the enemy, and it is us".--- Pogo