Home | About | Donate

Is Climate the Worst Casualty of War?


#1

Is Climate the Worst Casualty of War?

Stacy Bannerman

How do you clear a room of climate activists? Start talking about war. It’s not just environmentalists that leave; it’s pretty much everyone. Mission accomplished by the Bush Administration, which sent the military and their families to war and the rest of the country to an amusement park. The military-civilian divide has been called an “epidemic of disconnection.” But the biosphere doesn’t see uniforms, and the environmental devastation caused by bombs, burn pits, and depleted uranium cannot be contained to a combat zone.


#2

Greens are working for peace. Democrats are partners in war.

Nonvoters clearly see the history of war lust by democrats and republicans. That is one reason they avoid voting.

Independent green socialists work for healing Earth with human rights. Register and write in None of the Above if you don’t have a green candidate. Throw a monkey wrench in the war machine. Register and then vote green.


#3

I’m sure the status quo apologists will be along to tell us that at least Obama signed us on to the Paris Accords.

That was the year he dropped 26,000 bombs on 7 countries.

We’re 50 years from rebranding climate change into climate chaos and those that worship at the altar of low expectations still tell us to ‘pragmatically’ pursue incrementalism. Meanwhile, climate scientists rejigger their predictions to account for how much they underestimated the damage and how soon it’ll happen. Look around, man: It’s already happening.


#4

The global knob twisters who constantly seek to engineer societies, economies, alliances, etc. sans regard to the planet are so fucking arrogant and ignorant simultaneously. Malthus might have been premature and even chosen the “wrong” issue with which to be concerned, but he was in principle correct. Family planning for the family of man and all life on earth needs an overhaul, replete with guillotines.


#5

Efforts to reduce military greenhouse gas emissions probably have to be largely similar to those for non-military. Military buildings need to be made more energy efficient. Where possible electric vehicles should be used. Electricity generated for military facilities should come from renewable energy. I believe Obama ordered the Pentagon to reduce its emissions. With Trump in charge there isn’t much that can be done. He claims climate change is hoax devised by the Chinese. So essentially Trump is out of reality. To reduce emissions the focus has to be on state and local governments. That is where many people are working hard to reduce emissions and where efforts can be most effective until a president is elected who realizes climate change is not a hoax but a real existential threat.


#6

Only in a sick, twisted, war-mongering country like this would being anti-war make one a traitor and, yes, I’ve been called a traitor many times over the years, then. It’s a label I wear proudly in this country, though. Thank-you, Stacy Bannerman. We have far too few voices such as yours.

My concern, at this point, is that there is remarkably little anti-war sentiment in the current Sanders-inspired progressive movement. The focus has been almost entirely on domestic issues. Sanders, himself, was quick to assure all the Democrats in one of his debates with Clinton that he was no pacifist. He said “pacifist” like it was a dirty word, in fact. He also stated in a debate that he fully supported Obama’s latest troop surge in Afghanistan.

Any resistance movement that fails to address the issue of war and our obscene military spending is nothing more than a dog chasing it’s tail. It’s a political exercise in a moral vacuum. You can’t be for empowering people and defending the environment at home while working with any political party that participates in destroying people and the environment, abroad. Make excuses 'till you’re blue in the face, but a vote for any Democrat is a vote for war and more environmental destruction.


#7

Thanks to Stacy Bannerman taking on the two greatest issues of our time – climate change and U.S.-based militarism – and defining their relationshipso clearly. The simple fact that the costs of the ongoing US-led and funded slaughters could have paid for a global transition to sustainability is a telling piece of real journalism.

The new “Blue Wave” politicians are going to have to make a decision soon: are they going to remain part of the Dim wing of the Duopoly and be part of the problem – or are they going to break away from U.S.-based global imperialism?

There is no “middle ground” here. It is an existential issue for the human species and many others.


#8

After the Vietnam war the Pentagon decided it must never again run the risk of the US population becoming Anti-war. They allocated hundreds of dollars to hire firms to work on CONDITIONING the US Population to support the military. Prior to this, just as example, Football players would stay in the dressing room during the National Anthem.

The phrase “Support our troops” came into common usage. The Military gave professional sports franchises $$$ to have “support the troops” days. Recognizing that there were always going to be people opposed to war , it was decided that part of the conditioning would be things like "Yes you can be opposed to war but that does not mean you should not “support the troops”.

The reluctance of people to disparage anything Military is a CONDITIONED response. It every bit being brainwashed as the peoples of North Korea Claimed to be when they refuse to say anything bad about their esteemed leader.

At the end of the day you can not both “support the troops” and be anti-war.


#9

“The Pentagon uses more petroleum per day than the aggregate consumption of 175 countries (out of 210 in the world), and generates more than 70 percent of this nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions, based on rankings in the CIA World Factbook.”

That 70 percent must be a typo or something. Perhaps it should be 7 percent or more like 0.7 percent. Just common sense tells you that 320 million people with an annual per capita average emissions of about 16 tons CO2 are going to generate a lot more emissions the a million people in the military. And a large percentage of emissions from the military are not even generated in the US.


#10

Meant hundreds of MILLIONS.


#11

To me personally they are one and the same. I support the troops by being against the wars that pointlessly send them to their deaths.


#12

The problem is this.

Historically the USA has rarely been in wars that were not pointless other then lining the pockets of the 1 percent. The USA has not been threatened with invasion for over 100 years. This translates to “Join the US Military and you WILL enter into wars of aggression”.


#13

Although aware of propaganda so much so that I have not owned or viewed television for decades your post has reawakened my thoughts on conditioning.

And a comment on how to clear a room when the topic of war is introduced. In a local library readers group I suggested that we discuss books on war. The group never met again. I set off a bomb there and then. Oh boy


#14

Wonderful and potent read. Thank you.


#15

One thing that always struck me was this.

5 people are in ill health and sleeping under a bridge begging for change for their next meal.

Why is it that it only becomes shameful if one of those 5 a “veteran” ? Is someone who worked at Walmart rather then having joined the Military of less value and if so why?


#16

Having not done any research on this question, I will guess that it is the media who are swaying the issue here and they do almost always. But if I talked with many observant folks and asked their thoughts as you stated what would the result bring after some discussion ? So perhaps there are two considerations. Why do we let the media get to have the last say. And how many of us are able to bring important issues to public debate and do we have an avenue for public debate other than here and there on this medium the internet?


#17

The power of the internet is that ideas can be exchanged. The problem with traditional media like Television is people can only RECEIVE information, it in essence pushed down. As far as the internet goes we are much more equal.

The evolution of the Internet threatens those in power and it why they try and restrict it and it why they monitor and catalog everything we say here. Things like FACEbook are a very deliberate attempt to control and direct the dialogue even as it gathers information on the people that use it.


#18

Any intelligent discourse threatens those in power so of course the powerful are determined to squash education and now free exchange on the internet. As the National Security State develops more ways to control the populace news communication methods will be needed. Not all of us are IT savvy enough to bypass being spied on.


#19

Probably the most obnoxious part of this is the constant barrage of advertising on TV which is designed to make boot camp look like some sort of Happy Camp and being in the military as a way to achieve personal fulfillment and all your dreams. Then there are the equally disgusting ones which show soldiers going about the business of soldiering while the announcer claims they are “protecting the American Way of Life.”

God, what bullshit!!!

A more honest ad would show maimed soldiers lying in bed at Walter Reed (if they are lucky enough to get this country to care for them), men and women waking up in the night screaming because they can’t purge their minds of the dead Iraqi children they saw right after they blew up an entire village, and when the announcer says “The American Way of Life,” you would see fat cats from Wall Street flicking through piles of hundred dollar bills while grinning.

No, I’m sorry, there is a time for self-defense, but what we have done in the last 70 years after WWII hardly qualifies as that. And to call these men and women who signed up, especially after Georgie Bush’s lying little speech standing on the ruins of the Twin Tower (“they will hear from us soon…” remember?) heroes, is a misnomer.

They should be called suckers.


#20

On point. They do not want us to know what the “real story is.” The fascinating thing is that the Internet has really pulled back the curtain on their nefarious plans. No wonder freedom of speech is so hated by them

Here’s just one example: I was schooled in the 1950’s. I never once heard anything about A.) the “Shooting Gallery” off the coast of North Carolina where Nazi U-Boats almost single handedly won the war by sinking immense numbers of our merchant marine ships. No, we were the “good guys” and the good guys never suffer such ignoble defeat. B.) the death marches of the Native Americans, the breaking of our treaties with them, and the genocide committed against women and children. All the media at that time showed the heroic cowboys fighting off the “savages,” never mentioning that it was our government that was stealing their land and enslaving them on reservations. C.) the whole history of slavery in the South, which was where I went to school. Mum’s da woid when it came to that.

No, we were American…the Guiding Light for the World, the Shining City on the Hill, the country that everyone wanted to be.

HOGWASH!!!