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, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:23PM (7 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:50PM (4 children)
Certainly not the "security via massive emotional insecurity" US military, which independently maintains a force sufficient to take on well over half the rest of the world's militaries combined... and, if the US isn't backing down - what does it matter what the others do, as small as they are by comparison?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:19PM (2 children)
So you'd rather have an American military that is weaker and closer in parity to other countries.
Oh yeah, that would be great for world stability.
BTW, I feel like my house is too secure. I'm going to start leaving some doors unlocked at night.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:59PM
Actually, I'd rather have an American military that doesn't routinely commit accounting fraud and what amounts to money laundering [thenation.com].
My guess is that would reduce spending without impact to military readiness or effectiveness.
Just a crazy thought.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:02PM
If you had 16 walls surrounding your house, each with their own locked gates and doors, yeah you could probably afford to unlock a few layers without compromising your security. The military at last count had 128 layers, most of them paid for in order to keep employment up by wall building contractors select contributors to certain congressional campaigns rather than being concerned with how secure the house is. Another 64 layers can't be moved quickly from where they are to where the trouble is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @10:47PM
Afghanistan. Vietnam.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 26 2019, @05:39PM (1 child)
The US hasn't had a basically defensive military since WWII.
For a defensive military we could synthesize gasoline for a lot less than the cost of the petrochemicals that the current military uses...but it wouldn't matter, because the reduction in use would be so significant that it would become insignificant. (One *could* argue that the military hasn't been basically defensive since the Monroe doctrine was proclaimed.)
A secondary question is "Would a defensive military be better?", and that gets sticky. Defensive militaries tend to be overly conservative, and not adapt well to new weapons. (This is actually true even of aggressive militaries, but less so.) Aggressive militaries, however, tend to encourage politicians towards military adventurism. So something in between would be best. Unfortunately, the in-between position is not even a quasi-stable state. There are ALWAYS calls to "cut military spending" and there are ALWAYS calls for "more secure protection". When one side get the advantage, they tend to push their advantage.
The danger of an aggressive military is that they are likely to involve the host country in an evolutionary arms race. In the history of evolution, this usually ends with both parties extinct. The danger of a defensive military is that they look safe to attack. Giant Sloths are extinct. (This is the same as the result of the sabre-tooth vs. mastodon arms race, though possibly people interfered with that one and so the mutual extinction can't really be blamed on the arms race. But it was clearly headed that way.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:45AM
One *could* argue that the Moon is made of green cheese. Let us keep in mind that the context of the Monroe doctrine was the sudden independence of almost the entire Americas over a couple of decades. Monroe was proclaiming support, including potentially military support, for a host of new countries against the imperialism of the European powers. And it worked.
But it's amazing how that policy is now so widely perceived as being an example of US colonialism, even though it was blatantly the opposite. Rather it should be a glaring example of how the best intentions of the past can be overturned by future generations.