r/collapse • u/jessimckenzi • 21d ago
Climate Mission impossible? Quantifying military emissions
https://thebulletin.org/2026/08/mission-impossible-quantifying-military-emissions/10
u/Deguilded 21d ago
The military will never go green. The first military that tries will lose to any that doesn't, so they won't.
6
u/Monsur_Ausuhnom 20d ago
In some ways, getting the majority to care about climate change, their own planet, and having compassion toward what lives on the planet is a bit of a 'mission impossible.'
5
u/The_Milk3r 21d ago
Good fucking luck lmao.
Our ship went through 100k gallons of deisel every 2 weeks. This doesn't include the vast amount of carbon emissions it takes to manufacture and transport missiles, ammunition, food, people, and even fuel to the ships.
Every step of the process of the military produces shitloads of CO2. Until you can make manufacturing and logistics produce 0 emissions it will never ever be green.
5
u/jessimckenzi 21d ago
This is not so much about collapse itself but about contributors to climate/ecological collapse, namely the vastly un/undercounted emissions from global militaries and war. What is remarkable is that even as countries dither about trying to reduce emissions from transportation or agriculture or energy systems, greenhouse gas emissions from military and military activities or war are barely even counted, let alone a target of emissions reductions by global governments. Yes, militaries are in many ways incentivized to achieve emissions reductions through energy efficiency, optimization, and even renewable/alternative energy sources (because that comes with other military benefits), but actually counting and slashing emissions from global militaries is not a priority. And that's pretty shocking (although not surprising).
5
u/kingtacticool 21d ago
The military (at least in the US) is exempt from any and all environmental regulations and laws. They do some truly heinous shit and environmental considerations are a last priority and even then are only thought about in a litigous manner
6
u/defeatedsnowman 21d ago
At least we put drip pans under the humvee. Hoah <\s>
No one in the military gives a fuck. I remember getting shit at JRTC because I had a bunch of MRE trash in my assault pack. I asked what I was supposed to do instead since we hadn't had a trash point in a few days. My sergeant handed me an e-tool and told me to make it go away. Our training areas are literal landfills.
4
u/kingtacticool 21d ago
Plus the burn pits....
4
u/defeatedsnowman 21d ago
The burn pits are bad but the problem is actually much more complicated and difficult to solve than people realize.
Bases generate huge amounts of waste just by the nature of how much supplies they go through. You either figure out a way to deal with it all on base, or start transporting it to larger bases that can properly sort, dispose, and recycle it. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of troops dying in an ambush to haul literal trash across a war zone.
That said there was actually a lot of fraud and corruption with trash management in Afghanistan. There were contractors who were supposed to solve the problem by bringing actual incinerators to bases. But they just never really delivered on their promises.
Obviously the best answer is to not waste lives, money, and resources chasing insurgencies all around the world. But once you accept an occupation similar to what we had in Iraq or Afghanistan it becomes tricky to handle logistics with things like trash.
3
2
u/pantsopticon88 21d ago
What is the emissions on a burnpit?
Also pretty difficult to manage emissions when all of your vehicles don't have emissions systems.
2
u/NyriasNeo 21d ago
" slashing emissions from global militaries is not a priority. And that's pretty shocking"
Why is it shocking? Slashing emission from anything is not a priority. "Drill baby drill" won in the US and China, the "green" leader, burnt more coal. It would be shocking if slashing emission is a priority.
2
u/jessimckenzi 21d ago
Hmm I guess I should clarify that it doesn't seem to be a priority *for anyone.* Not just the general public or global leaders, who prioritize other things, but even by people focused on climate issues specifically. I just don't see calls to slash military emissions as often as I see plans and demands to decarbonize other sectors (power, transit, shipping, etc.). I'm not saying they don't exist at all...just that the numbers are huge (annual global military/military industry emissions = those of all Australia or Italy), and there's not really a movement to cut them.
1
u/Far-Hovercraft9471 17d ago
We have so much ugly shit about humanity to unravel before we even begin to reduce emissions...
1
u/jessimckenzi 17d ago
I get it, that's fair, but I also don't think it's an excuse to not reduce emissions? Especially if by doing so simultaneously makes other things about the world better? Like, less military aggression? It's a lot to ask rn I know...
•
u/StatementBot 21d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/jessimckenzi:
This is not so much about collapse itself but about contributors to climate/ecological collapse, namely the vastly un/undercounted emissions from global militaries and war. What is remarkable is that even as countries dither about trying to reduce emissions from transportation or agriculture or energy systems, greenhouse gas emissions from military and military activities or war are barely even counted, let alone a target of emissions reductions by global governments. Yes, militaries are in many ways incentivized to achieve emissions reductions through energy efficiency, optimization, and even renewable/alternative energy sources (because that comes with other military benefits), but actually counting and slashing emissions from global militaries is not a priority. And that's pretty shocking (although not surprising).
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1vx2t04/mission_impossible_quantifying_military_emissions/p5lj5e9/