“Since the Pentagon doesn’t report how much fuel it’s using to Congress, [Neta] Crawford used Department of Defense data for her calculations. She found that it consistently makes up 77 to 80 percent of the entire U.S. government’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
June 12, 2019, “U.S. military emits more CO2 than most countries,” Grist, Kate Yoder
“The Department of Defense spews so much greenhouse gas every year that it would rank as the 55th worst polluter in the world if it were a country, beating out Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal, according to a new paper from Brown University’s Costs of War project….
Last year [2018], the Department of Defense reported that half of its bases were [allegedly] threatened by the effects of [so-called] global warming. Rising seas are regularly flooding Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia, even on sunny days, and melting permafrost threatens the stability of military buildings in the Arctic….
However, the Pentagon does not acknowledge that its own fuel use is a part of the problem or that reductions in Pentagon fuel use are a potentially significant way to reduce the [alleged] risks of climate caused national security risks,” writes Neta C. Crawford, a professor of political science at Boston University, in the report.
The U.S. military emitted a whopping 1.2 billion metric tons of CO2 between 2001 (when it invaded Afghanistan) and 2017, according to the report’s estimates….[“That is equivalent to the annual emissions of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the current number of cars on the road in the US.“]
Since the Pentagon doesn’t report how much fuel it’s using to Congress, Crawford used Department of Energy data for her calculations. She found that it consistently makes up 77 to 80 percent of the entire U.S. government’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Why so much? Well, first off, there’s all those military buildings (some 560,000 on bases around the world) to power, heat, and cool. That accounts for about 40 percent of the total. The rest goes toward operations like moving troops and carrying out missions. The biggest CO2 culprit is, by far, planes.“Aircraft are extremely thirsty,” Crawford said.
Neta C. Crawford, Costs of War Project, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University
Diesel fuel is another biggie. Fun fact: The military’s fleet of Humvees get around 4 to 8 miles per gallon.
That said, the military has been gradually reducing its oversized carbon footprint, even while it wages war in the Middle East. Over the last decade, the Pentagon has been investing in renewables like solar, weatherizing buildings, and cutting down on the time planes sit idle on runways. Still, it’s got a long way to go….
(Neta C. Crawford, Costs of War Project, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University)
The military is essentially burning oil … to protect access to cheap oil. “It became the mission to protect Persian Gulf oil in 1979,” Crawford said, and there’s really been no change in the military’s overall strategy since….
The military’s carbon footprint has already made its appearance [in 2019] in the [2020] presidential race. Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of many hopefuls for the Democratic nomination, recently detailed an ambitious plan requiring the Pentagon to reach net-zero carbon emissions on non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030….
Crawford has other ideas for reducing emissions. The first is cutting military spending, which accounts for more than half of the government’s discretionary budget. At around $600 billion a year and climbing, it’s more than what the next seven largest countries spend added together. And that’s not including billions and billions for related expenses. If the military was to downsize its bases, or close the ones already flooding regularly, that land could be put toward solar and wind production or planting trees that suck up carbon, Crawford said.”…
……………………………………………..
Added: 1/28/2021, “The Biden climate plan, Part 2: Preparation for war,” wsws.org, Jonathan Burleigh…Kerry group: “particular focus on the Russian border.”
Biden “climate plan” says $10 billion needed to improve climate resilience of US military bases around the world, $10 billion in damages to bases in 2019 from “extreme weather.” John Kerry climate group, American Security Project, says US “climate” efforts must maintain “particular focus on the Russian border.”
…………………………………………….
Added:
June 12, 2019, “The Defense Department is worried about climate change – and also a huge carbon emitter,” Neta C. Crawford, theconversation.org
……………………………………………..
Added: “The US Military Is Everywhere," 2/20/2019, William J. Astore, AntiWar.com,
“Most Americans would say we have a military for national defense and security. But our military is not a defensive force. Defense is not its ethos, nor is it how our military is structured. Our military is a power-projection force. It is an offensive force.
“Stephanie Savell, Costs of War Project, originally published in the February [2019] issue of Smithsonian magazine (click for larger version)”
It is designed to take the fight to the enemy. To strike first, usually justified as “preemptive” or “preventive” action. It’s a military that believes “the best defense is a good offense,” with leaders who believe in “full-spectrum dominance.”…
Thus the “global war on terror” wasn’t a misnomer, or at least the word “global” wasn’t. Consider the article below today from TomDispatch.com by Stephanie Savell. Our military is involved in at least 80 countries in this global war, with no downsizing of the mission evident in the immediate future (perhaps, perhaps, a slow withdrawal from Syria; perhaps, perhaps, a winding down of the Afghan War; meanwhile, we hear rumblings of possible military interventions in Venezuela and Iran).
Here’s a sad reality: U.S. military troops and military contractors/weapons dealers have become America’s chief missionaries, our ambassadors, our diplomats, our aid workers, even our “peace” corps, if by “peace” you mean more weaponry and combat training in the name of greater “stability.”
We’ve become a one-dimensional country. All military all the time.”
“William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at wastore@pct.edu. Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author’s permission.”
……………………………………
Among comments to Mr. Astore:
………………………………………..
“Your article does little to empower the citizenry to end the criminality; nonetheless, it is appreciated for the sunlight it provides during these dark times [Feb. 2019].”
“2/23/2019, @Shawington Times, Dear Mr Astore and Ms Savell:…
“Your article and particularly the headline (“The US Military Is Everywhere”) does more to reassure the establishment militarist elites, their accountants, financial planners, investors, legion of union workers, and thousands of consultants that their business model of death and destruction is robust and healthy….
Your article does little to empower the citizenry to end the criminality; nonetheless, it is appreciated for the sunlight it provides during these dark times [Feb. 2019]. Otherwise, the #USgovt would never have given your researches the ability to access or publish any of the information without being censored like hundreds of other publishers who have been recently and historically (eg: @CareyWedler et al)….You left out that the #USgovt military has also become our censors–from #govtschools, to hollywood, corporatist msm/press and to social media. Thank you for your work, nonetheless.” 2/23/2019
……………………………………..
Added: 2/20/2019, “US Counterterror Missions Across the Planet,” Stephanie Savell and Nick Turse, Originally posted at TomDispatch.
““Training.” It sounds so innocuous. It also sounds like something expected of a military. All professional soldiers undergo some sort of basic training. Think: calisthenics, negotiating obstacle courses, and marksmanship. Soldiers require instruction, otherwise they’re little more than rabble.
Sometimes soldiers from one country even train the troops of another, imparting skills from the basic to the complex. The U.S. military calls this, among other things, “building partner capacity.” Sometimes a foreigner steps in and whips sorry soldiers into shape, as former Prussian army officer Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben did with George Washington’s Continental Army. And sometimes the foreigners, like the modern heirs to the army that Steuben trained, can’t even seem to successfully teach their wards, like Iraqis or Afghans, jumping jacks or pushups. (Nor does anyone seem to ask why Americans are teaching jumping jacks or pushups to such trainees in the first place.) And then we wonder why one of those proxy armies folded in the face of a tiny terror force in Iraq in 2014 or why, after almost two decades of assistance, another is taking unsustainable losses, as is the case in Afghanistan now.
Each year, through a vast constellation of global training exercises, operations, facilities, and schools, the United States trains around 200,000 foreign soldiers, police, and other personnel. From 2003 to 2010, for example, the U.S. carried out this training regime at no fewer than 471 locations in 120 countries and on every continent but Antarctica. Most of it goes on behind closed doors, far from public view. And almost all of it escapes independent scrutiny. Is the training effective? Does it achieve the desired results? Is it worth the cost? Does it conform to U.S. laws? It’s often difficult to glean basic information about what types of training are taking place, let alone the results.”…
No comments:
Post a Comment