Klimakiller militär
Transparenz TV d. 4/3 - 2020
Studio am Brandenburger Tor
se video
What is the relationship between the military and the environment?
EarthBeat d. 13/2 - 2020
...How has the military actually impacted the environment though?
Let's be clear here. The military has an extensive history of damaging
the environment, both at home and abroad. For our purposes, let's
separate the impacts into three general categories: greenhouse gas
emissions, toxic pollutants and war-related impacts.
Emissions?
In 2017 alone, the U.S. military released roughly 59 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,
according to a study by Brown University. If it were a country, this
would rank the Pentagon as the 55th largest contributor of greenhouse
gas emissions in the world, putting it ahead of industrialized countries
like Sweden and Portugal...
Toxic Pollutants?
This is a big one.
A 2002 study by the National Cancer Institute and the Center for Disease
Control found that any person who has lived in the United States since
1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout from the more than 500
nuclear weapons tests performed worldwide prior to the 1970s.
...And in the Marshall Islands, an 18-inch concrete cap covering 111,000
cubic yards of radioactive debris from U.S. nuclear testing is in
danger of leaking into the ocean because of rising sea levels...
War?
Looking just at the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone,
Brown University's Costs of War project found degradation of multiple
natural resources. This includes contaminated water in war zones by oil
from military vehicles and deforestation in Afghanistan as a result of
illegal logging by warlords.
Military activity has also contributed to extreme desertification in Iraq, according to the United Nations...
Link
Sidens top
Don’t Mention the US Military Carbon Footprint!
By Caroline Davies, February 4, 2020
Extinction Rebellion (XR) US has four Demands for our governments, local
and national, the first of which is “Tell the Truth”. One truth that is
not being told or spoken about openly, is the carbon footprint and
other sustainability impacts of the US Military.
...“In short, the Army is an environmental disaster”
If the US Army can say this in their own report, then why aren’t we
talking about it? In 2017 “the Air Force purchased $4.9 billion worth of
fuel and the Navy $2.8 billion, followed by the Army at $947 million
and Marines at $36 million”. The US Airforce uses five times more fossil
fuel than the US Army, so what does that make it? An environmental
disaster x 5?
After reading the US Army War College Report, I was ready to “confront a
general”. It turned out that a retired Air Force Lt. General was
speaking at an upcoming Sustainability Event, co-sponsored by the Julie
Anne Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability and the American
Security Project on “Salute to Service: Climate Change and National
Security”. Perfect! I have noticed that there are several talks a year
at Arizona State University (ASU) by members of the armed services
presenting their latest and greatest sustainability solutions, yet the
elephant in the room is never mentioned. I wasn’t the only XR member who
wanted to speak up at this event. Between us, we were able to raise
many, if not all, of the following issues:
The US military carbon footprint is larger than any other single
organization in the world, and based on its fuel usage alone, it is the
47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
- Our 2018 military budget was equivalent to the next 7 countries combined.
- 11% of the military budget could fund renewable energy for every home in the US.
- The interest on National Debt for 2020 is $479 billion. Although
we spent massively on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, we used debt to
fund them and meanwhile lowered our taxes...
Læs hele artiklen
Klimakrisen kan ikke løses uden nedrustning
Militærets enorme CO2-udledning skal nedbringes kraftigt og medregnes i klimaaftalerne i alle lande,
Arbejderen d. 22/1 - 2020
skriver Poul Eck Sørensen fra Esbjerg Fredsbevægelse.
Er du klar over, at USA's militær har et olieforbrug, der er mere end
dobbelt så stort som de cirka 257 millioner biler, der kører i USA?
(kilde: Brown University, Watson Institute (Costs of War Project).
Hvis klimakrisen skal løses, skal militæret i den grad også reducere sit CO2-udslip.
USA's magt er afhængig af adgangen til enorme olieressourcer. Derfor har
USA på en løgn angrebet Irak og overtaget olieproduktionen. Af hensyn
til beskyttelse fra USA støtter vi blindt USA og har dermed bidraget til
USA's overtagelse af olieproduktionen i Irak. Dette har gjort irakerne
fattigere og skabt et sønderbombet land med radioaktive områder.
I Venezuela ønsker USA at indsætte en præsident, der er uddannet i USA,
og som gerne vil lade olieproduktionen overgå til amerikanske firmaer.
Vi støtter også denne præsident, selv om han ikke er valgt, men vi
støtter jo USA af hensyn til os selv. Dette vil betyde, at de fattige i
Venezuela vil få det hårdt, men det bekymrer os ikke. Sanktionerne fra
august 2017 til august 2018 kostede Venezuela 8,4 milliarder dollars og
var direkte medvirkende til, at 40.000 mennesker mistede livet, blandt
andet på grund af mangel på medicin. USA “indefryser”/stjæler
venezuelanske værdier for 7 milliarder dollars.
Det er også derfor, USA ønsker et systemskifte i Iran. Det er ikke af
hensyn til demokratiet i Iran. Hvis USA udformede udenrigspolitikken
efter moralske værdier, havde USA ikke Saudi-Arabien som meget nær
allieret. USA truer virksomheder, der vil have økonomisk samkvem med
Iran, med ikke at kunne komme ind på det amerikanske marked, og vi gør
ikke noget.
NATO taler om, at Rusland er farlig, for at skabe grundlag for en øget
oprustning og styrke USA's vej til total dominans – et ønske, der
tydeligt kommer til udtryk i USA's genoptagelse af tanker om krig i
rummet, trods aftaler for rummet som et fredens område uden våben
underskrevet af mange lande i verden, blandt andre Rusland og Kina
(PAROS).
NATO taler om, at Rusland er farlig grundet annekteringen af Krim – et
område, som blev givet til Ukraine mod befolkningens ønsker, og som nu
tydeligt har stemt for at være en del af Rusland. Hvis denne handling er
udtryk for, at Rusland er farlig, hvad er Irak-krigen så udtryk for?
NATO har et militærbudget, der er cirka 14 gange større end Ruslands, så
russiske ledere ville være idioter, hvis de angreb NATO, men NATO har
brug for fjendebilleder for at få flere penge til militæret.
Dette enorme militære forbrug tager ressourcerne fra vedvarende energi,
social udvikling med mere og bringer os let i økonomisk krise.
Irakkrigen 2003 til 2007 kostede et astronomisk beløb og blev gennemført
for lånte penge. Finansverdenen lånte gerne Pentagon pengene – penge,
som den ikke havde. I 2007 fik vi så finanskrisen!
Et vigtigt land som USA medregner ikke militærets CO2-udledning.
Hvis vi vil have velfærd og en bæredygtig udvikling, skal vi have
nedrustning, konfliktløsning, og militærets enorme CO2-udledning skal
nedbringes kraftigt og medregnes i klimaaftalerne i alle lande.
Link til læserbrev
Sidens top
Løbeseddel fra KVINDER I SORT
d. 6/9 - 2019
Krig er foragt for liv,
fred er at skabe
Nej til dansk krigsdeltagelse
Kvinder i Sort for et bedre klima
B-52 Stratocruiser, en tung type bombefly med lang rækkevidde, bruger
ved normal flyvning 1.893 liter brændstof i minuttet. Til sammenligning
bruger F-16 Fighting Falcon 6.359 liter i timen.
En tank af typen M-1 Abram bruger 954 liter i timen. Til orientering er en tankdivision på 348 tanks.
På årsniveau var de CO2-udledninger i Irak, som forårsagedes af krige,
større end 139 landes udledning tilsammen. De enorme energi-mængder, som
anvendes i våbenindustrien og i oprustningen, indgår ikke i denne
vurdering.
Danmark har besluttet at købe 27 nye kampfly af typen F-35A til
erstatning for militærets nuværende F-16 fly. Indkøbsprisen vil være o.
20 milliarder danske kroner, medens totaludgifterne i flyenes levetid
beregnes til o. 56,4 milliarder – dette er Danmarkshistoriens største
våbenkøb.
Hvor meget brændstof forventes disse nye fly at bruge? Hvilken militær klimaforurening kan vi så forvente?
Kvinder i Sort, København, 6. september 2019
Kilder: Heikki Tervahattus, University of Helsinki
og ing.dk om køb af kampfly
Is Climate the Worst Casualty of War?
Common Dreams d. 31/7 - 2018
The money misspent on the Iraq War—a war for oil, let’s not forget—
could have purchased the planetary conversion to renewable energy. Just
sit with that a moment.
by Stacy Bannerman
...The Pentagon uses more petroleum per day than the aggregate
consumption of 175 countries (out of 210 in the world), and generates
more than 70 percent of this nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions,
based on rankings in the CIA World Factbook. “The U.S. Air Force burns
through 2.4 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, all of it derived from
oil,” reported an article in the Scientific American. Since the start of
the post-9/11 wars, U.S. military fuel consumption has averaged about
144 million barrels annually. That figure doesn’t include fuel used by
coalition forces, military contractors, or the massive amount of fossil
fuels burned in weapons manufacturing...
...
We simply cannot continue the moral, spiritual, fiscal, or
environmental policy of benign neglect that underwrites the decimation
of land, air, and water around the world. That, my green friends, is the
single most unsustainable policy on this nation’s books.
I know a lot of folks have decided not to speak out about war in
order to avoid being labeled a traitor, or accused of being
anti-military. If we learn nothing else—and it seems we have not—from
the Iraq War, we learn that silence is a luxury we cannot afford when
lives are on the line. The hands of the Doomsday Clock are two minutes
from midnight. Life itself is on the line. It is time to find your voice...
Læs hele artiklen
Sidens top
|
The Costs of War Project is a team of 50 scholars, legal experts,
human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in
2010. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about
the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the related
violence in Pakistan and Syria. There are many hidden or unacknowledged
costs of the United States’ decision to respond to the 9/11 attacks
with military force. We aim to foster democratic discussion of these
wars by providing the fullest possible account of their human, economic,
and political costs, and to foster better informed public policies.
Project Goals:
To account for and illustrate the wars’ costs in
human lives among all categories of person affected by them, both in the
US and in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan;
To tell as accessible as possible a story of the
wars’ costs in US federal and local dollars, including the long-term
financial legacy of the wars in the US;
To assess the public health consequences of the wars,
including for the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and for US veterans
living with war injuries and illnesses;
To describe how these wars have changed the political
landscape of the US and the countries where the wars have been waged,
including the status of women in the war zones, the degree to which Iraq
and Afghanistan’s fledgling democracies are inclusive and transparent,
and the state of civil liberties and human rights in the US;
To identify less costly and more effective ways to prevent further terror attacks.
Watson Institute
International & Public Affairs
Brown University
Link
Link til: Costs of war projekt
The U.S. Military's Contribution to Climate Change
Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War
Scientists and security analysts have warned for more than a decade that
global warming is a potential national security concern.
They project that the consequences of global warming – rising seas,
powerful storms, famine and diminished access to fresh water – may make
regions of the world politically unstable and prompt mass migration and
refugee crises.
Some worry that wars may follow.
Yet with few exceptions, the U.S. military’s significant contribution to
climate change has received little attention. Although the Defense
Department has significantly reduced its fossil fuel consumption since
the early 2000s, it remains the world’s single largest consumer of oil –
and as a result, one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters.
Link til websiden
Costs and Consequences of US Post-9/11 Wars:
Focus on Climate Change (64 min)
Video
Costs of War Project (6 min)
Video
Costs of War all papers
Link
Sidens top
Trygghet for hvem?
Om militære klimautslipp, krig som forretningsidé og veier til fred, av Åse Møller-Hansen.
Link til køb af hæftet
Link til hæftets indhold
sidens top
Forsvarsministeriets miljø- og energistrategi
2016-2020
...Forsvarsministeriet præsenterer her en samlet
strategi for indsatsen på klima-,
energi-, natur- og miljøområdet i perioden 2016-2020.
Med strategien viser vi, hvordan den
grønne omstilling kan ske på en effektiv
måde ved at lægge indsatsen, hvor det er mest relevant.
Både når det kommer til økonomisk og
miljømæssig bæredygtighed og på effekten i de opgaver, vi dagligt
løser...
Link
Forsvarsministeriets Klimaregnskab 2018
el - 23.000 t CO2
fly - 134.000 t CO2
tanks - 19.000 t CO2
Skibe - 92.000 t CO2
Bygninger- 53.000 t CO2
Tjenesterejser 11.500 t CO2
Køle- og slukningsmidler 9.000 t CO2
i alt 341.500 t CO2
Link
Det danske militær har altså ca. 1/4 af det Københavnskommune med 623.404 indb. har af CO2
AUGUST 2019
KØBENHAVNS KOMMUNE
CO2-REGNSKAB FOR 2018
KORTLÆGNING FOR KOMMUNEN SOM SAMFUND
Den samlede CO2-emission fra Københavns Kommune er for 2018 opgjort til
1.548.011 tons og kan fordeles på sektorer, som vist i Figur 2-1 og
Tabel 2-1. Den samlede emission fra Københavns Kommune som geografisk
område udgør derved 2,5 tons pr. indbygger ved et indbyggertal på
623.404 pr. 1. januar 2019.
Når man yderligere foretager en korrektion for VE (vedvarende energi)
(se afsnit 12), bliver den samlede CO2 emission fra Københavns Kommune
1.406.525 tons/år, svarende til en samlet udledning per borger i Kbh. på
2,3 tons.
Link
----------------------------------------------
Why the U.S. Military Is Losing Its Carbon-Emissions Exemption
The atlantic d. 15/12 - 2015
...The U.S. military and armed forces of countries around the world will
no longer be automatically exempted from emissions-cutting obligations
under the U.N. Paris climate deal.
Although the U.S. never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it won an opt-out
from having to fully report or act on its armed forces’ greenhouse-gas
emissions, which was then double-locked by a House national-defense
authorization bill in 1999.
Under the Paris agreement, countries would not be obliged to cut their
military emissions but, equally, there would be no automatic exemption
for them either.
U.S. officials privately say that the deal adopted on Saturday has no
provisions covering military compliance one way or another, leaving
decisions up to nation states as to which national sectors should make
emissions cuts before 2030...
...The Iraq war was responsible for 141 million metric tons of carbon
releases in its first four years, according to an Oil Change
International report. On an annual basis, this was more than the
emissions from 139 countries in this period, or about the same as
putting an extra 25 million cars onto U.S. roads for a year.
The paper found that projected U.S. spending on the Iraq war could cover
all global investments in renewable energy needed to halt
global-warming trends in the period to 2030...
læs hele artiklen
Global Warming and the Iraq War
Climate & Capitalism 19/3 2008
...Projected total US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the
global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between
now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends...
..In 2006. the US spent more on the war in Iraq than the whole world spent on investment in renewable energy...
...If the war were ranked as a country in terms of annual emissions, it
would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world’s nations do, more
than 60% of all countries on the planet...
Link til artiklen
|
