World’s biggest polluter – The military

The Climate Summit in Scotland had many ambitious goals; countries were asked to come forward with strong emission-reduction targets to reach net zero carbon emissions by the middle of the century. Failure to do so would be to lose a habitable planet.

Emissions are a result of excessive use of energy. Even in the domestic sector, North Americans consume on the average 12,000 kWh of energy per year, while Europeans average at 2000kWh. A typical south Asian uses 600-800 kWh per year. These don’t include emissions from transport. Here again, the world’s largest transport polluters are in North America.

However, civilian use of energy in warring countries, like the USA ,becomes secondary in the context of their military use. The US military’s energy consumption (nearly 20 billion litres annually) drives the total US government’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (GHE). According to a Brown University study, since 2001 the US Department of Defence (DOD) accounts for nearly 80% of all US government energy consumption. The NATO countries, Russia, China, the Arab nations, India contribute similar large GHE, via their military engagements.

Much of this GHE can be cut down by introducing energy-efficient armoured vehicles, air-planes, etc. However, armament manufacturers are least concerned about energy efficiency. Even the military’s non-armored vehicles, some 60,000 get an average of five miles to the US gallon. Air-conditioned or heated military installations in every corner of the earth, often using in situ fossil-fuel powered generators, have the least concern for the optimal use of energy and the reduction of GHE.

Of all military organisations, the US Air Force is by far the largest producer of GHE, being nearly double that of the US Navy. In addition to using the most polluting types of fuel, the armies are the largest purchasers of such fuel.

However, while the global summit focuses on civilian use, not a word has been said about the GHE from military activities by the great nations. Here again America and the NATO powers dominate as the biggest polluters. Recently, the US teamed up with Australia, a rogue nation when it comes to environmental responsibility, in forming a submarine defence pact that will further escalate war-like activities in the Pacific region.

While US military spokesmen do talk of “better climate policies”, dependence on fossil fuel will remain a key feature of the US or Canadian and other NATO military. So, if such major users of energy continue to support fossil fuel, and if it is not on the agenda of the climate summit, then how can the climate targets be achieved?

If green-house gas emitting armies are stationed even “to safeguard oil supplies”, the cost to the environment is further aggravated.

British researcher Dr. Niemaker has argued that “an important way to cool off the furnace of the climate emergency is to turn off vast sections of the military machine”. But the military machine cannot be effectively turned down without international cooperation, and recognition that there is no room for escalation in the face of an existential threat to the planet.

However, the topic of military green house gas emissions is not even on the agenda of the Climate summit. The biggest offender is not even indicted.

CHANDRE DHARMAWARDANA