A weekly reckoning with life in a warming world—and the fight to save it |
|
|
|
|
Hurricane Ian moves toward Florida on Wednesday | NOAA/Getty |
|
|
|
|
|
It’s hard not to think about disaster response this week, as Hurricane Ian hurtles into Florida. It’s been clear since at least Monday that this was going to be a very dangerous situation. As of this writing, we don’t know just how bad it will be or what the recovery effort might look like. The storm was in the back of my mind when I read a theoretically unrelated article in The Washington Post this week, about how smaller militaries in Eastern Europe are increasingly finding themselves battling wildfires, rather than traditional enemies. As Michael Birnbaum reported, “The challenge is also increasing in the United States, where National Guard members devoted more than 172,000 personnel days to fighting fires last year, compared to 18,000 in 2019, according to U.S. Army figures. (Worth noting: The military was also a significant part of America’s Hurricane Katrina response.) For many smaller militaries, this is a substantial pivot. Birnbaum points to Slovenia, which is currently below NATO’s 2 percent threshold for military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. “Slovenian defense leaders decided this month to cancel a $343 million purchase of armored troop carriers as they contemplate buying more aircraft that could be used to fight fires.… After Russia invaded Ukraine, Slovenian policymakers pledged to reach the NATO guideline, 2 percent, by 2030. They say they need to be ready for wildfires and to increase conventional combat preparedness at the same time.” But Birnbaum also quotes several experts who say either outright or more subtly that having to fight climate change may negatively affect military readiness. And the question becomes: What should be done about that? Birnbaum’s piece ends with a warning from an American security expert: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
“It’s really a question of organization. Are we going to use the military as a backup? Some people think that’s wise,” said Alice Hill, who worked on climate change and resilience on the Obama-era National Security Council and is now at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If you’re using that as a backup, what happens if those needs grow exponentially, as they are doing?” |
|
|
|
|
It’s hard not to read this statement as a suggestion that countries spend even more on the military than they’re already spending. |
|
|
|
|
{{#if }} Our writers and editors are bringing you vital reporting, explanation, and analysis to understand the current climate crisis—but they need your help. Here’s a special offer to subscribe to The New Republic. |
—Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
|
{{/if}} Slovenia’s government seems to be sensibly concluding that if it must increase defense spending for NATO’s satisfaction, it will at least use its military on the threats it’s actually facing—fire—rather than Cold War nostalgia. As for the United States, though, it sure spends a lot on its military—and Cold War nostalgia. TNR’s Kate Aronoff made that point last week, after U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said that rich countries with more responsibility for global warming couldn’t possibly afford to help compensate poorer nations for climate disasters. The thing is, the U.S. actually could: Its military budget is currently $1.77 trillion, whereas climate loss and damage financing is projected to cost between $300 billion and $700 billion per year by 2030, Kate noted. If countries are going to blow a significant chunk of their annual budget on their militaries, then maybe these militaries should be deployed against arguably the greatest security threat to our planet. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that immediate action to save lives is more useful than hypothetical readiness to kill enemies in the future. Of course, a simpler option could be to take some of that military budget and spend it directly on rapid decarbonization and other climate policies. In a world where even the lower estimates of current deaths from global warming are around five million a year, that proposal shouldn’t seem radical at all. —Heather Souvaine Horn, deputy editor |
|
|
|
|
|
That’s the proportion of U.S. hurricanes that have hit the state of Florida, according to The Washington Post. Its piece published Tuesday explains why that number is so high. |
|
|
|
The Senate has finally ratified a treaty to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas often used in air conditioning and refrigeration. This won’t mean much for U.S. manufacturing, which has already switched to alternatives due in part to legislation passed in 2020. But hey, there’s never any guarantee that the U.S. Senate will actually ratify the climate-related treaties that U.S. officials help write. So: small blessings. |
|
|
The Nord Stream pipelines carrying natural gas under the Baltic Sea have sprung a leak, sending monumental quantities of methane gas up through the water and into the air. Experts fear this could prove to be one of the worst natural gas leaks in history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elsewhere in the Ecosystem |
Yes that’s right, it’s Military Week in this newsletter. But seriously, don’t miss Stan Cox’s excellent breakdown of the ways in which the current structure and priorities of the U.S. military are exacerbating the climate crisis. Here’s a very small sample: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US military is this globe’s largest institutional consumer of petroleum fuels. As a result, it produces greenhouse gas emissions equal to about 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. Were the Pentagon a country, those figures would place it just below Ireland and Finland in a ranking of national carbon emissions. Or put another way, our military surpasses the total national emissions of Bulgaria, Croatia, and Slovenia combined. A lot of those greenhouse gases flow from the construction, maintenance, and use of its 800 military bases and other facilities on 27 million acres across the United States and the world. The biggest source of emissions from actual military operations is undoubtedly the burning of jet fuel. A B-2 bomber, for instance, emits almost two tons of carbon dioxide when flying a mere 50 miles, while the Pentagon’s biggest boondoggle, the astronomically costly F-35 combat aircraft, will emit “only” one ton for every 50 miles it flies. |
|
|
|
What Subscribers Are Reading |
Whether the outcome will be good or bad for the climate remains unclear. The process, though, was terrible. |
|
|
The U.S. climate envoy seemed to come unglued this week when Farhana Yamin, a veteran environmental lawyer and climate negotiator, asked him about funding for nations recovering from climate catastrophe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update your personal preferences for newsletter@newslettercollector.com by clicking here.
Copyright © 2022 The New Republic, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is: The New Republic 1 Union Sq W Fl 6 New York, NY 10003-3303 USA
Do you want to stop receiving all emails from TNR? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
