So the U.S. military has made the assessment that climate change is the single greatest threat to U.S. national security in the history if the U.S., and they've also simultaneously shrugged and said, nah man, we aren't going to do anything about it.. do I have that right?
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
124 points (97.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5237 readers
556 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Don't be silly. I'm sure the U.S. military has drawn up several contingency plans to massacre climate migrants.
there's a tremendous push to diversify the military's fuel use with EV stuff. they know what's coming.
sigh
We're in for an increasingly rough ride in the coming years...
If the rhetoric is that Santa delivers coal to bad kids then why are we subsidizing that industry?
Because the bad kids love coal, and they also run shit
the US military runs on fossil fuel, can't disempower the military
The bulk of their operations are logistics, which can be decarbonized. And military use isn't generally subsidized in the usual sense of that word.
Even the parts that still need fuel can use synthetic or bio, if there was ever an industry where costs don’t matter it’s the military. Besides, given how much dealing with fuel limit’s operations, any reductions in front end fuel use come with a directly proportional increase in capability.
military still has to buy it. i mean the infrastructure to produce oil has to be there and in good working order. subsidized by the public as required.
military will only decarbonize if it's a strategic advantage that they understand. i haven't heard any talk of them doing that except in out in the outer rim where it's difficult to ship fuel.
I know the US military is one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels, but they see the times changing and are trying to adapt:
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-lethality-case-for-electric-military-vehicles/
https://www.gmdefensellc.com/site/us/en/gm-defense/home/integrated-vehicles/e-isv.html
https://www.cbtnews.com/u-s-army-receives-first-order-of-electric-pickups-from-ford/
typical rug-pulling from the US's part. Otherwise how could they have become the first world superpower smh