This morning I was locked out of my San Francisco office building for half an hour waiting for someone to come up the elevator with the key. I work for the Energy Action Coalition, sharing space in the Global Exchange headquarters. After fumbling in the dark looking for a light switch and thinking about why nobody was in the office a few minutes before nine, I remembered that the GX staff were going to some lecture in the Women’s Building three blocks away this morning. Since I had a few minutes to kill, I decided to pick up some of the publications sitting in the reception area. There was a one-pager on their Speakers Bureau, consisting almost entirely of military veterans now opposing the war in Iraq, a document on ways to resist the U.S. military occupation of Iraq from home, and a column in their most recent newsletter about Congress’ recent stand for a timeline for troop withdrawal. When someone finally came up the elevator and unlocked the door, I made it back to my desk and hopped on the computer for a little research.
War is heavy, so before reading the rest of this post, take another look at last year’s Yes Men prank on Halliburton.
I Googled “Iraq greenhouse gases” and found this fascinating article from ZNet, “What’s Possible in the Military Sector: Greater than 100% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases”. The article argues that the military is the only sector of the U.S. economy where greenhouse gases can be reduced by more than 100% because it’s primary purpose is destruction. While I’m still scratching my head as to how you could possibly reduce what you’re doing by more than completely, there are some interesting points in the article. For example, some of the most important recent works on climate change by George Monbiot and Lester Brown do not mention the impact of the military sector or the vast potential for emissions reduction, instead focusing on other commercial, industrial, and social activities. When you look at the strong correlation between high percentage of GDP and high greenhouse gas emissions, and consider that the military sector accounts for almost 10% of the U.S. economy, according to this article, it’s clearly important to take a closer look.
According to their own report, the Department of Defense produced 75% of the U.S. government’s greenhouse gas emissions back in 1996. Who knows what it is now. I’ve been having some difficulty finding out exactly how large the DoD’s climate footprint is. I did find some other good resources on the subject however:
Global Warming and Global War
Environmentalists Against the War
SEAC’s Militarism and the Environment Campaign
Ten Reasons why Environmentalists Oppose the Attack on Iraq (Released on February 23, 2003)
1. The attack on Iraq could kill thousands of people. Most of the people killed would be innocent civilians.2. War destroys human settlements and native habitats. War destroys wildlife and contaminates the land, air and water. The damage can last for generations.
3. US clusterbombs, thermobaric explosions, electromagnetic bursts and weapons made with depleted uranium are indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.
4. Bombs pollute, poisoning the land with unexploded shells and toxic chemicals. Bombs can’t locate or neatly destroy hidden chemical or biological weapons (CBW), but they can cause the uncontrolled spread of deadly CBW agents.
5. Fighting a war for oil is ultimately self-defeating.
6. Pre-emptive attacks are acts of aggression.
7. Aggression invites retaliation.
8. Increased military spending (to control access to the fuel that powers our oil-based economy) drains funds from critical social, educational, medical and environmental needs.
9. Militarization and the war on terrorism are eroding America’s freedoms at home.
10. The US has threatened to strike Iraq with nuclear weapons – the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.
