SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries
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.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:20PM (9 children)
All I can say is: well, duh.
Look at nuclear waste: military vs civilian uses - we get all torqued about nuclear power plants for domestic electricity, but bombs, subs, aircraft carriers that produce far far more total nuclear waste? Nah, they get a pass.
Their job is to move fast and break things, blow shit up and try not to kill too many innocents in the process.
Much more shocking/distressing is the pollution cruise ships dump on their tours of "paradise."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by SunTzuWarmaster on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:26PM (2 children)
Somewhere in here is the discussion on capabilities/requirements. Subordinate! The following are my priorities for a carrier:
1 - Moves fast. Faster the better. Fast enough to launch planes with no runway is my favorite speed.
2 - Makes big explosions. Bigger the better. Also fast.
3 - Is undetectable. Stealthier the better.
4 - Can transport lots and lots of people. Let's just start with 4000, shall we? More is better for disaster relief and POW operations. This is the same number as the worlds largest cruise ship, so it seems like we can do it, right?
4.5 - Also can transport, like, tanks and stuff. I dunno - the closer to "hundreds of Marines in tanks" the better.
5 - Indestructible. More armor is better, but don't compromise on "moving fast". Wanna be able to take some torpedoes and missiles and kamikaze pilots.
6 - Can shoot down incoming missiles. Also satellites in space. Both at the same time, right?
7 - Sustainable. Ideally never has to be refueled, except for getting more food/bombs. Nuclear fusion if possible, fission if not.
8 - Drives itself. Launches planes itself. Goes to where people order itself. More automation is better because then I don't have to have people to do it (see (4/4.5)).
...
"Sir, what kind of fuel efficiency should this vehicle have?"
"hahahaha... oh, you're serious... let me laugh harder HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:44AM
U.S. Aircraft carriers have a full complement of around 5000. So that part of your joke failed. Be an American citizen, get a job in the shipyards, and go aboard a Nimitz-class carrier sometime.
You'll wonder how it could feel so huge and at the same time so claustrophobic. Not to mention the gazillions of live amps running through those donkey-dick cables that are strung in plain sight right above your head. And those Navy bitches are horny. They'll walk by you and brush against you, softly, in the corridors before turning around and winking at you. And those are fucking officers, too.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Sunday June 30 2019, @12:25AM
For some reason, I read the in the voice of Sarge from Red vs. Blue
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:42PM (3 children)
While I'm not 100% certain I do believe that the nuclear waste of the US armed forces makes up a somewhat trivial part of their carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emissions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:15PM (1 child)
In the public mind, that's like comparing Komodo dragons and fairy cakes.
Sure, too many fairy cakes might smother you, but, really, fairy cakes aren't all that bad, are they? Meanwhile, not only are Komodo dragons big and scary and hard to manage, but even if you survive their bite you can die a slow painful death shortly thereafer. Ok, granted, the public doesn't generally know that much about Komodo dragons, but - that still makes a good analogy for nuclear energy and waste, doesn't it?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:08AM
Wait, did I miss class when we learned about fairy cakes?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:44PM
>While I'm not 100% certain I do believe that the nuclear waste of the US armed forces makes up a somewhat trivial part of their carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emissions.
The nuclear stuff in the subs and carriers maybe.
But the local populations would like to have a talk about all the depleted uranium the US throws around and never cleans up.
It ain't a global threat like CO2, but it's locally a major problem
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday June 27 2019, @10:49AM (1 child)
> and try not to kill too many innocents in the process.
Sorry, is this the US military we're talking about?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:38PM
Oh, c'mon - anytime we kill a bunch of women and children we always release a statement about how bad the person/s was/ere that we were trying to get, and how sorry we are about the "accident."
🌻🌻 [google.com]