Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The US Military is a Bigger Polluter Than as Many as 140 Countries — Study

  1. #1

    The US Military is a Bigger Polluter Than as Many as 140 Countries — Study

    (TC) The US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US Air Force purchased US$4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the navy US$2.8 billion, followed by the army at US$947m and the Marines at US$36m.

    It’s no coincidence that US military emissions tend to be overlooked in climate change studies. It’s very difficult to get consistent data from the Pentagon and across US 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 Accord, but with the Trump administration due to withdraw 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 US Defense Logistics Agency, the massive bureaucratic agency tasked with managing the US military’s supply chains, including its hydrocarbon fuel purchases and distribution.

    The US military has long understood that it isn’t immune from the potential consequences of climate change – recognising 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 comprise 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.

    Climate change has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail for the 2020 presidential election. Leading Democratic candidates, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, and members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for major climate initiatives like the Green New Deal. For any of that to be effective, the US 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 US empire could instead be spent as a peace dividend, helping to fund a Green New Deal in whatever form it might take. There are 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.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Hey, freedom isn't free you know. It's a small price to pay for spreading peace and democracy.
    "The Patriarch"

    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    I get most of my news from Swordsmyth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is a lie.
    @Brian4Liberty, devil keeps spreading this lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I will report violations of the forum rules to the forum staff when they are egregious enough.

    You should remember that.

  4. #3
    Not surprising.

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  5. #4
    I'm not opposed to Free Thought projects but why this topic had to be discussed?

    Hats off to US MSM as well as liberal Climate Changers for not discussing this unpatriotic topic.

  6. #5
    Why are the marines using so little fuel? Are they not getting the best equipment/vehicles?

    That number should be a lot higher. I'm writing my congressmen.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  7. #6
    Reliable unnamed sources have stated that both Toyota and Honda have teamed up in a joint effort to produce a hybrid wind powered aircraft carrier. Sails initially propel the craft. Turbines mounted under the ship create the clean electrical power used to run the massive motors. Breakthroughs in science have eliminated the need for batteries and made it possible to store the electric current in the sea. The electrolytes found in the salt and minerals of sea water are capable of holding a (+) charge. When the charge is once again removed from the waters the result is pure O2 released from the ocean. This carrier will transport only the newest most sophisticated aircraft the planet has ever seen. The new fighter planes run solely on wind turbines that are reversed engineered. These turbines can turn mild immeasurable drafts into jet propulsion capable of perpetually keeping an aircraft in flight. This technology is only possible because AOC had a vision and demanded change.
    Truth is Fallacy, Fallacy is Evil.

  8. #7
    As if the MIC cares about keeping the planet safe.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2018, 12:43 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2012, 12:11 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-19-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. EU countries refuse US request for airport body scanners without further study
    By disorderlyvision in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 06:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts