Did you know? The U.S. Department of Defense has accounted for roughly 80% of the United States federal government energy consumption since 2001. In fact, if the Department of Defense was its own nation, it would rank as the world's 52nd largest greenhouse gas emitter. And that’s despite excluding emissions that are exempt from reporting for security reasons.

Welcome back to the Hive, swrmers. Today, we’re going to take a look at the military-industrial complex through sustainability glasses.

*************
Website - [ Ссылка ]
IG - [ Ссылка ]
Twitter - [ Ссылка ]

Get started tracking your carbon footprint today!
[ Ссылка ]

Music: [ Ссылка ]
*************

Past world wars were fought using very different tactics than today: battlefields were stripped bare to provide line of site fire, trenches were dug, and there were weeks between territory gains. More modern tactics involve less face to face combat by employing long-range bombing that keeps troops away from the firefight. Fortunately, we haven’t seen nuclear weapons in over 75 years, because when a nuclear bomb is dropped everything within the blast radius is destroyed, half of the life within a 5 mile radius is killed, or poisoned, and both the flora and fauna in the surrounding regions are subject to lethal levels of radiation.

Currently, land clearing for military bases destroys local habitats and daily operations compact soils. Why is this a problem? Ideal soil is porous, allowing plenty of air flow between particles. When soils become compacted, these spaces are reduced, forcing plants to work much harder just to survive. The effects of soil compaction on plants are varied, but generally result in a lack of water, nutrition or air at their roots. So without restoration efforts these areas take a long time to recover, if at all.

Vehicles used by the military are designed to be robust, not fuel efficient. For example, the B-2 stealth bomber burns over four gallons of jet fuel per mile. Over its 6,000-mile range, it emits more than 250 metric tons of greenhouse gases. By comparison, the average passenger vehicle would emit less than 2.5 metric tons over a 6,000-mile trip. Humvees also account for a considerable portion of the military’s carbon footprint and run at 4 to 8 miles per gallon of diesel fuel. Another large contributor to military emissions are aircraft carriers and other naval ships. In 2017, the United States Navy purchased $2.8 billion in fuel, which equated to using around 115,000 barrels of oil a day.

And, believe it or not, the Navy still only had a footprint roughly half the size of the Airforce.

Drones have increasingly become used in bombing and airstrike efforts. Their environmental impact is tied to the toxicity of what is being deployed, which is generally composed of poisonous compounds such as TNT and RDX. Despite what the movies tell you, nobody loves the smell of napalm in the morning.

Looking ahead, it is likely our future wars will be fought as a result of climate change. The military will be protecting borders from climate change refugees, policing food shortages from changed weather patterns, and securing water as natural resources shrink and the population rises.

Currently the US, China, and Australian militaries all provide inconsistent data when reporting emissions. Why do need more transparency? Establishing a clear baseline of global military emissions is important for tracking progress and measuring the effectiveness of emission reduction strategies.

But it is not all doom and gloom. A Brown University study in 2019 on the environmental impact of war highlighted the magnitude of the United States’ military. The study ultimately ended with optimism, noting the United States military has made considerable greenhouse gas reductions in recent years. It suggested chiefly to work to increase fuel economy and begin using alternative fuels, and also advocated for closing bases and reforesting the land.

For countries to function, a military is the nature of reality in our world. With this being the case, an ethical duty rests upon military leaders around the globe to ensure what they oversee is operated in a way that responsibly stewards the earth for future generations to not only enjoy, but survive on after the battles are over.

свернуть