2. US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter
on the Planet
Sources:
Sara Flounders, “Add Climate Havoc to War Crimes: Pentagon’s
Role in Global Catastrophe,” International Action Center, December
18, 2009, http://www.iacenter.org/o/world/climatesummit_pentagon121809.
Mickey Z., “Can You Identify the Worst Polluter on the Planet?
Here’s a Hint: Shock and Awe,” Planet Green, August 10, 2009,
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/identify-worst-polluter-planet.html.
Julian Aguon, “Guam Residents Organize Against US Plans for $15B
Military Buildup on Pacific Island,” Democracy Now!, October 9,
2009, http://www.democracynow.org/
2009/10/9/guam_residents_organize_against_us_plans.
Ian Macleod, “U.S. Plots Arctic Push,” Ottawa Citizen, November
28, 2009, http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/navy+plots+Arctic+push/2278324/story.html.
Nick Turse, “Vietnam Still in Shambles after American War,”
In These Times, May 2009, http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4363/casualties_continue_in_vietnam.
Jalal Ghazi, “Cancer—The Deadly Legacy of the Invasion of
Iraq,” New America Media, January 6, 2010, http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article
_id=80e260b3839daf2084fdeb0965ad31ab.
Student Researchers: Dimitrina Semova, Joan Pedro, and Luis
Luján (Complutense University of Madrid), Ashley Jackson-Lesti,
Ryan Stevens, Chris Marten, and Kristy Nelson (Sonoma State University),
Christopher Lue (Indian River State College), Cassie Barthel (St. Cloud
State University)
Faculty Evaluators: Ana I. Segovia (Complutense University of
Madrid), Julie Flohr and Mryna Goodman (Sonoma State University), Elliot
D. Cohen (Indian River State College), Julie Andrzejewski (St. Cloud
State University)
The US military is responsible for the most egregious and widespread
pollution of the planet, yet this information and accompanying documentation
goes almost entirely unreported. In spite of the evidence, the environmental
impact of the US military goes largely unaddressed by environmental
organizations and was not the focus of any discussions or proposed restrictions
at the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. This impact
includes uninhibited use of fossil fuels, massive creation of greenhouse
gases, and extensive release of radioactive and chemical contaminants
into the air, water, and soil.
The extensive global operations of the US military (wars, interventions,
and secret operations on over one thousand bases around the world and
six thousand facilities in the United States) are not counted against
US greenhouse gas limits. Sara Flounders writes, “By every measure,
the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products
and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all
international climate agreements.”
While official accounts put US military usage at 320,000 barrels of
oil a day, that does not include fuel consumed by contractors, in leased
or private facilities, or in the production of weapons. The US military
is a major contributor of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that most
scientists believe is to blame for climate change. Steve Kretzmann,
director of Oil Change International, reports, “The Iraq war was
responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e) from March 2003 through December 2007. . . . That war emits
more than 60 percent that of all countries. . . . This information is
not readily available . . . because military emissions abroad are exempt
from national reporting requirements under US law and the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change.”
According to Barry Sanders, author of The Green Zone: The Environmental
Costs of Militarism, “the greatest single assault on the environment,
on all of us around the globe, comes from one agency . . . the Armed
Forces of the United States.”
Throughout the long history of military preparations, actions, and
wars, the US military has not been held responsible for the effects
of its activities upon environments, peoples, or animals. During the
Kyoto Accords negotiations in December 1997, the US demanded as a provision
of signing that any and all of its military operations worldwide, including
operations in participation with the UN and NATO, be exempted from measurement
or reductions. After attaining this concession, the Bush administration
then refused to sign the accords and the US Congress passed an explicit
provision guaranteeing the US military exemption from any energy reduction
or measurement.
Environmental journalist Johanna Peace reports that military activities
will continue to be exempt based on an executive order signed by President
Barack Obama that calls for other federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions by 2020. Peace states, “The military accounts for
a full 80 percent of the federal government’s energy demand.”
As it stands, the Department of Defense is the largest polluter in
the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical
companies combined. Depleted uranium, petroleum, oil, pesticides, defoliant
agents such as Agent Orange, and lead, along with vast amounts of radiation
from weaponry produced, tested, and used, are just some of the pollutants
with which the US military is contaminating the environment. Flounders
identifies key examples:
The United States is planning an enormous $15 billion military buildup
on the Pacific island of Guam. The project would turn the thirty-mile-long
island into a major hub for US military operations in the Pacific. It
has been described as the largest military buildup in recent history
and could bring as many as fifty thousand people to the tiny island.
Chamoru civil rights attorney Julian Aguon warns that this military
operation will bring irreversible social and environmental consequences
to Guam. As an unincorporated territory, or colony, and of the US, the
people of Guam have no right to self-determination, and no governmental
means to oppose an unpopular and destructive occupation.
Between 1946 and 1958, the US dropped more than sixty nuclear weapons
on the people of the Marshall Islands. The Chamoru people of Guam, being
so close and downwind, still experience an alarmingly high rate of related
cancer.
On Capitol Hill, the conversation has been restricted to whether the
jobs expected from the military construction should go to mainland Americans,
foreign workers, or Guam residents. But we rarely hear the voices and
concerns of the indigenous people of Guam, who constitute over a third
of the island’s population.
Meanwhile, as if the US military has not contaminated enough of the
world already, a new five-year strategic plan by the US Navy outlines
the militarization of the Arctic to defend national security, potential
undersea riches, and other maritime interests, anticipating the frozen
Arctic Ocean to be open waters by the year 2030. This plan strategizes
expanding fleet operations, resource development, research, and tourism,
and could possibly reshape global transportation.
While the plan discusses “strong partnerships” with other
nations (Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Russia have also made substantial
investments in Arctic-capable military armaments), it is quite evident
that the US is serious about increasing its military presence and naval
combat capabilities. The US, in addition to planned naval rearmament,
is stationing thirty-six F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets, which is
20 percent of the F-22 fleet, in Anchorage, Alaska.
Some of the action items in the US Navy Arctic Roadmap document include:
? Assessing current and required capability to execute undersea warfare,
expeditionary warfare, strike warfare, strategic sealift, and regional
security cooperation.
? Assessing current and predicted threats in order to determine the
most dangerous and most likely threats in the Arctic region in 2010,
2015, and 2025.
? Focusing on threats to US national security, although threats to
maritime safety and security may also be considered.
Behind the public façade of international Arctic cooperation,
Rob Heubert, associate director at the Centre for Military and Strategic
Studies at the University of Calgary, points out, “If you read
the document carefully you’ll see a dual language, one where they’re
saying, ‘We’ve got to start working together’ . . . and
[then] they start saying, ‘We have to get new instrumentation for
our combat officers.’ . . . They’re clearly understanding
that the future is not nearly as nice as what all the public policy
statements say.”
Beyond the concerns about human conflicts in the Arctic, the consequences
of militarization on the Arctic environment are not even being considered.
Given the record of environmental devastation that the US military has
wrought, such a silence is unacceptable.
Update by Mickey Z.
As I sit here, typing this “update,” the predator drones
are still flying over Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the oil is still
gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, and 53.3 percent of our tax money is
still being funneled to the US military. Simply put, hope and change
feels no different from shock and awe . . . but the mainstream media
continues to propagate the two-party lie.
Linking the antiwar and environmental movements is a much-needed step.
As Cindy Sheehan recently told me, “I think one of the best things
that we can do is look into economic conversion of the defense industry
into green industries, working on sustainable and renewable forms of
energy, and/or connect[ing] with indigenous people who are trying to
reclaim their lands from the pollution of the military industrial complex.
The best thing to do would be to start on a very local level to reclaim
a planet healthy for life.”
It comes down to recognizing the connections, recognizing how we are
manipulated into supporting wars and how those wars are killing our
ecosystem. We must also recognize our connection to the natural world.
For if we were to view all living things, including ourselves, as part
of one collective soul, how could we not defend that collective soul
by any means necessary?
We are on the brink of economic, social, and environmental collapse.
In other words, this is the best time ever to be an activist.
Update by Julian Aguon
In 2010, the people of Guam are bracing themselves for a cataclysmic
round of militarization with virtually no parallel in recent history.
Set to formally begin this year, the military buildup comes on the heels
of a decision by the United States to aggrandize its military posture
in the Asia-Pacific region. At the center of the US military realignment
schema is the hotly contested agreement between the United States and
Japan to relocate thousands of US Marines from Okinawa to Guam. This
portentous development, which is linked to the United States’ perception
of China as a security threat, bodes great harm to the people and environment
of Guam yet remains virtually unknown to Americans and the rest of the
international community.
What is happening in Guam is inherently interesting because while America
trots its soldiers and its citizenry off to war to the tune of “spreading
democracy” in its own proverbial backyard, an entire civilization
of so-called “Americans” watch with bated breath as people
thousands of miles away—people we cannot vote for—make decisions
for us at ethnocidal costs. Although this military buildup marks the
most volatile demographic change in recent Guam history, the people
of Guam have never had an opportunity to meaningfully participate in
any discussion about the buildup. To date, the scant coverage of the
military buildup has centered almost exclusively around the United States
and Japan. In fact, the story entitled “Guam Residents Organize
Against US Plans for $15B Military Buildup on Pacific Island” on
Democracy Now! was the first bona fide US media coverage of the military
buildup since 2005 to consider, let alone privilege, the people’s
opposition.
The heart of this story is not so much in the finer details of the
military buildup as it is in the larger political context of real-life
twenty-first-century colonialism. Under US domestic law, Guam is an
unincorporated territory. What this means is that Guam is a territory
that belongs to the United States but is not a part of it. As an unincorporated
territory, the US Constitution does not necessarily or automatically
apply in Guam. Instead, the US Congress has broad powers over the unincorporated
territories, including the power to choose what portions of the Constitution
apply to them. In reality, Guam remains under the purview of the Office
of Insular Affairs in the US Department of the Interior.
Under international law, Guam is a non-self-governing territory, or
UN-recognized colony whose people have yet to exercise the fundamental
right to self-determination. Article 73 of the United Nations Charter,
which addresses the rights of peoples in non-self-governing territories,
commands states administering them to “recognize the principle
that the interests of the inhabitants are paramount.” These “administering
powers” accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to
develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the
political aspirations of the people. As a matter of international treaty
and customary law, the colonized people of Guam have a right to self-determination
under international law that the United States, at least in theory,
recognizes.
The military buildup, however, reveals the United States’ failure
to fulfill its international legal mandate. This is particularly troubling
in light of the fact that this very year, 2010, marks the formal conclusion
of not one but two UN-designated international decades for the eradication
of colonialism. In 1990, the UN General Assembly proclaimed 1990–2000
as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. To this
end, the General Assembly adopted a detailed plan of action to expedite
the unqualified end of all forms of colonialism. In 2001, citing a wholesale
lack of progress during the first decade, the General Assembly proclaimed
a second one to effect the same goal. The second decade has come and
all but gone with only Timor-Leste, or East Timor, managing to attain
independence from Indonesia in 2002.
In November 2009—one month after “Guam Residents Organize
Against US Plans for $15B Military Buildup on Pacific Island” aired—the
US Department of Defense released an unprecedented 11,000-page Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), detailing for the first time
the true enormity of the contemplated militarization of Guam. At its
peak, the military buildup will bring more than 80,000 new residents
to Guam, which includes more than 8,600 US Marines and their 9,000 dependents;
7,000 so-called transient US Navy personnel; 600 to 1,000 US Army personnel;
and 20,000 foreign workers on military construction contracts. This
“human tsunami,” as it is being called, represents a roughly
47 percent increase in Guam’s total population in a four-to-six-year
window. Today, the total population of Guam is roughly 178,000 people,
the indigenous Chamoru people making up only 37 percent of that number.
We are looking at a volatile and virtually overnight demographic change
in the makeup of the island that even the US military admits will result
in the political dispossession of the Chamoru people. To put the pace
of this ethnocide in context, just prior to World War II, Chamorus comprised
more than 90 percent of Guam’s population.
At the center of the buildup are three major proposed actions: 1) the
construction of permanent facilities and infrastructure to support the
full spectrum of warfare training for the thousands of relocated Marines;
2) the construction of a new deep-draft wharf in the island’s only
harbor to provide for the passage of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers;
and 3) the construction of an Army Missile Defense Task Force modeled
on the Marshall Islands–based Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense
Test Site, for the practice of intercepting intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
In terms of adverse impact, these developments will mean, among other
things, the clearing of whole limestone forests and the desecration
of burial sites some 3,500 years old; the restricting of access to areas
rich in plants necessary for indigenous medicinal practice; the denying
of access to places of worship and traditional fishing grounds; the
destroying of seventy acres of thriving coral reef, which currently
serve as critical habitat for several endangered species; and the over-tapping
of Guam’s water system to include the drilling of twenty-two additional
wells. In addition, the likelihood of military-related accidents will
greatly increase. Seven crashes occurred during military training from
August 2007 to July 2008, the most recent of which involved a crash
of a B-52 bomber that killed the entire crew. The increased presence
of US military forces in Guam also increases the island’s visibility
as a target for enemies of the United States.
Finally, an issue that has sparked some of the sharpest debate in Guam
has been the Department of Defense’s announcement that it will,
if needed, forcibly condemn an additional 2,200 acres of land in Guam
to support the construction of new military facilities. This potential
new land grab has been met with mounting protest by island residents,
mainly due to the fact that the US military already owns close to one-third
of the small island, the majority of which was illegally taken after
World War II.
In February 2010, upon review of the DEIS, the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) rated it “insufficient” and “environmentally
unsatisfactory,” giving it the lowest possible rating for a DEIS.
Among other things, the EPA’s findings suggest that Guam’s
water infrastructure cannot handle the population boom and that the
island’s fresh water resources will be at high risk for contamination.
The EPA predicts that without infrastructural upgrades to the water
system, the population outside the bases will experience a 13.1 million
gallons of water shortage per day in 2014. The agency stated that the
Pentagon’s massive buildup plans for Guam “should not proceed
as proposed.” The people of Guam were given a mere ninety days
to read through the voluminous 11,000-page document and make comments
about its contents. The ninety-day comment period ended on February
17, 2010. The final EIS is scheduled for release in August 2010, with
the record of decision to follow immediately thereafter.
The response to this story from the mainstream US media has been deafening
silence. Since the military buildup was first announced in 2005, it
was more than three years before any US media outlet picked up on the
story. In fact, the October 2009 Democracy Now! interview was the first
substantive national news coverage of the military buildup.
For more information on the military
buildup:
We Are Guahan, http://www.weareguahan.com
Draft Environmental Impact Study Guam & Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands Military Relocation, www.guambuildupeis.us
Center for Biological Diversity Response to DEIS, www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/
center/articles/2010/los-angeles-times-02-24-2010.html
EPA Response to Guam DEIS, www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68298
For more information on Guam’s movement to resist militarization
and unresolved colonialism:
The Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice: Lisa Linda Natividad, lisanati@yahoo.com;
Hope Cristobal, ecris64@teleguam.net; Julian Aguon, julianaguon@gmail.com;
Michael Lujan Bevacqua, mlbasquiat@hotmail.com; Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero,
victoria.lola@gmail.com
We Are Guahan—We Are Guahan Public Forum: www.weareguahan.com
Famoksaiyan: Martha Duenas, martduenas@yahoo.com; famoksaiyanwc.wordpress.com