In the realm of climate change discussions at the COP28 summit, an often-overlooked giant looms large – the US military.
Despite being the world’s largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons and boasting a carbon footprint surpassing entire nations, the environmental impact of the US military remains off the books. As world leaders grapple with climate consequences, this article delves into the ecological costs of the US military, exposing its staggering scale, emissions, and far-reaching damages.
The Elephant in the Room:
Described as the “elephant in the room” by David Vine, author of Base Nation, the US military operates with a cloak of invisibility regarding its environmental footprint. Two reports in 2019 unveiled its status as the largest consumer of hydrocarbons globally, surpassing even industrialized nations. The exemption granted to military activities from binding emissions targets remains a contentious issue, even as the world confronts the urgent need for climate action at COP28.
Size, Spending, and Presence:
The US military’s vast scale is unmatched, with more than 750 overseas bases in around 80 countries, exceeding any historical empire. Its budget, firepower, and global presence make it a dominating force, accounting for nearly 40% of the total global military spend, reaching almost $877 billion in 2022.
Fuel Consumption and Emissions:
As a major contributor to global emissions, the US military accounts for an estimated 5.5%, surpassing civil aviation. Fuel consumption, especially by weapons systems like tanks, ships, and planes, remains a significant concern. In 2017 alone, the US military is estimated to have consumed around 100 million barrels of oil. The environmental impact extends beyond wartime, affecting air quality, ecosystems, and biodiversity around its bases.
Legacy of Harm:
The historical footprint of the US military includes nuclear testing on Bikini Atoll and the environmental fallout from the “war on terror,” causing major health issues in Iraq and Afghanistan. Burn pits and the use of harmful substances like PFAS contribute to ongoing environmental damage, affecting local populations and ecosystems.
Economic Influence and Environmental Consequences:
While the US economy benefits from military expansion, state subsidies flowing into key industries, the environmental costs are profound. Manufacturing projects, such as the construction of F35 fighter jets, span across congressional districts, building political support. The disparity between military spending and allocations for green initiatives underscores the challenges of addressing climate change.
Military’s Attempt at Mitigation:
Acknowledging its impact, the US military unveiled a strategy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Plans include making army vehicles electric and modernizing various aspects of its operations. However, challenges, such as decarbonizing fighter jets, remain, given the massive investments and long-term commitments associated with military systems like the F-35.
Climate Urgency and COP28:
As the world faces a dramatic temperature rise and the urgent need to cut emissions, the military’s environmental blind spot persists. Despite discussions on climate and conflict at COP28, there is no indication that countries will be obliged to include military emissions in their decarbonization efforts.
Conclusion:
The environmental impact of the US military emerges as a critical yet neglected aspect of the climate change discourse. As global leaders deliberate on climate actions at COP28, the ecological costs of military operations underscore the need for greater transparency, accountability, and a holistic approach to addressing the intertwined challenges of climate change and global security.
