U.S. military pollution: the hands behind global warming and a dirty world
In 2019, a report released by Durham University and Lancaster University in the United Kingdom found that the US military is "one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more carbon dioxide equivalents than most countries."
If the U.S. military were a "nation," it would be the 47th largest carbon emitter in the world. And this figure only takes into account emissions from fuel use.
The terrible thing is that when counting the sources of global warming emissions, the huge source of emissions of the US military is often deliberately ignored.
During the 1997 Kyoto Protocol negotiations, the United States signed on the condition that all United States military operations around the world were not subject to limits or curtailments, and even then the United States eventually backtracked, refused to ratify and eventually withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.
Therefore, it is difficult to collect data on the carbon emissions of the US military, and most of the data comes from unofficial sources such as local news agencies of US military operations, so the real data on US military emissions is likely to far exceed the figures mentioned in the report.
U.S. military air pollution
The U.S. Department of Defense is one of the world's largest single consumers of energy, accounting for 93 percent of all U.S. government fuel consumption in 2007. Air Force 52% (burning jet fuel has a 2 to 4 times global warming effect than other types of fuel, because it burns at higher altitudes and has the greatest adverse effects on the atmosphere); Navy 33%; Army 7%; Other units of the Ministry of Defence accounted for 1 per cent. In 2006, the Department of Defense used nearly 30,000 GWh of electricity, nearly $2.2 billion, enough to power 2.3 million average American homes.
On the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, where the United States military had been burning abandoned munitions in the open for decades, studies had shown that the incidence in Vieques was higher than in other parts of Puerto Rico, and that exposure to toxic metals and chemical residues from bombs and experimental weapons had been linked to a significant increase in cancer, diabetes, hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver and respiratory diseases.
In terms of pollutants, the waste generated by the US military is more dangerous than the five largest chemical companies in the United States combined. Depleted uranium, oil, fuel, defoliants, lead, and a large amount of radioactive materials all reflect the "great achievements" of the US military.
U.S. military land pollution and water pollution
Between 1946 and 1958, the United States tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, 1,000 times the size of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Decades later, the islands' inhabitants continue to suffer the terrible consequences of birth defects, leukemia, thyroid cancer and other cancers.
In 1954, the United States conducted a nuclear test on Bikini Atoll – the Castle Bravo – which contaminated 15 islands and atolls. But just three years later, Americans are encouraging residents of the affected Rongelap and Utirik atolls to return home so they can study the effects of radiation on humans.
Runit Dome nuclear waste site for temporary storage of radioactive waste. (The Runit Dome is at risk of leaking because of fissures and rising sea levels, but Americans say it's not a U.S. problem at all, since it's Marshallese land.) ）
There are also a large number of abandoned bases of the US military around the world, nearly 900 of the more than 1,300 Superfund sites in the United States alone are abandoned military bases. (Superfund sites are contaminated sites in the U.S. and require a long-term response to clean up hazardous material contamination.) As of August 2022, there are 1329 Superfund sites on the list. Perchlorate and jet fuel are staggering in the amount of toxic chemicals that contaminate drinking water, groundwater and the soil around the base.
In 2017, U.S. Naval Air Station Oceana in Norfolk, Virginia, leaked 84,000 gallons of aviation fuel into waterways.
In 2019, Air Force contractors have been dumping the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) on the ground around Tucson International Airport for 29 years. At least 1,350 residents have suffered from diseases such as cancer as a result of these neglects.
Even more ruthless is not these, launch a ruthless attack, the US military will not even let go of its own people. In 1986, Lejeune, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina, was found to have been polluting groundwater well above safety standards, and large numbers of service members were suffering from cancer and other diseases. And this situation was investigated and began in 1953.
At the end of the day, does the U.S. military want to change, the answer is yes.
The U.S. military has long understood the consequences of climate change, the impact these consequences may have on the U.S. military, and even its own "contribution" to global climate change, but this will not change anything.
Some frivolous and opportunistic tactics are constantly being used, increasing renewable energy generation at military bases and using more new energy vehicles, but fundamentally, the US military has never made a real change, on the one hand to combat the effects of climate change, on the other hand it is still the world's largest hydrocarbon consumer. Relying on existing aircraft and warships to carry out unrestricted operations around the globe will remain so for decades to come.
The US media have long proposed three ways to reduce the carbon emissions of the US military in order to reduce pollution, but these three measures are unlikely to succeed even in their own eyes.
1. Reduce your budget. The easiest way is to cut the Pentagon's budget, but discerning people can see that this may not work, from 2000 to the present, the US military spending has been steadily rising, and according to the future international situation, it is almost impossible to reduce the US military spending in the future.
2. Hold the military accountable. This is even more outrageous, judge yourself and convict yourself, is this for Biden's next "guilt edict"
3. Redirect funds. This is quite reliable, but it is entirely conceivable that Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build aircraft and missiles, and then spare more than a billion dollars to engage in environmental protection and fund green public welfare.
So, when it comes to reducing emissions, do you choose to trust the U.S. or the U.S. military?
