wildlife – Engaging Peace

Earth Day during wartime (Part 1)

Posted on April 19, 2012November 3, 2012 by patdaniel

Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day. Today we honor the Earth by calling attention to the common goals of the peace and environmental sustainability movements.

But first, some context: Assessing the impact of war on the environment can be fraught with complexity, but here is a sampling of those effects:

Destruction or contamination of farmland, forests, wildlife and biodiversity
Unexploded ordnance (UXO) left to cause death and maiming of people and animals. In Laos alone, about 80 million undetonated cluster munitions are still present in the environment
Polluted water supplies for people, plants and animals
Exacerbation of climate change (the U.S. military is the world’s largest consumer of oil)
Oil spills, both deliberate and as collateral damage
Disruption of ecosystems from refugees and displaced people
Radioactive wastes from depleted uranium weapons and nuclear testing
Pollution from chemical weapons, herbicides, and routine operations of the military-industrial complex
Failure to clean up after warfare, causing long-term public health, agricultural, and ecological devastation

It works the other way, too–that misuse, destruction, and scarcity of natural resources can be the cause of war. Examples include conflicts over oil in the Middle East, rare metals in the Congo, food shortages and water scarcity in South Asia and throughout the world. More and more, climate disruption is becoming or is predicted (pdf) to be a source of conflict.

In other words, environmental degradation is a threat to global security.

As you celebrate Earth Day on Sunday, please consider what it will take to stop the intertwined scourges of warfare and environmental destruction. Even more important, make a commitment to do something about them.

Pat Daniel, Ph.D., Managing Editor of Engaging Peace

Double-duty death: War and environmental destruction

Posted on April 25, 2011March 11, 2021 by patdaniel

Book review of Barry Sanders’ The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism
By Pat Daniel, Ph.D., managing editor of Engaging Peace

We are all too familiar with war’s impact on people and politics, but how often do we consider its damage to the Earth? The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism provides a frightening glimpse of the ecological menace known as the U.S. armed forces.

Barry Sanders’ research met obstacles at every turn. Information is secret, not measured or recorded, not available to the public. Nevertheless, this Pulitzer Prize nominated author substantiates a sobering and terrifying conclusion: The U.S. military is not only the greatest polluter on the planet, but also is playing the lead role in speeding us toward a global warming catastrophe.

The Green Zone is a must-read for members of both the peace and environmental movements. The arts community, too, will be awakened by the stunning images contributed by students of Pacific Northwest College of Art. Here is just a sample of the horrors that Sanders exposes, primarily from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Radiation poisoning

We fight conventional wars—not nuclear—right? Wrong.

Most U.S. munitions are made with depleted uranium that leaves behind radioactive dust. Easily absorbed, the dust is responsible for alarming increases in deaths, cancers, birth defects and other medical problems among citizens in war-torn countries, as well as U.S. veterans. Indigenous wildlife endures similar impacts.
Because of the long half-life of radioactive residue, the ecological destruction will continue for decades or centuries to come.

Air, soil and water contamination

Fragile soils, agricultural lands and natural vegetation have been destroyed by the impact of heavy vehicles, or made unusable by firebombing, land mines and unexploded cluster bombs.
Toxic chemicals from weapons, vehicles and military targets such as fertilizer plants pollute the air, fresh water supplies, and ocean habitats.

Energy use and carbon pollution

Ironically, while the U.S. military devotes much of its efforts toward insuring the flow of oil supplies, the institution itself is the world’s largest consumer of fuels:

In military speak, fuel consumption is measured in “barrels per hour,” “gallons per minute,” and “gallons per mile.”
The M-1 Abrams tank gets 0.2 miles per gallon; the Apache helicopter, 0.5; the Humvee, 4.0. The F-16 Fighter Jet uses 28 gallons per minute; the B-52 Stratocruiser, an astonishing 500 gallons per minute.

As Sanders demonstrates, if every aspect of the non-military sector instantly stopped generating greenhouse gases, the military’s carbon footprint alone will propel the world toward catastrophe.

“Indeed, if scientists are correct in telling us that we must reduce the burning of fossil fuels by seventy percent…then surely they must see the obvious: We must put a stop to war.”

Pat Daniel, Ph.D., managing editor of Engaging Peace

Misrepresenting or minimizing consequences (Moral disengagement, part 6)

Posted on November 4, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Misrepresenting or minimizing consequences is another moral disengagement mechanism.

Psychologist Albert Bandura notes that when people commit atrocities for personal gain or as a response to social pressure, one way to offset shame and guilt is to minimize or distort the ill-effects of their behavior.

During contemporary warfare by the developed nations, this process is facilitated by modern technology, which allows maiming and killing from high in the air–thus avoiding the sight of blood, guts, and dismembered bodies; the screams of pain, pleas for help; and victims begging for an end to their ordeal.

It has been noted that the Pulitzer-prize winning photograph of the naked Vietnamese girl running from her napalmed village played a pivotal role in turning the American public against the Vietnam War.

To avoid a repetition of that kind of public disavowal of their political and military aims, more recent governments have exercised extreme control over media portrayals of wartime events.

Misrepresenting and minimizing consequences is rampant in relation to the environmental consequences of war. Among the long-lasting effects of war that are minimized right out of people’s consciousness are:

Sunken ships that continue to pollute the oceans
Landmines that continue to maim and kill
Hazardous waste from the manufacturing of weapons
Destruction and pollution of wildlife and human habitat through use of herbicidal weapons such as Agent Orange
Environmental degradation from the thousands of refugees fleeing the armed conflict.

(For more about environmental consequences of war, see the report of the Environmental Literacy Council.)

In reaction to the minimizing, misrepresenting, and denial of the environmental effects of war, the United Nations, in 2001, declared November 6 to be International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.