The meeting of NATO leaders in Buckingham Palace has got me to thinking… how much of an effect do huge military concerns like NATO have on climate change?

Are the facts behind this correct?

Fact #1: The U.S. military creates more carbon emissions than most entire countries do.

In fact, it's the single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. (2/8)

— Institute for Policy Studies (@IPS_DC) September 23, 2019

What kind of carbon footprint do NATO’s operations and supply chain have?

Has anything like this ever been mentioned on TV or Radio News and if not, why…

It has been mentioned, because I’d already heard of it.

Where?

why…

Because financing the military and it’s large operations from the public purse puts a significant amount of profit into private hands. Those same hands then donate to the very polititians that decide such policy in the first place and both are protected by a media that also benefits from the same.

What kind of carbon footprint do NATO’s operations and supply chain have?

Given the cost of these military exercises it must be huge.

Last year, 17,500 American troops and more than 50,000 South Korean troops joined the Freedom Guardian drills, though the exercise is mostly focused on computerized simulations rather than field exercises.

Forces from Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Britain also participated.

The $14 million price tag compares with a recent contract awarded to Boeing Co for nearly $24 million for two refrigerators to store food aboard Air Force One, the presidential plane. The contract has since been cancelled due to possible delivery of an updated Air Force One aircraft.

The U.S. military has a budget of nearly $700 billion this year.

^^^ That’s obscene – one is minded to recall the words of Bill Hicks.

Often seems like the kind of subject that most folk are too scared to talk about…

Bit of a shame, as not much’ll change (apart from the whole destruction of the planet thing) if it carries on like that

The UK spent a shit-tonne on two new aircraft carriers, of which only one will ever be used and then had to stump up another shit-tonne for the planes to fly off them/it, which are more expensive than they could be because of the compromises of the carrier platform. Then, a third shit-tonne later, they have a reduced number of air defence ships that keep breaking down in warm water requiring shit-tonnes of money to fix.

Anyway, enough ranting about the Navy, I’m out of that fight now, so it’s not fair to get into it again.

Suffice to say defence spending is a huge money-spinner for the contractors providing the materiel and support. They know countries will pay, so they can do what the hell they want. It’s not their fault, they are just corporations doing what business does. They are just in a market where the people with the requirements are making decisions have no idea of what ‘value for money’ is.

So, climate change… Armies, navies, air forces need to exercise, if you don’t train, you can’t fight effectively and the defence of the realm is the number one priority of any government. Training takes fuel and the machines that are used are not chosen for their economy. Take a Landrover. It’s never been the most efficient thing in the world, but slap some basic armour on it, add a weapons mount kit and suddenly it’s into single figure mpg. The further you fight/train away from your supply bases, the more you need to transfer supplies to them, taking fuel, water, etc. It’s a vicious circle.

Trying to reduce CO2 in that is tough. You can reduce training, but that reduces your army’s effectiveness, makes your pilots worse. In war, it means you move less and sacrifice initiative.

There is a study somewhere that looked at the costs of maintaining air conditioned tents in Afghanistan and the associated logistics

the numbers were horrific

Yup, AFG was a nightmare for things like that. Diesel and fuel had to be trucked in from Pakistan, which is a huge undertaking and leaves the supply lines very open to attack. The same with bombs and other ammunition.

It’s a crap place to fight a war.

When it comes down to it, beyond all the propaganda about bombing for peace and stabilizing countries by flooding them with weapons, how much of NATO’s business is about securing oil reserves?

Shame that JHJ isn’t still here. He would have been interested in this.

Would it be worth doing a search, to find out more about whoever it is you keep banging on about?

Oh, and give my regards to Daniel Finkelstein and chums…

Their carbon footprint will be horrific, but there are compelling reasons for the military to reduce this, and I’m sure they are working on this, just not for any altruistic reason. For example, if your bomber can fly further on a single load of fuel, or with fewer air to air refuels, then you’ll be able to strike your enemy further away. If your tank can travel further without refuelling then it won’t have to stop as often thus making itself vulnerable to enemy attack.

The idea that the military don’t care about these things is fanciful – they do, but just for different reasons!

Phew, very reassuring…

Also, nice to have such sneaky criminals keen minds looking out for us as part of the democratic process

Dominic Cummings pictured inside Nato summit despite No10 saying he resigned from government for the election | The Independent https://t.co/H9N4JWbRJW

— Leo Chapel (@chapel_leo) December 4, 2019

The Institute For Policy Studies said:
“If you hadn’t noticed from the global #climatestrike, the planet needs saving.”

Hmmm… I would proffer that the Planet is very capable of looking after itself, it did so without our intervention for a couple of billion years.

Perhaps the ‘Institute’ is encouraged to change its stance to say:
“If you hadn’t noticed from the global #climatestrike, the planet needs saving from humanity”

For starters anyway…

I want to see how the military can function without carbon footprint 😃

Let’s see who will come up with the first battery powered fighter jets vs the traditional fuelled jets. 🤔

It’s not their fault, they are just corporations doing what business does

So their fault then, basically.

The $14 million price tag compares with a recent contract awarded to Boeing Co for nearly $24 million for two refrigerators to store food aboard Air Force One, the presidential plane.

$24 million would buy a couple of fridges from Currys, delivery and installation and still leave you $23.99 million in change.

I should have gone into military contract work!

timbog160

Subscriber

Their carbon footprint will be horrific, but there are compelling reasons for the military to reduce this, and I’m sure they are working on this, just not for any altruistic reason. For example, if your bomber can fly further on a single load of fuel, or with fewer air to air refuels, then you’ll be able to strike your enemy further away. If your tank can travel further without refuelling then it won’t have to stop as often thus making itself vulnerable to enemy attack.

Not even close to the biggest impact tbh. The real reason- desertification, crop failure, sea level rises and loss of access to fresh water will cause wars the like of which we don’t know how to fight any more. The best way to save money on the military is not to have to fight the next war.

The joint chiefs usually seem to take climate change more seriously than the entire rest of the US government put together.

It’s rare you hear of the military wanting less money…

Can we expect a David Attenborough documentary alerting taxpayers to the consequences of their actions?

Surely another world war would kill so many people it would be a big plus for the planet?

Bit of a moral dilemma that… kill people because they’re using too much fossil fuel

However, the war that kills them is backed by fossil fuel and aviation companies and consumes vast amounts of fossil fuels, along with a wealth of other resources.

🤔