NATO fully responsible for destroying our one and only habitat

“Here’s the awful truth: even if every person, every automobile, and every factory suddenly emitted zero emissions, the earth would still be headed—head first and at full speed—toward total disaster for one major reason: the US military.” Professor Barry Sanders, author The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism

Links to all resources are at the bottom of this post, and I will quote some essential parts and conclusions, to make you understand why I’m even posting this (explaining why blaming NATO is valid and appropriate).

If governments truly want to avoid crop failures, climate tipping points, insect apocalypse, disruption of equilibrium, truly want to avert global warming, environmental collapse, sea level rise, ocean acidification, or truly want to fight air pollution, plastic/chemical/nuclear waste problems or -in short- if they want to save humanity from extinction;
NATO memberstates would have *ended all wars* in a heartbeat, dismantled military bases, forbidden arms manufacturing, bomb testing and transportation; According to multiple (independent) studies dismantling most of NATO a.s.a.p. could reverse global warming within a decade, provided the phasing out of fossil fuels continues exponentially (as it currently does, in 2024).

“While China and Russia have a limited military presence with 4 and 8 foreign land-bases respectively, the USA operates 87, the UK 17, and France 13 foreign bases. Based solely on the extent of land occupation, NATO has -by far- the largest negative ecological impact of any global conglomerate. This assessment does not account for the environmental damage caused by bomb strikes, where NATO has surpassed every other possible contender or corporation over the past 40 years. This does not even include impacts of production stages in the weapons manufacturing industry.”

“When studying weapons manufacturers and its direct sponsors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Analytic Services, Huntington Ingalls, Humana, BAE Systems, L3 Harris, Airbus, Babcock International, Bechtel, Draper, Honeywell International, Jacobs Solutions, Leidos, Leonardo, Peraton, Rolls-Royce, RTX, Safran, Thales), each of those is using more energy and emitting more from fossil fuels than any of the other non-defense manufacturers by comparison per product of similar size and weight. On average Chinese, Russian, Korean and Iranian contenders are not only more efficient, they have severely reduced energy use and a really low carbon emission footprint when compared to NATO-based manufacturers, out of sheer necessity”

“It is NATO that is dangerously diverting our attention and resources to war and away from the grave threat of global warming.”

“A rapid reduction of greenhouse gases and a robust green new deal are not possible with rising military emissions and expenditures. We must work peacefully and cooperatively through the UN system with Russia, China and the entire international community on solving our common security challenge — averting catastrophic climate change.”

“The environmental impacts of the war in Gaza are unprecedented, according to a preliminary assessment published today by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), exposing the community to rapidly growing soil, water and air pollution and risks of irreversible damage to its natural ecosystems.”

“The U.S. military started using glyphosate in eight products under three basic names: RoundUp©, QuickPro©, and Rodeo/Aquamaster©. QuickPro© is a dry formula and Rodeo/Aquamaster© kills weeds at water lines such as next to lakes, rivers, etc. All three products, as well as their variations, are currently listed on the Armed Force Pest Management Board Standard Pesticides List.”

“The US military is the world’s largest single institutional producer of greenhouse gases, Professor Crawford found. Between 1975 and 2022, its emissions averaged 81 million metric tons of greenhouse hydrocarbons a year – more than most countries. After it reduced operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, its emissions dropped to an annual average of 51 million metric tons, a level that still poses more risk to human existence than most military conflicts. ‘The Pentagon looks at the world in terms of threats but doesn’t see its own emissions as part of the problem,’”

“For the next five years, if NATO members increase their spending to 2% GDP, US$2.57 trillion will be diverted away from climate spending by 2028. This would be enough to pay for climate adaptation costs for all low- and middle-income countries for seven years.”

In 2023 this was spent on nuclear weapons expansion (note that France and the UK are also NATO members).
Despite green and climate aware talks by most NATO-memberstate politicians, there are still nuke tests being performed on a regular basis, be it smaller ones than decades ago. It’s not like this is without consequences for earth’s biosphere, quite the opposite in fact; Just 1 average nuclear weapons test runs into 100000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent when considering all stages from resource extraction, Uranium Mining and Milling, to clearing land or ocean, construction and aftermath management.

“From the ecological point of view, at this stage, there are a few critically contaminated test sites both on land (the Nevada Test Site, Semipalatinsk) and in the marine environment (especially the Bikini, Enewetak, Moruroa, Fangataufa atolls, and Novaya Zemlya marine areas). 137 Cs, 90 Sr, 239–240 Pu, 241 Am, and 131 I stand out among the radioactive isotopes released during nuclear tests, in terms of having caused a major impact on the environment and irradiation of the human body; these isotopes were predominantly found in most of the nuclear test sites worldwide. Since approximately two thirds of the Globe’s surface is covered by water, a significant share of these radionuclides has been transferred into the marine environment, as in the cases of radionuclides 137 Cs and 90 Sr, with negative consequences being primarily related to the bioaccumulation through food chain cycles”

“After the US reduced operations in Iraq and Afghanistan” meant both Iraq & Afghanistan have become disastrously more sensitive to ecological stresses, flooding, drought, crop-failures, desertification, prone to resource-shortages/fights, barren land, and a humongous nearly impossible task to rebuild and restore crops, industry, transportation, food and energy distribution etc. Just the restoration after each ‘war’ has ended entails such an enormous global warming potential you would want to consider that fact *beforehand* (i.e. NOT EVER START your stupid useless wars). That is, *if* your intentions are to ensure humanity can exist in the near-term future of planet earth. People then immediately respond with “yes, but look what Russia has done to Ukraine”, well, in reality that damage is rather limited compared to what, for example, has been done to the Gaza-strip more recently, plus, not to mention the ecocide in Ukraine that preceded 2022 was actually caused with help from and weapons provided by NATO-members.

Conclusion: Not muslims, islam, communism, China, Pakistan, Korea, Venezuela, Brazil, Iran, Russia, but the US/UK NATO war machine is what is ruining life on our precious planet. I think it is about time we start naming names and stop beating around the bush; The actual culprit in climate change is NATO, not if you drive Electric or not, not if we recycle plastics or not, not if we eat meat or not. We can do everything we want to save our biosphere, but just one bomb test would ruin all the work we’ve put years of our lives in, in one go. (Professor Barry Sanders)

Leave a Reply