Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Greenwashing the Pentagon
As oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, just one of many manifestations of perilous ecological degradation across the planet, the need to challenge war and militarism—especially in terms of the United States—becomes ever-more pressing. The U.S. military is the world’s single biggest consumer of fossil fuels, and the single entity most responsible for destabilizing the Earth’s climate.
The costs of U.S. militarism and war are high and many. In addition to the growing civilian and military death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, total monies appropriated by Congress for the two wars surpassed the one-trillion-dollar mark on May 30th. Among other would-be purchases, such an enormous sum could provide 294,734,961 people with health care for one year, according to the Northampton, Massachusetts-based national Priorities Project.(1) Instead, the monies are dedicated to death and destruction—all in the name of “national security”—greatly enriching military contractors in the process.
The costs that one rarely hears about—at least here in the United States—are the associated environmental damages that regularly and systematically occur. Indeed, it is far more common to learn of the Pentagon’s efforts to “go green.”
In March, the Center for American Progress, for instance, reported on the Pentagon building’s “big green renovation.” When completed in 2011, “the Pentagon’s 25,000 military and civilian personnel will not only work in one of the biggest office buildings in the world,” the article gushed, “but one of the most energy efficient and environmentally sustainable.”(2)
Beyond the Pentagon building itself, the U.S. military is “stepping forward to combat climate change,” asserts the subtitle of a 2010 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts.(3) Meanwhile, President Obama recently extolled the military’s endeavors to reduce its fuel consumption via biofuel-using technologies, specifically the Navy’s FA/18 fighter jet, nicknamed the Green Hornet due to its putative eco credentials, and the Marine Corp’s Light Armored Vehicle.(4)
Such “greenwashing” helps to mask the fact that the Pentagon devours about 330,000 barrels of oil per day (a barrel has 42 gallons), more than the vast majority of the world’s countries. If the U.S. military were a nation-state, it would be ranked number 37 in terms of oil consumption—ahead of the likes of the Philippines, Portugal, and Nigeria—according to the CIA Factbook.
And although much of the military’s technology has become far more fuel-efficient over the last few decades, the amount of oil consumed per soldier per day in war-time has increased by 175 percent since Vietnam, given the Pentagon’s increasing use and number of motorized vehicles. A 2010 study by Deloitte, the financial services company, reports that the Pentagon uses 22 gallons of oil per soldier per day deployed in its wars, a figure that is expected to grow 1.5 percent annually though 2017.(5)
The worst offender is the Air Force, which consumes 2.5 billion gallons of aviation fuel a year, and accounts for more than half of the Pentagon’s energy use. Under normal flight conditions, a F-16 fighter jet burns up to 2,000 gallons of fuel per flight hour. The resulting detrimental impact on the Earth’s climate system is much greater per mile traveled than motorized ground transport due to the height at which planes fly combined with the mixture of gases and particles they emit.(6)
Among the ironies of all this, given that a central goal of U.S. military strategy is to ensure the smooth flow of oil to the United States, is that the Pentagon’s voracious appetite for energy helps to justify its very existence and seemingly never-ending growth.
In a direct sense, war and militarism produce landscapes and ecosystems of violence—and violated bodies. In Laos, unexploded ordnance from Washington’s illegal and covert bombing litters the countryside, and has killed and maimed thousands since the war’s end, and continues to do so at the rate of almost one person per day. In Vietnam, about 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born since the mid-1970s with birth defects believed to be related to the defoliant Agent Orange that the Pentagon dumped on the country. And in war-torn Fallujah, the aftermath of two U.S. sieges of the Iraqi city in 2004 has seen a huge rise in the number of chronic deformities among infants and a spike in early-age cancer.(7)
Beyond locations directly targeted by war, the ill effects of military consumption of environmental resources do not respect territorial boundaries. They exacerbate a growing environmental crisis on a global scale. From the degradation of the world’s oceans, to a steep decline in biodiversity and intensifying climate destabilization, war and militarism threaten humanity and life more broadly in unprecedented ways.
Such ecological “costs” are certainly not limited to the activities of the U.S. military. But given its engagement in multiple wars, a network of hundreds of military bases around the world and dozens more in the United States, and a budget now roughly the equivalent of all of the rest of the world’s militaries combined, the Pentagon must be the central focus of efforts to protect the biosphere by challenging war and militarism. More than ever, humanity—and Mother Earth—can no long afford them.
(1) http://www.nationalpriorities.
(2) http://www.americanprogress.
(3) http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_
(4) http://www.aero-news.net/
(5) http://www.deloitte.com/us/
(6) http://www.guardian.co.uk/
(7) http://www.guardian.co.uk/
- Posted in
21 Comments so far
Show AllThe U.S. war machine is the world's greatest polluter. The Pentagon injects the poison of environmental terrorism all over the globe.
-The U.S. military generates nearly a ton of toxic pollution every minute-500,000 tons of toxics annually-more than the five leading chemical companies combined.
-There are more than 14,000 contaminated military sites in the U.S., many located near low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.
-More than 200 tons of hazardous waste have been dumped in the Philippines
-The U.S. refuses to take responsibility for the land mines and unexploded cluster bombs it has left in many regions, reducing arable land and bio-diversity and posing an ongoing deadly threat.
-U.S. commitment to nuclear weapons and energy has produced more than a billion pounds of depleted uranium DU waste.
-The Pentagons assault on the environment destroys fragile ecosystems
-The Pentagon is exempt from the Endangered Species and Marine Mammals Protection Acts.
- An Aircraft Carrier Uses 150,000 gallons of fuel per day.
- In 1991 Gulf War US forces fired 630,000 DU rounds leaving enough DU in Kuwait and Iraq to cause tens of thousands of cancers, genetic mutations and death.
- One years worth of energy use by the military could run all US mass transit for 22 years.
- Abrams tank gets 4 gallons to the mile (not a misprint)
"Abrams tank gets 4 gallons to the mile (not a misprint)"
At battle speed its more like 2.75 MPG.
"The U.S. refuses to take responsibility for the land mines and unexploded cluster bombs it has left in many regions, reducing arable land and bio-diversity and posing an ongoing deadly threat."
As do any other armed forces of any other country. Lets keep it balanced.
The military can't give out accurate figures because they simply no longer know. The republicans privitization efforts combined with attached spending (pork) to defense bills and the use of military stores by mercs and contractors makes it impossible.
>>As do any other armed forces of any other country. Lets keep it balanced
Well then lets keep it accurate. How many countries use land mines? How many countries use cluster muntions. ? How many countries have invaded or attacked the number of countries the USA has over the past 60 years?
"Well then lets keep it accurate. How many countries use land mines? How many countries use cluster muntions. ? How many countries have invaded or attacked the number of countries the USA has over the past 60 years?"
Quite a few as a matter of fact. All use land mines, clusters are a bit more exclusive mosly with the French, Brits, US, Chinese, Russians, Israel, Iran, etc. And none of them accept responsibility for either.
"How many countries have invaded or attacked the number of countries the USA has over the past 60 years?"
To keep that fair you would have to go back to each country or Kingdom or Empire in its heyday and compare. Not nearly as many as anyone else did. Not even as many as the Germans and Japanese in WW2.
But of course thats not the point you want to make. The US has been involved more than any other Nation in the last 60 years. The French would actually be the closest, unless you count the Iron Curtin countries for Russia.
Not all countries use land mines. In fact most Countries banned land mines under the Ottawa Accord.
The Countries that are not part of the accord are in the strict minority .
There are over 180 countries in the world. 122 signed the treaty in 1997 and since then nearly 40 more have joined. The last time Canada as example used Land Mines was in the Korean War and those have long since been removed.
Sweden has never used them, nor have the Swiss and a multitude of other countries simply because of the fact they have not BEEN in a war for many decades and they all joined the landmine treaty in 97.
More salient facts:
More information on the US Military Fuel Use:
The reality is that even U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not know precisely where and how much energy it consumes. This is my Fact Zero.
Below I give some facts and figures on U.S. military oil consumption based mostly on official statistics.[1] If you want to reproduce them make sure you read every footnote even if you need to put on your glasses. Also read the footnotes in this article.
FACT 1: The DoD's total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.
Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.
The DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.
Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD) of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006.
FACT 2: Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) sold $13 billion of energy to DoD services in FY2006. More than half of it was to Air Force.
FACT 3: Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD's total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3] accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.
FACT 4: Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like).
FACT 5: DoD consumed 97 million gasoline gallon equivalent in its non-tactical vehicles and for that it spent 238 million dollars. DoD's total worldwide non-tactical fleet[9] inventory includes 187,493 vehicles. Of that amount, 13% is located abroad.
FACT 6: The U.S. military consumed almost 180 million barrels (or 490 thousand barrels per day) of oil in 1985 worldwide. In 2006, its oil consumption was down to 117 million barrels (or 320 thousand barrels per day),[10] despite increasing activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.
FACT 7: If FACT 6 is true, then how can we explain the discrepancy between what DESC sold to DoD and what DoD reported as consumed? More or less, one is sales of oil and the other is consumption of what is delivered. So, the difference is stock changes? If that were the case then where the DoD stocked more than 15 million barrels of oil in 2002, 2003 and 2006? Or maybe some oil consumed overseas is underreported?[11]
In 2006, for example, DESC reports in its Factbook that it sold 131 million barrels of oil (or 358 kbd) to DoD but DoD Federal Energy Management Report states that DoD consumed 117 million barrels (or 320 kbd).[12]
FACT 8: According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD. Guess how many countries consume more oil per capita than the DoD? Only three.[13]
...
So...how many 10s of thousands of gallons is that per dead baby?
Continued:
FACT 9: How much oil does the U.S. military consume abroad? There exist no official estimates. Let me know if you see or hear one. According to my most pessimist estimates it is about 150 thousand barrels per day. Note that in this estimate I take DESC sales figures as granted.
However, keep in mind that official figures for U.S. military oil consumption do not take into account of unpaid oil.
FACT 10: Whatever the true figure oil consumed by the U.S. military does not show up in world oil demand. See for more explanation under item #425 in October 2004 issue of ASPO Newsletter.
See here: http://www.energybulletin.net/2390.html
FACT 11: Since the military's war machines burns fuel at such intense rates, it becomes impractical to talk about consumption in miles per gallon. That is why fuel use in military applications is shown in "gallons-per-mile," "gallons-per-hour," and "barrels-per-hour."
Here are some examples: Flying gas-guzzling bomber B-52 burns about 3300 gallon per hour, flying gas stations KC-135 and KC-10 (aerial refueling tankers) burn on average 2650 and 2070 gallons per hour respectively. Famous F-15 and F-16 fighter aircrafts burn about 1580 and 800 gallons per hour respectively.
Armored vehicles have very low fuel efficiency. For instance the Abrams tank can travel less than 0.6 mile per gallon of fuel, and Bradley fighting vehicle less than 2 miles on a gallon of fuel.
FACT 12: In 2006 Air Force consumed around 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945).
FACT 13: American GI is the most energy-consuming soldier ever seen on the field of war.
In May 2005 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Robert Bryce stated that "The Third Army (of General Patton) had about 400,000 men and used about 400,000 gallons of gasoline a day." This makes one gallon per day per soldier.
According to my calculations (based on officially deployed troops number and oil consumption statistics) this amount went up to 9 gallons per day per deployed soldier in Vietnam War,[14] to nearly 10 gallons per day per deployed soldier in Operation Desert Shield/Storm (Gulf War),[15] and to 15 gallons per day per deployed soldier in January 2007.[16] I admit that this kind of calculation is not appropriate since troop levels vary in time.[17]
FACT 14: Delivering fuel to consumers is not limited to logistics pains.
Over 70 percent of the tonnage required to position today's U.S. Army into battle is fuel. The Air Force spends approximately 85 percent of its fuel budget to deliver, by airborne tankers, just 6 percent of its annual jet fuel usage." [18]
Of the top 10 battlefield guzzlers in the U.S. Army, only 2 are combat vehicles (the Abrams tank and the Apache helicopter). The other eight carry fuel and supplies. Over half of the fuel transported to the battlefield is consumed by support vehicles, not vehicles engaged in frontline combat. The logistics costs to deliver fuel include people, training, platforms (for example, oilers, trucks, and tanker aircraft), and other hardware and infrastructure. Those costs can be tens and sometimes hundreds of times the cost of the fuel itself, depending on how it is delivered.[19]
The Army has 40,000 troops involved in either the distribution or movement of energy.[20]
http://www.energybulletin.net/29925.html
mcoyote, you are on a roll today.
Thank you for all your effort here.
Great post with lots of information.
And how much could we save if we closed all the superfulous bases, removed our troops from Japan, South Korea, Germany, Turkey, etc?
As to #13,Our troops do consume more fuel now, but they are also much more effective. The problem is their deployment and use which is strictly political.
And that would be how many gallons to deliver death to an "insurgent" and the little baby that lives on the other side of the mud wall of his domicile?
START AT ABOUT A QUARTER OF A MILLION.
What is it about our WOL/national interest that requires such obscenity?
Only the military could propose a "war on climate change" with a straight face.
For what it's worth, ALL corporate/military environmental programs are "greenwashing," because all corporations are obliged to maximize profit by externalizing every cost they can shed onto the backs of the workers and into the environment. If anyone honestly thinks there is even one corporation out there that deserves a "green" image, I have some waterfront property to sell you--on the Gulf coast.
On second thought, I think that we had better not bother legalizing industrial hemp. I wouldn't want to interrupt the crumbling of the Pentagon lest they use hemp for building material. Oh, and as for the military going green, baloney. They're shedding jobs as we speak.
MCoyote, thanks for the additional info.
They have managed to base our whole economic structure
around the MIC making it political suicide to vote for cuts
in military spending.
This was probably another driving force of the "free trade"
agreements. They have structured most employment around this
gross waste.
There is no employment alternative.
we are, and have been screwed.
I don't believe Americans has what it takes in self-sacrifice
to turn this around.
"The U.S. military is the world’s single biggest consumer of fossil fuels, and the single entity most responsible for destabilizing the Earth’s climate."
This is so clear. I shall be quoting Joseph Nevins all over the place.
The U.S. military is also among the world's top organizations at apologizing for military defeats. It's not just Custer and Pearl Harbor these days. It's miscalculating China's entry into the Korean War, it's all of Vietnam from head to toe, it's a number of really bad spy leaks to Russia, it's a bogus Star Wars program, it's the intelligence failures of 9/11, it's looking for WMDs in Iraq (ok, that failure was stuck on them by the Bush administration), and next year it's going to be apologizing for losing Afghanistan, that opium-growing tinhorn democracy. If I missed your favorite fiasco like the Beirut bombing in the 1980s or a drone attack on a wedding, sorry.
These people have the apparatus in place to greenwash until the organic cows come home. As a matter of fact they sometimes say the right thing. For example, they want to solarize forward bases because running a gasoline truck up an Afghan minefield is too expensive these days. Also they say that planning a military operation without real resources is a hallucination, and they're not going to have real oil. Of course they're not going to have a real Uncle Sugar to fund their hallucinatory next war either, but the green LSD is a better trip than the brown khaki acid today.
The upside is that when the oil runs out, the US Empire ends.
the US Military will not look so awesome on bicycles.
I know just a little bit about that group. They are fundamentalist (a political stand, not related to the wingnut Fundies) about the military killing people, but they're also pragmatist (easily interpreted as a sellout, but it sometimes gets positive things done).
One way to affect the military is to get them to actively think about their force's future. When a Marine is armed with an MX-3000 teddy bear, he starts to become just a bit less of a classical soldier and more of a thoughtful policeman, treating civilians a bit more as equals with human rights. Being a bit more thoughtful is in general more likely to get the Marines what they want. The pragmatist hope is that what we call the military now, evolves into a force that defuses wars before they ever start, by talking to people. You're right that the military needs a big ecological perspective before they can make that evolution.
In fact, the military has the best (socialist in its operation!) R&D factory on the planet, DARPA. They could roll out solar product after solar product if they wanted to fight the good war, and they wouldn't just produce energy-conserving insulated army tents for Iraq.
Then there are priorities. If there is a nation-wide energy shortage, guess who stands first in line to get gasoline and diesel and flight fuel. Yep, the military. They're so busy protecting all of us, right? Of course they get first pick. Our soldiers will NEVER be on bicycles, but everyone else will be--even people who shouldn't be.