the environmental cost of military activity

there are two possibilities to spring to mind:

(i) The human cost of war, in terms of deaths and injuries to both civilians and service personnel and associated tragedies such as displacement, political turmoil, acts of terrorism and so forth occupy people's minds and upset them, and rightly so. They also spur some people to protest. People simply don't have the time or inclination to consider the environmental costs that military activity have.

or possibly, (ii) there is something more sinister going on here. I am no conspiracy theorist and treat many such theories with derision, but it is possible that those people who do bring such issues to the fore are silenced in various ways, regardless of whether the people who mention them are politicians, journalists or members of the public.

it's kind of like asking people to go without porn.

what do you mean by "environmental cost"?

i mean ffs the burning of the oilfields in 1991 kind of DID bring down attention, likewise CND often used essentially environmentalist arguments.

on the other hand what would be the point of flagging up the environmental cost? is there a government in the world that would change its war policy on that basis, when it's quite prepared to accept immediate loss of civilian life?

I mean environmental costs in all respects, be they use of resources, contributions to climate change and habitat destruction.

the burning of the oilfields in 1991 is a rare exception yes, I will concede that.

the second part of your post sounds somewhat defeatist, like you are saying "Why protest about anything, it never does any good".

oh btw I don't understand Henry's comment.

contribution to climate change is going to be pretty hard to assess, don't you think?! even use of resources -- ok, it's measurable, but is it significantly adding to the day-to-day use of these? use of depleted uranium or, back in the day, agent orange, and that kind of shit is probably another issue, but like the oilfields, pretty well publicized.

it's not defeatist -- but are you nuts? a million people marched against the war and nothing happened. how would the argument that it may add to climate change do anything at all?

how would the argument that it may add to climate change do anything at all?

I think it would add a huge amount - it's a question of scale essentially; something that affects some people vs something that threatens the survival of the whole of humanity.

like nuclear weapons?

contribution to climate change is going to be pretty hard to assess, don't you think?!

again, not a reason not to attempt it. For example, a military plane will generally travel faster and carries fewer people than a civilian plane. We know how much fuel it uses.

like how much?

hahahaha a fighter jet "carries fewer people" -- good point, i hadn't though of it that way.

it's surprising really, that a government that won't tax aviation fuel hasn't thought about doubling the seating capacity of the eurofighter yet.

this thread is a good first step in the right direction

To say one positive thing about the military, a lot of their land in the UK is quite important wildlife habitat e.g. Salisbury Plain holds about a third of the UK stone curlew population, also there's the great bustard reintroduction program going on there now. Anyone see that documentary about eagle owls in Yorkshire? That was all on army land too. Lots of these areas are either out of bounds to the public, or managed in a way that limits disturbance, apart from the odd barrage of tank shells every now and again of course.

Otherwise yes - a huge carbon footprint across all the armed services and a huge drain on public funds.

Wasn't there quite an outcry about the environmental impact of Israel's bombing of Lebanese oil plants last year (obviously within the whole wider debate about the conflict)? Specifically about the affect of the pollution on fisheries and tourism.

Oops, affect effect.

how is the military a "drain on public funds" -- more than anything else? provides employment, not just in itself but in the numerous private enterprises that depend on it, and in turn bolsters one of the uk's biggest export industries.

I'm thinking about things like the Trident replacement, which will mean huge amounts of money being pumped in to something we don't really need.

feels solidly keynsian to me, if insane.

> The human cost of war, in terms of deaths ... occupy people's minds and upset them, and rightly so.

war accounts for <1% of the annual death rate.

pdf: http://members.cox.net/goklany/Extreme%20Events%20Note%20Hohenkammer.pdf

"...the World Health Organization (2004) estimates
that in 2002 a total of 57.0 million people died worldwide from all causes, including 5.2 million
from other kinds of accidents. Out of these, road traffic was responsible for 1.2 million deaths,
violence (other than war) for 0.6 million, and war for 0.2 million (see Table 2)."

i am interested in the environmental effects of all those bonfires and fireworks in the coming weeks. how can lbhf claim to be working for the environment when they've a 40ft pile of pallets they're about to torch for fun in ravenscourt park.

can we get a report on what % of environmental damage that 40ft of pallets is worth over the year?

deaths of "all causes" presumably includes, you know... ALL DEATHS, so being less than 1% of that is meaningless.

the human cost of war is anyways more than about death, it's about injury, rape, long-term damage, psychological and physical, families ripped up, destruction of infrastructure.

but yeah next to fucking bonfire night and using shitty lightbulbs like that'll make the difference it's a wonder anyone gives a toss.