Published on Portside (https://portside.org)
War and
Warming: Can We Save the Planet Without Taking on the Pentagon?
Portside.org
H Patricia Hynes
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Submitted by the author to Portside
If we are
not united in peace, we cannot save the planet.
Thich Nhat Hanh
Looking out
to my audience of young climate change activists and older peace activists
gathered for a talk and discussion on "war and warming," I see in the
generational difference what many peace activists perceive. Peace, war,
militarism, and nuclear weapons are an agenda of another era-an earlier era,
while progressive political energy today is galvanized by climate change. (One
climate activist explained that in his lifetime, no nuclear weapons had been
used while climate change had worsened.) Thus, our movements largely work in
silos, despite the actuality that war and fossil fuels have been fatally
co-dependent since the Second World War.
Oil is
indispensable for war and militarism. Think of it as the lifeblood coursing
through our foreign policy, a policy based on maintaining superpower status and
confronting those whom we perceive as challenging us. The 1980 Carter Doctrine,
which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to
defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf, formalized the toxic nexus
between access to oil and war. Since the late 1970s, the United States has
spent $8 trillion protecting oil cargoes in the Persian Gulf region through
ongoing naval patrols. Keeping oil and gas supply sea lanes in the South China
Sea open, in the face of China's expansionism there, is also a factor in the US
pivot to Asia.
This
foreign policy pivot has involved engaging Australia and Southeast Asian allies
in military training exercises, opening new and previously closed bases to the
US military, and sales of new weapons systems. Further, the Obama
administration prioritized a military "triangular alliance" with
Japan, pressuring them to abandon their peace constitution, and South Korea,
where the US has a military foothold on the Asian continent, for countering
North Korea and the rising power of China. This ratcheting up of military
dominance is reliant on oil, the lifeline of weaponry, military exercises and
war.
War for oil
has come home. Militarized North Dakota police attacked non-violent water
protectors protesting the Dakota Access oil pipeline with rubber bullets, tear
gas, concussion grenades, and water cannons in sub-freezing temperatures. One
medic treating injuries described it as a "low grade war." (1)
A thumbnail
sketch of recent US spending confirms the axiom that *war culture is a defining
feature of US politics.* In 2016, as in previous years, an estimated $1
trillion was allocated to military defense, militarized national security,
veterans, and debt from recent wars. In that same year a few billion
dollars-crumbs from the master's table-were allocated to research and
development for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Between 2010-2015, the federal government invested $56 billion in clean energy
internationally, while it recently committed to $1 trillion for modernizing
nuclear weapons, their infrastructure and their delivery systems by 2030.
What's
clear from US spending priorities is that access to oil and military dominance
has governed US policy in the world. Add to this a thin-skinned bully as
president surrounding himself with generals and we will likely get into deeper
displays of male dominance. Foreign policy advisor to both Presidents Bush,
Philip Zelikow, put it bluntly. With President Trump's "ambient
prickliness, we could end up picking a fight with three quarters of the
world." (2) The immense policy and spending inequality between military
and renewable energy (one that mirrors our society's massive economic
inequality) retards sustainable energy research and development and accelerates
the perilously trending climate change.
*Militarism:
An Engine of Climate Change*
In 1940 the
United States military consumed one percent of the country's total fossil fuel
energy usage; by the end of the World War II the military's share rose to 29
percent. Militarism is the most oil-intensive activity on the planet, growing
more so with faster, bigger, more fuel guzzling planes, tanks, and naval
vessels. At the outset of the Iraq War in March 2003, the Army estimated it
would need more than 40 million gallons of gasoline for three weeks of combat,
exceeding the total quantity used by all Allied forces in the four years of
World War 1. (3)
The
frequency and prevalence of US armed conflict since World War II is another
factor in the combustible mix of war and warming. One count has documented 153
instances of US armed forces engaged in conflict abroad from 1945 through 2004,
a number consistent with other estimates. (4) This count, though, does not
include covert military missions in which US Special Operations Forces (larger
in number than the active-duty militaries of many countries) operate in 135
countries. Nor do the 153 military conflicts since 1945 include US occupation
forces stationed abroad since World War II, military participation in mutual
security organizations such as NATO, military base agreements for the estimated
1000 US military bases across the planet, and routine oil-intensive military
training exercises around the globe.
In 2003,
the Carter Doctrine was implemented with "shock and awe," in what was
the most intensive and profligate use of fossil fuel the world has ever
witnessed. The projected full costs of the Iraq War (estimated $3 trillion)
could have covered all global investments in renewable energy needed between
now and 2030 to reverse global warming trends.
Between
2003 and 2007, the Iraq war generated more carbon dioxide equivalent in
greenhouse gas emissions each year of the war than 139 of the world's countries
release annually. Re-building Iraqi (and Syrian and Yemeni) schools, homes,
businesses, bridges, roads, and hospitals pulverized by the war will require
millions of tons of cement, the most fossil fuel intensive of all manufacturing
industries.
After an
unprecedented investigation into military use of fossil fuels, the Barry
Sander, author of The Green Zone, calculates that the US military consumes as
much as one million barrels of oil per day and contributes 5 percent of current
global warming emissions. Few whole countries use more oil than Pentagon. Yet,
this comparison understates the extreme military impact on climate change.
Military fuel is more polluting because of the fuel type used for
aviation. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from jet fuel are larger -
possibly triple - per gallon than those from diesel and oil. Further, aircraft
exhaust has unique polluting effects that result in greater warming effect by
per unit of fuel used. Radiative effects from jet exhaust, including
nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, soot, and water vapor exacerbate the warming
effect of the CO2 exhaust emissions.
Nor does
this calculation include the fossil fuels used by civilian weapons makers.
Their greenhouse gas emissions comprise both those from manufacturing and
testing weapons and also the intensive cleanup of hazardous waste produced by
them. Nearly 900 of the US Environmental Protection Agency's approximately
1,300 Superfund sites are abandoned military bases/facilities or manufacturing
and testing sites that produced conventional weapons and other military related
products and services, according to the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the
President's Cancer Panel.
*Climate
Change in a Militarizing World*
Climate
change is inevitably an issue of peace because the Pentagon is the single
largest contributor of climate change emissions in the world. And as the
Pentagon goes, so go the military budgets of other major powers. "We
are not your enemy," a Chinese strategist told journalist John Pilger,
" but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without
delay." (5)
According
to some security analysts, talk of fighting terrorism fills the media but is
secondary in the talk of US and NATO generals, admirals and defense ministers.
Many politicians of West and NATO believe that war between Great Powers (Russia
and/or China) is not only possible but may break out at any time. Therefore,
bigger spending in all involved countries on high-tech weapons, deploying more
forces, and more military joint exercises will exacerbate climate change
emissions and heighten the potential for nuclear war, risking another kind of
climate change-nuclear winter.
Others
point to the elevation of generals by President-elect Trump to positions
historically held by civilians in order to maintain civilian control of the
military, namely Department of Defense, National Security Advisor and
Department of Homeland Security. They are "enablers" and "accelerants
to military action," warns retired Colonel William Astore. ".[t]he
future of U.S. foreign policy seems increasingly clear: more violent
interventionism against what these men see as the existential threat of radical
Islam. Both [the United States and radical Islam] embrace their own
exceptionalism, both see themselves as righteous warriors, both represent ways
of thinking steeped in patriarchy and saturated with violence, and both are
remarkably resistant to any thought of compromise." (6)
Growing
global militarization portends greater military build up in Russia, China, NATO
and the Middle East and greater climate change emissions. The United
States expends 37 percent of the global military budget and its military is
estimated to contribute 5 percent of climate change emissions. Can we not,
then, assume that the rest of world's military spending, weapons manufacturing,
military exercises, and conflict combine to bring military-related fossil fuel
emissions to near 15 percent of global climate change pollution?
Intensifying military tensions will drive it higher and could vitiate country
commitments to the Paris climate agreement.
*Climate
Change, Water Shortage and Conflict: Syria*
Climate
change is necessarily an issue of peace given the potential conflicts over the
remaining oil as we near peak oil and given diminishing potable water supply
and arable land. The UN panel that analyses climate science , [1] the
IPPC, concludes: "Water and its availability and quality will be the
main pressure on and [critical] issue for societies and the environment under
climate change." Within little more than a decade, nearly one-half of the
world's people will be living in areas of high water shortage. (7)
The worst
Syrian drought on record, from 2006 to 2011, caused agriculture to collapse;
food prices to rise, thus aggravating poverty; and drove more 1.5 million farm
workers and families to cities for survival. Simultaneously hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi refugees from the US-led war in their country fled to Syrian
cities. The extreme and rapid swelling in urban population from war and climate
change-related water scarcity, combined with the lack of support from the Assad
government for basic needs and services, added fuel to the fire of civil
conflict and the current war in Syria. The Syrian scholar Suzanne Saleeby notes
that "escalating pressures on urban areas due to internal migration,
increasing food insecurity, and resultant high rates of unemployment have
spurred many Syrians to make their political grievances publicly known. in
popular uprisings..." (8)
While it is
evident from history that the source of violence in societies suffering scarce
resources is fundamentally inequality, injustice, poor economic and resource
management, and lack of democracy, the stress of climate change on the Syrian
society is neither isolated nor temporary; and it is worsening. The entire Middle
East inexorably faces a hotter, drier climate from climate change that will
further stress water resources, agriculture, food prices and existing
conflicts. Thus, the seeds of future conflicts in authoritarian and unequal
societies may also include scarce water resources as farmers and thirsty
people, opportunistic politicians and powerful corporations contend for that
diminishing resource.
*Conclusion*
War mirrors
the culture of a country. US militarism-from its training, tactics, and
logistics to its reasons for going to war and its weapons of war-is distinctly
shaped by core elements of American identity. These determining cultural forces
are, according to military historian Victor Hanson
The US
habit and competence for war, with its origins in the past annihilation of
Native Americans, may be our society's nemesis unless we do critical
soul-searching about our cultural and personal values <http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/969 [3]> and
actively engage in transforming them. Let us remember and honor the plentitude
of activist, non-violent movements in our society that have profoundly
challenged the dominant patriarchal profile of our culture described by Hanson.
These are the feminist violence against women and equal rights for women
movement; the civil rights, immigrant and indigenous rights movements; the
anti-war and peace movements; Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock water
protectors; progressive media, peace and justice studies; progressive labor and
health workers; the coop, sustainable agriculture, and Transition Town
movements; and the pervasive climate change activism and victories against
fracking and oil pipelines.
The
challenge is how to build voice, social cohesion and public influence for our
shared values of a sense of human community, our core connection as humans with
nature, our empathy with the exploited and our thirst for equality and justice
for all.
In these
times of overt authoritarian and corporate control, our hope for turning the
tide will come from local, community-based campaigns and actions. These
comprise anti-fracking ordinances, town by town; the fight for $15 minimum wage
city by city; churches and cities providing sanctuary for undocumented workers;
children suing their government for their right to clean energy and a livable
future; campaigns against all forms of violence against girls and women; using
community media to promote equal rights for all; and electing people to local
and regional office who champion these issues and campaigns.
Working
together, we must turn the tide on these destructive forces and seek enduring
peace *on* earth and enduring peace *with* earth.
This piece
originated in talks given to 350.org CT and Promoting Enduring Peace, New
Haven; Women's International League for Peace and Justice, Boston branch; and
the Women's Pentagon Action 2016 Forum.
Sources
3. Barry
Sanders (2009) *The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism.*
Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Pat Hynes,
a retired environmental engineer and professor of environmental health, directs
the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice in western Massachusetts.]
Source URL: https://portside.org/2017-01-28/war-and-warming-can-we-save-planet-without-taking-pentagon
Links:
[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter1.pdf
[2] http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/military-technology-and-american-culture
[3] https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/finding-cultural-values-that-can-transform-the-climate-change-debate/
[4] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112016/dakota-access-protesters-injury-police-concussion-grenades-firehoses
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/todayspaper/quotation-of-the-day.html?_r=0
[6] http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/US%20Conflicts%20Abroad%20Since%20World%20War%20II%20Chronicling%20the%20Official%20History%20of%20US%20Conflict%20Dependence.pdf
[7] http://www.alternet.org/world/will-trump-start-war-china
[8] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176224/
[9] http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/40200582.pdf
[10] http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1
[11] http://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-contributed-to-war-in-syria/a-18330669
[2] http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/military-technology-and-american-culture
[3] https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/finding-cultural-values-that-can-transform-the-climate-change-debate/
[4] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112016/dakota-access-protesters-injury-police-concussion-grenades-firehoses
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/todayspaper/quotation-of-the-day.html?_r=0
[6] http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/US%20Conflicts%20Abroad%20Since%20World%20War%20II%20Chronicling%20the%20Official%20History%20of%20US%20Conflict%20Dependence.pdf
[7] http://www.alternet.org/world/will-trump-start-war-china
[8] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176224/
[9] http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/40200582.pdf
[10] http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1
[11] http://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-contributed-to-war-in-syria/a-18330669
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment