The single entity most responsible for destabilizing the Earth’s climate.

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/14-1

Published on Monday, June 14, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

Greenwashing the Pentagon
by Joseph Nevins

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.

<snip>

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)

..more..


(1) http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
(2) http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/ebg031010.html
(3) http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=58542&category=919
(4) http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=e5958550-b227-43be-a55d-b0ed7c8d2153
(5) http://www.deloitte.com/us/aerospacedefense/energysecurity
(6) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving
(7) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects

[tekisui]

1. KNR!

[panader0]

2. rec'd

[DemReadingDU]

3. typo in link

correct link
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/14-1


edit - I always wondered how much oil was used by the military, Pentagon. Wow.
I think we should start there first, to cut back on the usage of oil.

[G_j]

4. thank you, fixed

[azul]

5. Conflicts of interest.

They are not really wars.

[Wounded Bear]

6. I know why conservatives love war....

It's the only thing left they can do without passing an environmental impact statement.

[jaksavage]

7. Share this

near and far.

[G_j]

8. THE Elephant in the room,

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199


The US military oil consumption
by Sohbet Karbuz

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world

“Military fuel consumption makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S”

“Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the DoD the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S”

According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.

By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece.

The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.

In 1999 Almanac edition of the Defense Logistic Agency’s news magazine Dimensions it was stated that the DESC “purchases more light refined petroleum product than any other single organization or country in the world. With a $3.5 billion annual budget, DESC procures nearly 100 million barrels of petroleum products each year. That's enough fuel for 1,000 cars to drive around the world 4,620 times.”

..more..



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN20416568



FACTBOX-US military fuel spending
Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:58pm EDT

U.S. military fuel consumption dwarfs energy demand in many countries around the world, adding up to nearly double the fuel use in Ireland and 20 times more than that of Iceland, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

From the start of the Iraq war in 2003 up till 2007, U.S. military fuel consumption has slipped by about 10 percent, but costs more than doubled due surging oil prices.

Following are the latest figures on the cost and amounts of fuel purchased by the U.S. military over the course of the Iraq war:

U.S. MILITARY FUEL SPENDING:^

2003: $ 5.21 billion

2007: $12.61 billion

Percentage increase: 142 percent

U.S MILITARY FUEL CONSUMPTION

2003: 145.1 million barrels

(397,500 barrels per day)

2007: 132.5 million barrels

(363,000 barrels per day)

Percentage change: -9.5 percent

2007 U.S. MILITARY FUEL CONSUMPTION EQUALS

- 90 percent more than Ireland's annual consumption

- 38 percent more than Israel's annual consumption

- 20 times Iceland's annual consumption

- 1.7 percent of U.S. annual consumption

AVERAGE ESTIMATED CRUDE OIL PRICE PER BARREL:

2003: $32.50

2007: $72.50

CRUDE OIL PRICE CHANGE SINCE BEGINNING OF IRAQ WAR:

March 19, 2003: $ 29.88*

March 19, 2008: $103.25*

Percentage increase: 245 percent


<snip>

[KamaAina]

14. In that case, shouldn't it have its own refineries?

National security and whatnot, y'know.

Oh, right. Where would the profit be for Big Oil? :sarcasm:

[amborin]

9. K&R

[Downtown Hound]

10. But, but, but, the military protects my freedoms!

Or so I keep hearing. And to even question this is tantamount to blasphemy in many circles. Nah, we don't live in a fascist country.

[dotymed]

46. No doubt.

The reason for the military is to increase wealth for the wealthy. Defense is one thing we have not done in many decades, yet we (the people, not the wealthy) spend 15x MORE than ALL OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED, on our military. We have waay over 10% unemployment and most of those jobs pay a fraction of what they did 30 years ago, with no benefits. I"M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN, WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE.....lol... the decline of an empire ain't pretty...or necessary, except for GREED.

[Spheric]

11. K&R /nt

[scarletwoman]

12. K&R - as soon as I saw your subject line I knew what the answer would be before I clicked on it.

Insanity rules.

[The_Commonist]

13. Yep, I did too.

The Military/Industrial/Media Complex must be stopped.

[democrank]

15. K & R

[Butch350]

16. So...we should get rid of the military establishment?

Gooood luck on that one. But I feel your pain though.

[G_j]

25. it's not just mine, nt

[defendandprotect]

32. Corporate MIC . . . ??? Should we??? Hell, YES!!

[maryf]

17. K&R nt

[bobbolink]

22. See, Mary---this PROVES that raising the gas tax and hurting poor folk will solve the problem.

A higher gas tax will definitely make the military conserve gas.

:silly:

[maryf]

31. those 5 mile a gallon

hummers will help them do it!

[defendandprotect]

33. +1000% --

[laughingliberal]

18. K & R nt

[matt819]

19. I half expected it to be Walmart (nt)

[Raster]

20. Does the Pentagon exist to serve the Republic, or does the Republic exist to serve the Pentagon?

The Military/Industrial Complex and the Texas-American Petroleum Mafia are symbiotic partners in crime--neither can live without the other. And both have hijacked the government of the United States and hold it's people hostage.

[bobbolink]

21. But, but, but.... all we have to do is raise the gas tax, and all will be solved. Poor people will

suffer but it will all be worth it, because the increased gas tax will FORCE the military to cut back consumption.

:crazy:

[farmbo]

23. Sorry to be the skunk at the garden party...but the USAF is on the verge...

... of a huge Green breakthrough:


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/cost-competitive-algae-jet-fuel.php

Suzanne Goldberg over at The Guardian tells us that Pentagon researchers are claiming they are only months away from producing jet fuel from algae that is cost competitive with its fossil fuel counterpart.

Given that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa)—the department responsible for this project—previously played a key roll in developing both the internet and satellite navigation systems, this could for once be much more than just hot air. In fact, says Goldberg, this is an innovation that could have huge implications for global transportation:

"Darpa's research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa. That could turn a promising technology into a ­market-ready one. Researchers have cracked the problem of turning pond scum and seaweed into fuel, but finding a cost-effective method of mass production could be a game-changer."

Of course there were recent reports that algae biofuels may not be as green as they seem—but that particular study seemed to be based on some pretty astoundingly worst-case scenarios. With the potential to locate algae biofuel production to soak up power-station emissions, or waste-water runoff, algae holds some significant promise as a biofuel feedstock—especially when compared to corn ethanol or palm oil biodiesel.

<snip>
Their goal: to fuel 50% of their fleet with renewables by 2020... and 100% thereafter.

They believe (correctly) that our use of fossil fuels is a National Security Issue.

[defendandprotect]

29. A bit late for Global Warming .... and not quite solar, but a lot of algae washing up in Gulf -- ?

Time to end this militarism -- MIC --

and, btw, evidently we could save 28% on our military budget if we combined our services.

Seems most other countries have done that.

We seem to have ego problems -- what a surprise!

[dotymed]

47. Next

They have to give this technology to a wealthy corporation so they can double-charge for it (profit!!). Of course the process has to be outsourced to India (China..etc..) for more PROFITS and to keep the poor, poor.

[LWolf]

24. k&r

[Desertrose]

26. K&R

[MrScorpio]

27. Excellent OP K&R

[defendandprotect]

28. "need to challenge war and militarism—especially in terms of the US" ....

the need to challenge war and militarism—especially in terms of the United States—becomes ever-more pressing

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.

If there were any real justice in the world, the US would be being held accountable for its

genocide vs native American -- and its "compromise" with slavery in our Constitution --

as the RCC would be being held for its role in both.

And US for its imperialism and violence all over the world -- still being spread and

still not being stopped!!

[H2O Man]

30. Recommended.

Powerful.

Thanks.

[patrice]

34. This proves that we did this to the Gulf of Mexico. BP was our weapon.

[autorank]

35. k*r Fine work!!! n/t

[nannah]

36. wow, what an intense, diabolical, symbiotic connection

it would be interesting to see the connection portrayed by graphics reflecting immensity of network of interdependence.

[Radical Activist]

37. Wrong. Coal is the leading source of man-made global warming pollution.

There's not a word about coal use by the military. The opinion piece would be much stronger if he had not overstated his case at the beginning.

[readmoreoften]

42. Wrong. It's not an "overstatement". The US military is the most polluting entity on the planet

outside of whole nations. Do you think the military doesn't use energy generated by coal?

[Radical Activist]

49. The statement is about destablizing climate, not pollution in general.

Coal power is the number one source of global warming pollution. The article inaccurately let's coal off the hook. I agree with what the writer is trying to get across but it doesn't help make his point by misinforming people about the worst sources of CO2 pollution. The military uses less coal power than many companies, such as Walmart.

[bertman]

38. K & R. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. commercial airlines

[Martin Eden]

40. You seem to forget that we need our military ...

... to secure the oil that fuels our SUV's and pickup trucks. :sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

41. In short, if you care about the environment, you must fight to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

and reduce the size of the US military period. Consumer activism is a spit in the bucket. It is beyond blind to "support" US military interventions in the middle east and think you're doing the real legwork of environmentalism by recycling.

Thank you for doing the legwork on this post. According to the academic research circle Concerned Philosophers for Peace, every hour an F-15 flies, it's equivalent to 17520 families driving. And there are over a thousand in use of that aircraft alone.

[truedelphi]

43. Thank you for this informative post.

We can not really get rid of the military, can we?

Well, I think we better as if we do not the military will get rid of us!

[Canuckistanian]

44. K&R

Excellent article, excellent point.

[LawnKorn]

45. K&R

[blindpig]

48. The military is a vital component of the Capitalist economy.

Not only the enforcing muscle it is an enormous cash cow.

Reduce military spending by 90%, use that labor and productive capability for the benefit of the people.

Kill Capitalism

[RedCloud]

50. Where I live noisy ass jets dump excess fuel all the time...

They also do what I call buzz bomb houses "fly too close".