Pentagon's Climate Stance Clashes with Military’s Environmental Impact

[Social Media]

 

The U.S. military is widely recognized as one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, yet Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made it clear that his department has no intention of addressing climate change. "We do training and warfighting," Hegseth stated in a social media post on Sunday, dismissing the idea that climate concerns should factor into military strategy.  

 

Hegseth’s remarks were in response to Pentagon Spokesman John Ullyot, who told CNN that “climate zealotry and other woke chimeras of the Left are not part” of the Defense Department’s mission. Echoing this sentiment, Hegseth further stated in February, “The Defense Department is not in the business of climate change, solving the global thermostat. We’re in the business of deterring and winning wars.”  

 

The Trump administration previously downplayed climate change across federal agencies, including the Pentagon, but Hegseth’s stance stands in stark contrast to the department’s past policies and research findings. The U.S. military has been found to produce more annual carbon dioxide emissions than many entire nations. With 128 coastal military installations under threat from rising sea levels, flooding, and increasingly severe hurricanes, the military’s vulnerability to climate change is clear. Recent years have seen tornadoes damage Air Force and Army bases in Ohio and Virginia, and researchers warn that a warming world increases the likelihood of more off-season tornadoes.  

 

Harvard Kennedy School Professor Juliette Kayyem criticized Hegseth’s remarks, highlighting the practical consequences of climate change on military readiness. “Hegseth calls it ‘climate change c**p.’ The Pentagon once called it military readiness. Airfields in Oklahoma are damaged from tornadoes; subs in VA from sea water rise; bases in Guam from flooding; NORAD in CO impacted by fires,” Kayyem posted on social media. “It wasn't about wokeness. It never was.”  

 

Biden-era Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks previously emphasized the real-world impact of climate-driven disasters on military operations, stating in 2023, “You can't train for combined operations with allies and partners if the training facilities are flooded. You can't run an installation without water because you're in a drought and you can't adequately prepare for future threats if you're occupied with urgent crises.” Climate change has been linked to disruptions in military capabilities, increased conflict risks, and humanitarian crises, including food and water shortages.  

 

The Department of Defense emits approximately 51 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. For comparison, a million metric tons is roughly the same mass as a million small cars, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Though emissions had been declining since 2010 due to reductions in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, efficiency improvements, and renewable energy adoption, the military remains a massive polluter.  

 

Most of these emissions come from the buildings and vehicles that sustain military operations. In fiscal year 2016 alone, the Department of Defense consumed around 86 million barrels of fuel for operational purposes, according to Oxford University political scientist Neta C. Crawford. In 2021, Democratic lawmakers noted that the Defense Department was the “single-largest consumer of energy in the U.S. and the world’s single-largest institutional consumer of petroleum,” accounting for “77-to-80 percent of federal energy use.” A 2019 study from Durham and Lancaster University described the U.S. military as “one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more carbon-dioxide equivalent than most countries.”  

 

Despite these findings, Hegseth and other Pentagon officials continue to dismiss climate concerns, maintaining that their sole focus is on military preparedness and warfare. However, with military infrastructure increasingly threatened by extreme weather events, the debate over the role of climate change in defense strategy is far from over.

 

Based on a report by The Independent  2025-03-12

 

 

[Purdey]

More emissions than entire countries? 

A bit shocked. 

[Watawattana]

Oh, I know!  Get Mush to use his tesla trucks as tanks.  Surely there must be enough plugs in the battlefield to keep them charged?