Stuff You Never Hear About

[Zinjanthropos]

While the US military machine is out there protecting the free world it turns out they’re one one the biggest consumers of hydrocarbons in the world. In fact more than many, many countries. I’ve read over 140 countries

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...100005.htm

You just don’t hear about it. 

Hardly a day goes by when I don’t see a couple of huge US Air Force Hercules fly over the Niagara River from Niagara Falls NY Air Force Base. Have no idea why unless they think we Canadians are planning an invasion. It’s tax dollars at work but sure sounds like World Peace would go a long way to reduce GHG emissions. This is just the US military!

Is it in the best interest of govt to keep our pollution focus away from the military? Can green energy keep up with the demands of world’s military? Understand if people weren’t employed by military they’d be using hydrocarbons at home but I don’t think it would be to the same extent as global armed forces. I stand to be corrected

[C C]

It's not just the white, Leftist academics targeting the US military beneath the camouflage of climate change. Murtaza Hussain wrote this piece in September of last year: "It may not come as a surprise that the largest industrial military in the history of the world is also the single biggest polluter on the planet."

This older article, excerpt at bottom, written by a German(?) at least included Russia and China as the top-ranked military powers after the US. China's goal is to be #1 eventually, so it's not cutting back and neither is Russia due to its perpetual paranoia about NATO. Vulnerable Asian and Pacific Rim countries want US military presence to deter the aggressive expansion of Chinese interests in that region, thus how the rival militaries contribute to US build-up in ways like that.

Ironically, the effects of climate change will probably require the help of military to deal with the elevated disasters, coordination of uprooted residents and aid/supply lines, and holding off the ever greater waves of migrants fleeing defecation pits too impossible to survive in anymore. ("Holding off" doesn't necessarily mean the worst anymore than the Italian coast guard being renown for its mass shootings of boatloads of trans-Mediterranean refugees.)

Even leaders and celebrities walled-up in the security of their ivory castles with the armed guards they pretentiously claim to abhor may not all get the helicopter access they expect and need to escape from the roofs. In terms of locales that one should remember not to be at when SHTF -- it is the generous cities and political saviors themselves that the angry hordes may trash, beseige, and come after. Perhaps an irksome side-effect of making countless Santa Claus promises or the addiction withdrawl that ensues when a gravy chute suddenly runs out of manna. (Portland mayor to leave his high-rise tower home after being targeted by protesters)

Michael Brzoska: The perspective of national security actors on climate change is important, if for no other reason than one simple reality: Militaries are important political actors in most countries, and their views can influence the overall course a government takes. But there are other reasons. Armed forces use sizeable amounts of natural and financial resources, making them important factors in national energy balances and effective competitors for government spending on climate change. Also, climate change will alter the strategic and operational environments for militaries, providing them with new options and challenges. Finally, there is a danger that climate change could be “militarized” by defense officials who favor the use of force to deal with mass migration and other destabilizing responses to environmental disasters, even when better alternatives are available.

National security actors all over the world (although certainly not in all countries) see climate change as a future threat or threat multiplier that puts additional demand on military capabilities and capacities. What this demand might be and where it will play out, however, is seen quite differently in the countries that acknowledge a national security dimension to the problem. This variation may not be so surprising; knowledge about the climate change consequences that have potential relevance for armed forces — consequences relating, for instance, to armed conflict or humanitarian disasters — is actually quite limited.

[Zinjanthropos]

While the world’s militaries have a large carbon footprint, skyscrapers aren’t far behind...

https://archive.curbed.com/2019/9/19/208...ate-change

[Zinjanthropos]

From Wiki:

While roughly 306.4 billion emails were sent and received each day in 2020, the figure is expected to increase to over 361.6 billion daily mails in 2024.Oct 2, 2020

Have read that on average every e-mail contributes 7 grams ghg. A short email 3-4 grams whereas one with photo up to 50 grams. Same article said this is equivalent to driving an average car/vehicle 52 feet. Not sure if text & email same thing but i think they are.. Anyways I didn’t do the math but looks like a significant daily tally. Makes me wonder if we’ll replace fossil fuel’s contribution with something else as time goes by. Maybe we should just start adapting to what’s ahead