The biggest blind spot of climate change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- It's almost impossible to pin down how much the military emits globally. We are talking about a sector with a budget of 2.2 trillion dollars using helicopters, tanks, ships, fighter planes. And none of these CO2 emissions have to be reported. This is a story about one of the biggest blindspots of climate change and what we can do to change that.
#planeta #militaryemissions #waremissions #warco2emissions #military
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
Follow Planet A on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@dw_planeta?la...
Credits:
Reporter:Albert Steinberger
Video Editor: Neven Hillebrands
Supervising Editors: Joanna Gottschalk, Kiyo Dörrer, Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann, Michael Trobridge
Fact-Check: Kirsten Funck
Thumbnail: Em Chabridon
Read more:
The military emissions Gap
militaryemissions.org/
The military spenditure in 2023
www.sipri.org/media/press-rel...
Study Estimating the Military’s Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
www.sgr.org.uk/publications/e...
Study about the Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change and the Costs of War
watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/f...
Study about the climate damage caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine
en.ecoaction.org.ua/climate-d...
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:55 The problem of military emissions
04:20 The issue with data
06:22 The cost of war
09:56 Solutions
What is the best way to reduce military CO2 emissions?
have them expand the navy's oak forest. dont restrict the actual warfighters
have the US military start using renewables by using the defense budget. The US military has invented a lot of things in the past like computers and Internet, so I believe if they were given a operation to create a effective renewable fuel source than they will.
EVs. They're more stealthy compared to fossils
My suggestions would be such ones as for example making a resolution to report a figure that's between 1 and 3 times what it actually is. The issue from an environmental perspective, is that a lot of military emissions are hidden, and thus not a part of the global CO2 emissions reduction targets.
But on the other hand, having access to accurate information about a military's emissions means that a group could reverse engineer the size and capabilities of said military. This is generally not appreciate in warfare, wherein knowledge is genuine power.
Let's use a hypothetical example, let's say that country A emits 1000 units of CO2 (doesn't matter what the units are for the sake of the argument), from its military, but releases a figure that they're releasing 2431 units of CO2, then in this case on a global scale we have inaccurate data, but data that overestimates how much CO2 is released, and thus much more useful than having no data at all. And reverse engineering the "power" of country A's military is very difficult from this figure (if not straight up impossible).
Apart from that my suggestions would be to focus (as Jan Stoltenberg put it), on making sure that the strategically viable choices of the future, are also the emissions friendly ones.
And apart from that to focus on how green technologies could make outposts, bases and other pieces of warfare infrastructure more independant and not needing supply lines as much. Green technologies are after all, also ones that are much more useful for being independant, something which is a great benefit for any military in an operational environment.
Demilitarize. Unionize. Vote for peace. Build trust among your peers. Build democracy even in the tiniest circles around you, be it the working environment or your children's school. Stand up for community, for the commons. Focus on children and young people.
If you reveal the carbon footprint, your enemy will know how strong you are and might take a chance. Also this will be a disadvantage to the countries making these indicators public vs the ones keeping it a secret
Keeping your carbon footprint secret is easy when you ignore it
I mean, when one's fighting a war one don't care about one's carbon footprint, cuz we all know it's huge
But the military isn't just war. The military is also the car drive from the Pentagon to a base. The military is energy generation in oversea bases. The military is also concerned about their certainty, that there will be enough fuel. If F35s are hoing to fly until 2070, then they need to switch to e-fuels at some point. Because fossil Oil will become a more expensive and far rarer resource until then.
@@KityKatKiller in that perspective, then I agree
@@KityKatKillervery good point
@@KityKatKillerthe military probably won’t switch to e-fuels unless they provide some sort of advantage like cost or performance
@@michaelabraham9233 They will switch to E-fuels once they have the advantage of availability
On the one hand, hydro-carbon based fuels provide the highest energy density, which is a significant military advantage. On the other hand, sourcing them from anyone else but your closest allies is an obvious strategic disadvantage.
Especially European and Asian armies have a very high incentive to get rid of that disadvantage. Once the other sectors are mostly transformed, the military will follow with the best solutions established by then, probably primarily synthetic fuels, but who knows for which applications battery technology becomes favorable in the meantime.
There is also a point to be made about not rushing into green tech in military space, wrong bet can mean a lost war decades latter.
Living in a world where every other day, some fanatic is out to cause you harm, downsizing the military potential seems a fool's dream.
In an article from Cleantechnica 12 months ago called "US Navy Prowls For E-Fuels From The Seven Seas," the US Navy is pursuing e-fuels like ammonia and methanol using renewable energy and nuclear power to produce zero-carbon hydrogen, as well as remove CO2 present in seawater, and turn it into a solid.
Thank you for doing a video on this topic. It is indeed a blind spot in fighting climate change, and it gets often overlooked. It really shows the importance of improving International relations to fight climate change.
You can find out easily, we know how much oil and gas is pumped up, and we know the total emissions. So we got two totals and we know the rest, so the blanks most be then right?
That's what I was thinking. DW sometimes doesn't answer obvious questions I feel like
I think the real question is why we hardly even stop to consider the fundamental unsustainability of militaries and war. It really speaks to how we have flawed, baselessly optimistic views on climate change solutions, collectively thinking we'll somehow innovate and consume our way out of it with non-existent win-win technologies.
We don't know all the rest, we estimate as much as best we can. Not all oil and gas is burned, some of it is used as feedstocks for other industrial processes like making plastics or methanol. Additionally, it may be stored and burned later, we don't know the emissions of the military now. Additionally, not all GHG emissions come from oil and gas.
No and no. We don't know the total oil and gas production and total human emissions.
there's also construction, training, maintenance, so much more
Finally breaking into a taboo subject. We waited a long time. If it were more present in the media, maybe politicians would be forced to give up belligerence. Right now, our future is bleak.😢
And what happens if public pressure pushes for combat infective solutions? European armies are toothless, green tech might make them more expensive whilst sacrifice effectiveness. It is easy to talk about military when you are not on the front line being shelled in a trench. Every bit of advantage you can get means the difference of life and death to your troops so tread carefully about what you call for, your life also might be on the line one day.
People have dumb idea about military power especially in rich countries whose military budget far exceeds from lots of country's entire budget
This video makes sense in a scenario where the military isn't needed but not when there are literally major conflicts happening.
On the list of problems with the military industrial complex I would put this one near the bottom. Still an interesting thought experiment though.
Can you make video about the space ships launching?
1:34 u got me there
Hey what card game is that?
One set of "Quartett"
Well one was called 'Top Trumps' until it became politically unacceptable.
Very good job done and I appreciate, I am Kishore Sawant!
The hook for this episode was really poor "Carbon footprint of cards on a card game"
Global Warming is probably the most important subject on the planet, but when it comes a literal game where the environmental impact of CO2 is probably the smallest of concerns (You know, nukes are probably bit more on-topic regarding war games) in a card game, I really have to use this line from a certain TV show. "Who, the hell, cares"
Those who care fail to realize that in total war they will be targets and will have to fight for there lives. Let them think they are doing good forthemselves by calling co2 in military instead of trying to prevent war with all they can.
I'm all in on reducing emissions but trying to make the military eco friendly is just absolutely dumb in our current times. A military has to be efficient, enduring and durable. CO2 emissions are the absolut very last thing we should look at.
Armed forces can be used to reduce emissions. Such as by usong gunboat dipomacy to force another country to reduce their emissions.
But if you know, how much oil the country spends in total (per year), it must include the military, right?
No since it is not mandatory for countries to declare their emissions related to military. And when some countries do, this usually doesn't cover all of it but energy and fuel consumption related to military bases and equipment only. 👽
This is Like biting the Hand that feeds you..which we're told not to
LOL delegalise war because it is not environmentally friendly :)) a question: how would you force such policy? with electric tanks?
I think it's more feasible to run tanks on biofuels ...
bom trabalho Albert 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
NATO very likely has had a huge role in reducing military carbon emissions and although it's hard to prove, an alternative history study or retrospective analysis comparison to past per capita emissions during past war eras will clearly show this just by looking at the 6:36 graph, so more diplomacy and defense coalitions is the right direction
There's a recently published book on this: The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War (Crawford, 2022)!
Cool, it's a source for this video :)
Divest from weapons manufacturing. Instead of huge-scale wars, why not use the old method of champions fighting in low-tech environments or in a game like lacrosse which -was- used to resolve conflicts?
Ey you all know what they say. A small nuclear winter cancels out climate change.
It even rhymes.
If the choice is survival or carbon emissions, survival wins every time. Rewiring human nature. That sounds easy.
Well i think 25% of the ships and 80% or more on subs are nuclear powered.
Also when the rail gun is made sustainability and finally get put out on war fronts or whatever im sure it will reduce co2 levels.
But they dont normally try going green so ya.
The rail gun was cancelled. It costs too much and destroys itself.
@@T1Oracle well dam.
Mybe high pressure water cannons cut a craft in half in seconds🤣.
Mybe in 3100.
Why do rich people have sense of false security through unlimited firepower
What about all of the diesel engine ambulances, with engines running, parked all over waiting for a call? I can smell them blocks away.
A lot of the drugs are temperature sensitive, which is why many ambulances have small generators to keep the patient module climate controlled so the large chassis engine can be shut off. Keep in mind it’s not fair to ask people to sit in a vehicle for 12 hours with no a/c for extended periods which is one of many reasons why crews leave the ambulance running. That being said those ambulances burn less than a gallon of diesel an hour just sitting there.
The bigger waste is police cars as cops leave them running even if they’re not in the car which wastes tons of gasoline, and there’s way more police cars than ambulances
What about space rockets ? what do they do to the ozone layer, when they burn right through it ? 🤪🤐
Journalist talk about his flight
One important move would be to feed the military a more plant strong diet, resulting in greater strength, health, endurance, and performance while reducing emissions, land use, ecological destruction and fiscal efficiency
Ah yes, nothing improves the morale as forced vegan diet as front line troops get to pick there meals anyways.
This video needs to be shared more widely!!
Please go ahead also and share it with people you know. :) And make sure to subscribe to our channel not to miss any of the upcoming videos! ✨✨
What did you think we were trying to achieve with globalisation? It didn’t work. Russia, North Korea, Iran and China have been expanding their militaries and are positioning themselves for war.
But yes, even the military needs to be sustainable, even more so for energy security.
No stats = no stats
Best way to reduce carbon footprint from military is to ask USA to stop interfering in every other country's politics. 😅
There is a cascading effect: USA stops interference -> it will lead to reducing military on offshore locations -> those offshore locations will ramp up their military which will be a small spike in co2 but not for long -> USA investment will go down leading to entire footprint to reduce 😊
Corporations, banks, politicians and governments make money from war... It's not the military's fault, the system is the problem.
For question of security any country support environment polution as a example nuclear war threat of humanity but nuclear bomb production and collection not stop.
True solution two way first human psychology basis for development human mind like, in past Europe as battlefield between German British French etc, now European Union concept converted Europe a peacefull continental and second technical development like Hydrogen base fighter plane tank etc control polution as my opinion!?
The military is there to be able to win wars. They are highly pragmatic about that task - if reducing emissions would mean less capability that's not an option. Fighting for a cause means taking all steps necessary to reach a goal, at any cost. Carbon emissions are mainly a topic western civil democratic governments are concerned about - if their militaries are not able to defend them because of poor decisions and priorities then their goals will be forfeit anyways. They should focus on the civil sector where also the most emissions could be cut.
Yes, that's what the NATO leader said in the end. The only solution for militaries is to make green options the most capable ones
@@einfischnamenspanda3306 The military finds solutions for tactical or strategic problems. If they happen to be "green" - good. But that should not be the priority.
@@ThePurussaurus Yes, that's clear. But 5.5% of global emissions is a lot. There should be people concering themselves with solutions on how to clean that up.
Trying to affect your goals at any cost is a self-defeating process, unless they consider the total death of the species as a success.
@@einfischnamenspanda3306 Wars are won by those who can outproduce and outmaneuver there opponent. Today everything costs energy, you want that energy to be cheap, reliable and easy to transport. Unless batteries win in those races or can give mayor advantage in combat they will never be adopted by sain military as it would mean making it easier for enemy to hit your logistics and cripple your front line supplies. 5.5% is a lot, war will make it more, unless you are up for depopulation then with less people there will be less emissions and smaller armies so still might be a win for you, that is if you survive the war.
The military should be exempt from any reporting or publishing of pollution numbers. It’s a total security risk and also a huge disadvantage to the military’s that do and a huge benefit to the ones that don’t. Until an effective energy source with as much density of power as fuels are achieved the military needs to continue to keep everything about this a secret to stop the public from ending up hurting their operating effectiveness.
Agreed!! The military may need hydrocarbons for a very long time because of its high energy density. Although i think they may gradually shift from fossil fuels to biofuels and/or synthetic fuels ...
Please do elaborate how it’s a security risk
I think all war correspondents and journalists should ask for forgiveness by Julian Assange and explain why he is quite a typical example of what happens to anyone opposing Planetary Destruction.
US wouldn't be happy to see this video 😂
Why did you have to call out India specifically? USA has 15 times the defence budget, and China six times of India
Why does that hurt you specifically? Indians have the second largest army. 70% of their equipment is Soviet vintage which are particularly known for their poor mpg. None of the three report any of their emissions so why should Indians get free pass again?
Relax man
Removing Putin would probably help the enviroment
Some of the comments here seem to be missing the point. The idea isn’t “uwu let’s unilaterally disarm for the environment.” It’s “we should understand this better, because it’s yet another cost of war that can be cited when arguing for detente and peace.”
Erm, that's essentially the same point except it's not being all "uwu, isn't it complicated and in need of more data!" neo-liberalish about it.
We MUST cooperatively disarm which naturally implies negotiated peace alongside it because in no foreseeable scenario can even a fraction of this level of militarization be maintained in a carbon neutral way. We don't need more data to make that point. It should be manifestly obvious to anyone who doesn't believe in magic emergent technological solutions that'll allow us to continue consuming and competing and fighting as we are. Civil and military emissions are connected. We all are.
🕊
tell that to Xi and Putin, them two rocked the boat. They benefit from warmongering.
Maybe we should hand Europe over to Russia who could micromanage emissions.
How can we get the military to decarbonize? NATO can't supply shells to Ukraine how do you imagine it decarbonize its armies and be able to defend against looming Russian invasion?
Yeah, we know that the military police is the biggest operator also we’re paying the bill every single time they do it we do need a data we really do need it because the civilian population actually produce less pollution than the military. The military is the biggest pit.
I actually like the channel here. Nevertheless, the contribution was very biased. Starting the video with an apology for having military toys shows that there is a fundamental negative attitude towards the military here. Bad report. From experience, you can do better.
Some day our future generation will wonder "how they could have accepted to have military forces and find justification for it, couldn't they see that it was just another form of organised crime of one group of people against another".
What is military vehicles ran on nuclear power ps like I mean tanks
According to open sources, several military vehicles are propelled by nuclear power, such as submarines, aircraft carriers, and battlecruisers. If you're interested, we discussed more about nuclear power in these videos:
👉 ruclips.net/video/9X00al1FsjM/видео.htmlfeature=shared
👉 ruclips.net/video/Km6kqykX900/видео.htmlfeature=shared
👉 ruclips.net/video/eWuGP_aBoYg/видео.htmlfeature=shared
If you like videos like these, be sure to subscribe to our channel. We post new videos every Friday ✨
@@DWPlanetA I think the Chinese Argo use nuclear power to power the vehicles and robots in Taiwan
It’s all a crock of shit anyway
✧ ♡ ‧º· ✧ ♡ ‧º·✧ ♡ ‧º·How can we make war more environmentally friendly bestiez? Let's discuss! ✧ ♡ ‧º· ✧ ♡ ‧º· ✧ ♡ ‧º·
What about Germany's military
😂😂😂they want war but no carbon no blood 😂😂you are funny 🤣
Stupid discussion. Basically you say: "Surrender to terrorists, dictators or just plain criminals because you ran out of CO2 allowances." As if any country invests in military force or internal police just for its own purpose. The simple reason is: some of these guys dont give a shi... on other peoples rights or lifes.
What's the CO2 footprint of war? ...
Like we say in the video, it's a massive blindspot because many of the emissions do not _need_ to be reported...but we can estimate it is a lot. 👀
Relax guys humans are no more than a decade , so it will impactto AI robots in future 😅
let them have it. they protect us.
The problem is the lack of transparency, it's not about them protecting us.
the other side were the good guys
It will kill us in the long term bro
No, not at the cost of the planet.
As a member of the US military, that is not a fair characterization of how we operate. We can do the same protecting with FAR fewer emissions.
Are you being serious?? lol
Don't you have a better idea for a video?
Fossile fuel industry and heavy industry are still the biggest emitters by a masive margin. Until we get them under control other efforts are, unfortunately, basically meaningless.
Too much CO2 is a real problem but all the methane and excess water vapor is much worse.
water vapour, in our atmosphere, is worse? you having a joke??
Water vapor is the result of climate change, not the cause.
@@antlerman7644they aren't, it's a lesser known fact, because the pie charts google shows you don't include it. try "greenhouse gas pie chart water vapour".
Everything needs to be tackled at once, not separately. We're long past the point where we can choose a strategy; now is the time to go all-out in the fight against ecological destruction and climate change. Excuses to postpone action can not be accepted any longer! If we don't then we're digging ourselves our own graves and drag billions of people with us. This is what is at stake. Tackling climate change in a just and fair manner, what all humans deserves, requires nothing less than a total reconstruction and redesign of how societies work and operate at every single level. We do not have the luxury of time anymore to claim we can slowly change only parts of the system while leaving others untouched, even though they contribute to the problem. Furthermore, refusing systemic change serves only to reproduce the tragedy and injustice of exploitation and violence, which can never be justified, and the military system play a huge role in that tragedy that we have to refuse to ignore.
Yes, water vapor has a much higher impact on global temperatures than CO2. No, if we emit water vapor there won't be more of it in the athmosphere because it'll just rain down. If we extract water vapor, there won't be less of it in the athmosphere, because more water will evaporate from the sea, lakes, etc. There is a balance of liquid and gaseous water on earth, and there is one thing tipping this balance: the amount of greenhouse gases in the athmosphere. Water vapor only amplifies the effect of climate gases, it is not harmful by itself.
Also, yes, methane is more potent than CO2, but that's why emissons are usually given as CO2e ("CO2 equivalents"), where gases like methane are included.
Those who vote to decarbonize military sector, might as well open their border without restrictions at all..
Heck why have military in the first place.. why not just shake hand and pray all are good...
Let tesla make electric planes and tanks.
We can use Water as fuel recently toyota has released their hydrogen vehicle which inputs qater and praduces hydrogen by it self. This will reduce pollution
Hey there! Yes, hydrogen vehicles are a thing. We have not tackled passenger cars fueled by hydrogen yet but we looked at hydrogen trucks if you are interested 👉ruclips.net/video/qiQcGdq66DI/видео.html
That's not how the car works. You can't make hydrogen from water without a massive amount of electricity, at which point you're better off just powering the motors directly from batteries. Educate yourself better, please.
So Ukraine should have surrendered instead of fighting a war of co2 emissions and stiil lose in the end.
What the f*ck is wrong with you?
Nobody claims that dude ... this video is to point out the dilemma and tragedy of ignoring the militaries of the world responsibility in contributing to climate change. Keeping a military to maintain security is one thing, the militaries' role in actively contributing to climate change and the global ecological and social disaster and unjust destruction is another. If we want to tackle climate change we simply cannot avoid looking at militaries ecological impact, otherwise we won't solve our problems.
Losing a generation of young men and destroying an infrastructure that will take 20 years to rebuild is worse than the CO2 emitted.
LoL 😂 good point tho
They are exempt given their function. Cry me a river
Increased CO2 makes plants increase in growth which increases fertility in the soil which increases plant growth which increases O2 and decreases CO2 in the atmosphere. It needs to be helped by proper sustainable farming practices.
This is not true. The CO2 levels have been relatively stable until recently. The excessive CO2 we have been emitting has not increased plant growth whatsoever. If that were true, the increased plant growth would offset our emissions. There is now excessive CO2 building up in the atmosphere which is what is causing global warming. And global warming has been devastating to some plant species.
@@scottbeers2749 NASA..A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
There's a CO2 threshold where plants become stressed in high CO2, plus the heat stress will ensure plant death. As far as crops are concerned, we're gonna be in trouble if we don't regulate the planetary temps and our emissions in tandem.
@@CGtheAroAceQueen Sea level has been consistently rising since the last ice age.
Air Pollution
Can you show me cases of trees dying from just CO2?
Sulfur dioxide is poisonous to them. It can dissolve their leaves, reduce growth, and make them more vulnerable to the elements. With no leaves, a tree will die, as it won't be able to photosynthesize.