Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest institutional user of fossil fuels in the world and, consequently, the world’s largest institutional producer of greenhouse gas emissions.
My experience with the Pentagon Papers showed that an act of truth-telling, of exposing the realities about which the public had been misled, can indeed help end an unnecessary, deadly conflict. This example is a lesson applicable to both the nuclear and climate crises we face.
More than 100 representatives voted for the People’s Budget earlier this month, which limits investment in the military and pumps money into jobs, education, health care and climate resiliency. Of course, the resolution was not binding and was voted down by the House. Nevertheless, the ideas in the People’s Budget provide a clear, concise plan for mobilizing the significant resources of the United States in the service of its people — which is kind of how it is supposed to be, right?
Think of this as the new face of homeland security: containing the damage to America’s seacoasts, forests, and other vulnerable areas caused by extreme weather events made all the more frequent and destructive thanks to climate change. This is a “war” that won’t have a name — not yet, not in the Trump era, but it will be no less real for that.
Why does the U.S. military establishment take environmental threats seriously and act on them in such a thoroughgoing fashion while the military’s strongest congressional supporters are the most ardent opponents of sustainable practices?
However, the sobering conclusion for the rest us is this: Biofuels were one of our great hopes in resolving/mitigating the impending crisis in liquid fuel supply. If biofuels are indeed a dead end as Capt. Kiefer has demonstrated, then one of our most promising ‘solutions’ is gone.
