SNA (Tokyo) — Fuel is “the blood of the military,” according to the US Army Quartermaster Corps, and this is a fitting motto for an armed organization that produces more carbon dioxide emissions than most nations of the world.

In just one year–2017–the US reportedly purchased almost 100 million barrels of oil, or over 269,000 every day. The Air Force and Navy were the largest buyers, spending roughly US$7.7 billion combined.

These numbers are unsurprising when we consider how poor military vehicles are in fuel efficiency. For example, according to Stuart Parkinson, the Humvee, an armored vehicle commonly employed by the US Army, travels less than 2.6 kilometers per liter of fuel. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that the “average fuel economy for model year 2020 vehicles” was 10.8 kilometers per liter.

Such fuel inefficiency undoubtedly contributes to the fact that 70% of Defense Department energy consumption stems from “training, moving, and sustaining military forces and weapons platforms.”

A 2019 study conducted by Brown University’s Neta C. Crawford found that between 2001 and 2017, the US military emitted over 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Another study, published in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, estimated that even if one were to only take the US military’s fuel usage emissions into account, it would still rank as the 47th largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world.

Back in 1997, during negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, the United States pushed for an exemption for its overseas military in carbon emissions reporting.

In February 2010, however, the Pentagon included climate change as a military concern in its Quadrennial Defense Review for the first time in US history. Thereafter, it has repeatedly referenced it as a rising national security threat.

Washington’s participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement might be seen as a reflection of this concern, but this treaty too allows military carbon emissions to be excluded from reporting, leaving it to the discretion of each country.

While there has been some development in the direction of more sustainable weapons and military technologies, they have not yet progressed very far.

And even when such developments have occurred, such as in the case of backpack solar panels, climate responsibility seems to take a backseat to other factors. For example, US Vice-President Kamala Harris cited the relatively low weight of solar panels, as opposed to batteries, as a prominent reason for their adoption during a speech last year at the United States Naval Academy. Others have cited high oil prices as another factor.

For breaking news, follow on Twitter @ShingetsuNews