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 SemperOSS on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:15PM (10 children)
So, the US military pollutes more than half the world's countries!
OK, slightly unfair as it is not by population, but still ...
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
Maybe I should add a sarcasm warning now and again?
(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."
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(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?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(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."
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(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?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(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.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:02PM (1 child)
Why should its military be any different?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/how-us-carbon-pollution-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world.html [cnbc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:40PM
Vehicles in civil service were (or still are?) exempt from state smog checks. That includes fire, police, military, school bus, anything with a "government" or "exempt" license plate. It didn't matter if it was a car, truck, motorcycle, or heavy machinery. A firefighter brought in an El Camino for a smog check that he bought from his own fire station and it failed because the catalytic converter and fuel pipe filler restrictor had been removed because they were filling the tank with leaded gas that was still available from the stations fuel tanks.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday June 26 2019, @03:40PM (2 children)
And that doesn’t even count propellants, explosives, and incendiaries burned up in used ordnance, nor the pollution that results from destroyed infrastructure that follows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @05:33PM (1 child)
I wonder how polluting the rocket fuels are. The ammonium perchlorate used in the SLS boosters (and Aerotech model rocket engines) have a sweet black pepper smell, but there's no telling what it does to your lungs or the ozone layer.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 26 2019, @05:41PM
The fuels are quite polluting. But they are so small in quantity that they are insignificant. (I don't know about the new "green fuel" that is being used in some rockets.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by hwertz on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:34PM (1 child)
Unsurprising... the military uses heavy vehicles (Humvees and such.) They really don't worry about operational efficiency -- i.e. they will not necessarily place supplies nearby, they can just ask for more money to transport them across the globe. They got themselves exempt from all EPA requirements, both mileage and emissions.... probably just as well in the "malaise era" (mid 1970s through late 1980s) when "smog controls" were just haphazardly slapped on, killing engine performance and driveability (around 1980 was the worst of it, some cars would randomly stall straight from the factory.) But it means now, in 2019, they are still producing vehicles using 1950s technology; they could probably double their gas mileage and cut emissions in half (AND improve reliability!) by applying more modern engine technology (without having to physically change the vehicles...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 28 2019, @09:19AM
I don't buy that, the more efficient the vehicle, the less you have to worry about supply lines
it might not be a prime priority, but it should factor in the decision making somewhere
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @04:46PM (2 children)
Where's the moron AC posting to say this is a "jab at Trump", like he does every time an article that tangentially relates to the US government that isn't "Trump is god's gift to us all" is posted?
Yes, this is O/T, but claiming that every article about the US government is a "jab at Trump" is just as off-topic and, while I'm biased about it, has less semantic content [wikipedia.org] than this post.
Warm Regards,
Less of a moron AC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @10:58PM (1 child)
I would guess you are the moron AC calling yourself out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:51AM
I'm not.
That would be counter-productive, but please don't let that shatter your delusions.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @05:59PM (1 child)
The US military not only pollutes more than 140 countries combined, it kills more people than those countries' militaries combined as well.
'Merica, it's what we do.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 26 2019, @08:12PM
If we look at kills per killotonne of CO2, the U.S. could look much greener.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:13PM (1 child)
Does 25,000 kilotonnes sound like more than 25 megatonnes or 25,000,000 tonnes?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 26 2019, @08:11PM
It sounds like 1,200 Nagasakis.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 28 2019, @12:01PM
A figure to remember when somebody points out the carbon footprint of bitcoin.