Bronte Wells
The US military is one of the largest polluters in history, with a carbon footprint larger than any other institution on Earth. The US military emits more carbon dioxide than entire countries like Denmark and Portugal, yet it has evaded scrutiny due to inconsistent data reporting and exemptions from protocols such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The US military's vast global network relies on container ships, trucks, and cargo planes to supply its operations, contributing significantly to climate change. Its day-to-day operations, including the use of jet fuel and burn pits, have caused environmental disasters and health issues for residents near military bases. The US military's carbon bootprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties to effectively combat climate change.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| US military's rank as a polluter | Bigger than 140 countries |
| US military's rank as a consumer of hydrocarbons | Largest institutional consumer in the world |
| US military's carbon footprint | Larger than any other institution on earth |
| US military's spending in 2022 | Nearly $877 billion |
| US military's share of global military presence | At least three-quarters |
| US military's share of global military fuel consumption | 5.5% |
| US military's share of global emissions | 1% |
| US military's share of US emissions | 2% (including military-industrial emissions) |
| US military's fuel purchases in 2017 | 269,230 barrels of oil per day |
| US military's fuel purchases in 2017 | $4.9 billion (Air Force), $2.8 billion (Navy), $947 million (Army), $36 million (Marines) |
| US Naval Air Station Oceana's jet fuel spill in 2017 | 84,000 gallons |
| Hanford Nuclear Reservation's radioactive release (1944-1977) | Affected fish that provided food and economic subsistence to residences |
| Marshall Islands' nuclear weapons tests (1946-1958) | 67 nuclear weapons tested, resulting in radiation poisoning, birth defects, leukaemia, and cancers |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The US military is a bigger polluter than over 100 countries
The US military has a long history of environmental negligence and disregard for human life. There have been numerous instances of the US military polluting the environment and endangering the health and safety of residents living near military bases. For example, in 2017, the US Naval Air Station Oceana in Norfolk, VA, spilled 84,000 gallons of jet fuel into a waterway. In another instance, it was found that the Air Force contractor had been dumping industrial solvent Trichloroethylene (TCE) into the ground surrounding the Tucson International Airport for 29 years, resulting in over 1,350 residents suffering from cancer and other illnesses.
The US military's day-to-day operations produce massive carbon emissions that have received comparatively little attention. The US military's consumption of liquid fuels and emission of climate-changing gases are greater than those of 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. The US military's carbon bootprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties for any climate initiatives to be effective.
The US military has also been criticized for its use of burn pits on military bases constructed for America's post-9/11 wars. These burn pits contained everything from computers to furniture to medical waste, releasing toxic smoke that was inhaled by soldiers and civilians alike. Additionally, the US military has a large number of overseas bases, with more than 750 bases in about 80 countries, all of which require fossil fuels for operations and generate waste and pollution.
The US military's environmental impact has been described as an "elephant in the room," as it has been largely overlooked in climate change studies and has evaded scrutiny. The US government has also lobbied for exemptions for military emissions in international climate treaties, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. While the Paris Accords removed this exemption, the decision to report military emissions is still left up to individual countries.
LEDs: Reducing Light Pollution or Making It Worse?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US military's exemption from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
The US military is one of the largest polluters in history, with a corrosive environmental legacy that includes nuclear testing, toxic chemical spills, and the contamination of drinking water sources. The US military's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is a notable example of how the military has contributed to environmental degradation without accountability.
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997, by representatives from 160 nations. The protocol extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and committed state parties to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. However, the United States insisted on an exemption for reporting military emissions, citing national security interests.
This exemption was carefully orchestrated by Pentagon representatives and faced opposition from some countries, including China, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Despite these objections, the exemption was included in the final agreement. The Clinton administration signed the treaty, but it was never ratified by the US Senate due to concerns about potential economic harm.
The US military's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol allowed it to continue its environmentally destructive practices without scrutiny or accountability. The military has consistently contributed to enlarging the planet's carbon footprint, with massive purchases of hydrocarbon fuels, toxic chemical spills, and the contamination of land and water sources. The burning of explosives and munition waste, as well as the use of hydrocarbon-based weapons systems, further exacerbates the military's environmental impact.
While the Paris Accord closed the loophole created by the Kyoto Protocol, the Trump administration's withdrawal from the accord in 2020 once again left the US military's emissions unaccounted for. The US military's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol highlights the contradictory nature of its climate policy and the need for significant reductions in its carbon footprint to address climate change effectively.
Apply for Pollution Control Board: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US military's contribution to heating the planet is overlooked
The US military is one of the largest polluters in history, with a carbon footprint larger than any other institution on Earth. The US military emits more carbon dioxide than entire countries like Denmark and Portugal. In 2017, the US military was found to have purchased 269,230 barrels of oil a day, emitting more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide. The US Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines also spent a combined total of $8.5 billion on fuel that year. The US military's vast global network of container ships, trucks, and cargo planes, which supply everything from bombs to humanitarian aid, contributes significantly to climate change.
The environmental impact of the US military's operations is devastating. In Minden, Louisiana, the military was found to be burning explosives and munition waste several times a day without any emission control measures. They only moved these operations after residents complained. In another incident, the US Naval Air Station Oceana in Norfolk, Virginia, spilled 84,000 gallons of jet fuel into a waterway. The US military has also been responsible for contaminating drinking water sources, affecting the health of thousands of people.
Despite the US military's enormous carbon footprint and environmental impact, its contribution to heating the planet is often overlooked. The US government has historically lobbied for exemptions for military emissions from international climate agreements, such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. While the 2015 Paris Accords removed this exemption, reporting military emissions remains optional. The US military's emissions data is scattered and incomplete, with major fuel consumption categories, especially for aviation, often missing. This lack of transparency and accountability allows the US military to evade scrutiny for its environmental impact.
The US military's carbon bootprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties. Significant reductions in the Pentagon's budget and capacity to wage war would lead to a substantial decrease in fuel consumption. The money spent on fuelling the US military could instead be directed towards funding climate initiatives like the Green New Deal.
Greenhouse Gasses: Polluting Our Planet?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US military's use of jet fuel and diesel
The US military is one of the largest polluters in history, and its use of jet fuel and diesel has contributed significantly to this problem. In 2017, the US Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines collectively spent billions of dollars on fuel and purchased 269,230 barrels of oil per day, emitting more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide.
The US military has a long history of dependence on fossil fuels, particularly jet fuel and diesel, for its aircraft and ground vehicles. Jet fuel, such as JP-8, is a kerosene-based fuel widely used by the military due to its versatility and availability. JP-8 is used in both turbine-powered aircraft and diesel-powered ground vehicles, including trucks, tanks, and planes. While JP-8 has advantages in terms of interoperability and simplified logistics, it also has environmental drawbacks. In 2014, the US military converted all JP-8 installations within the continental United States to use commercial Jet A-1 fuel with additional additives, except for Alaska, where JP-8 is better suited for cold weather.
The use of jet fuel in diesel engines has caused some issues, including increased wear and reduced torque and fuel economy. Additionally, jet fuel tends to have poorer lubricating abilities compared to diesel, which can lead to increased wear in fuel injection equipment. Despite these challenges, the military has continued to rely on jet fuel due to its availability and the advantages it offers in standardizing fuel across different types of vehicles.
While the US military has recognized the impact of climate change and explored alternative fuel sources, it remains the largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons and fossil fuels globally. The military's continued dependence on jet fuel and diesel contributes to its massive carbon emissions and environmental footprint, making it a significant contributor to global pollution.
Russia's Pollution Battle: Strategies and Challenges
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US military's carbon footprint is larger than any other institution
The US military has long been aware that it is not immune to the potential consequences of climate change, recognising it as a "threat multiplier" that can exacerbate other risks. However, it has also been the largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons and fossil fuels in the world. The US military's carbon footprint is larger than that of any other institution, emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than entire industrialised nations like Portugal and Denmark.
The US military's contribution to global warming has been overlooked in climate change studies, partly due to the difficulty in obtaining consistent data from the Pentagon and other US government departments. The US government also lobbied for an exemption for military activity from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set binding emissions targets for signatory nations. While the 2015 Paris Accords removed this exemption, the decision to report military emissions was left to individual countries, and with the Trump administration's withdrawal from the accord in 2020, the loophole returned.
The US military's carbon footprint is vast, with a global network of container ships, trucks, and cargo planes supplying its operations with bombs, humanitarian aid, and hydrocarbon fuels. The US military emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide in 2017, and in the same year, the US Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines purchased 269,230 barrels of oil per day, according to some estimates. The US military's emissions are about 51 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually, larger than the emissions of most 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.
The environmental impact of the US military's operations has been devastating, with a long history of negligence and disregard for human life. There have been numerous instances of toxic chemical spills and contaminated drinking water sources affecting both US citizens and people in other countries. The US military has also been responsible for nuclear weapons testing and the dumping of industrial solvents, resulting in detrimental health consequences for those exposed.
The Nature of Pollution: Acidic or Basic?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US military is one of the world's biggest polluters. If it were a country, it would be the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It is the largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons and petroleum and accounts for nearly 80% of the federal government's fuel consumption.
The US military's vast infrastructure relies on an extensive global network of fossil-fuelled trucks, cargo planes, and container ships to support its operations. The burning of jet fuel is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions from the military. The US military also owns a lot of properties, with 585,000 facilities spread over 27 million acres in 160 countries, contributing significantly to its carbon footprint.
The US military's negligence, nuclear testing, and disregard for human life have had severe environmental and health consequences. In one instance, jet fuel leaked into the drinking water aquifers of Hawaiian residents, causing approximately 6,000 people to fall ill. Additionally, burn pits on military bases have released toxic smoke from computers, furniture, and medical waste, affecting the health of soldiers and civilians.
