The Institute for Policy Studies has a new Foreign Policy in Focus report out: "The Budget Compared: Military vs. Climate Security." As you'd expect from the name, it's a close look at how federal dollars are allocated for military vs. climate protection, and as you'd expect from, you know, being awake, there's an enormous disparity. It's pretty astonishing nonetheless. Here are the reports major findings:
• FINDING: For every dollar allocated for stabilizing the climate, the government will spend $88 on achieving security by military force.
• FINDING: The government is allocating 99% of combined federal spending on military and climate security to military security.
• FINDING: During the last five years the ratio of military security to climate security spending has averaged 97 to 1.
• FINDING: In FY 2008, as well as during the past five years, the government has allocated for climate security only one percent of what it has devoted to military security.
• FINDING: The U.S. government budgeted $20 to develop new weapons systems for every dollar it requested to develop new technologies to stabilize the climate.
• FINDING: We will devote 50 times as much to arming the rest of the world as to helping it prepare for and avoid global climate catastrophe.
• FINDING: The government allocates just 2% of the international assistance budget for both military and climate security to stabilizing climate.
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
Hal 9000 Posted 10:20 am
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
ids Posted 11:00 am
31 Jan 2008
As Johnson finds, the truth is closer to $1T:
"The Department of Defense requested $481.4 billion for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7 billion for the "supplemental" budget to fight the "global war on terrorism" -- that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4 billion to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional "allowance" (a new term in defense budget documents) of $50 billion to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This comes to a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5 billion.
But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the American military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4 billion for the Department of Energy goes toward developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3 billion in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt, and Pakistan). Another $1.03 billion outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and reenlistment incentives for the overstretched U.S. military itself, up from a mere $174 million in 2003, the year the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7 billion, 50% of which goes for the long-term care of the grievously injured among the at least 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and another 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4 billion goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
Missing as well from this compilation is $1.9 billion to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5 billion to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6 billion for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200 billion in interest for past debt-financed defense outlays. This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year (2008), conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion."
And that doesn't include arms exported and the whole arms industry being stimulated in China, etc., by U.S. harms spending.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:14 am
31 Jan 2008
Read this and don't pay attention to the human suffering, but consider the environmental consequences.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB01Ak02.html
BTW, the Chinese military budget is only about 1/10th the US military budget.
Don't know about the French, English, Germans, Japanese and Canadians, or the Indians and Pakistanis.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:46 am
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:55 am
01 Feb 2008
I bet cancelling the Iraq-tastrophe would save 30% of the military budget.
No more oil use, no more funding terrorist coffers and regional resentment. The war on terror would be rendered obsolete. Security enhanced, money saved, GHG canceled.
All we have to do is drive plugin hybrids, recharged by the solar panels on the garage, is that too much to ask? I think it's a sacrifice that patriotic security conscious americans would be happy to make.
Even motorhead hotrodders can have their thunderbeasts, just run them most of the time on plugin hybrid power. Rev up the old ICE ocasionally to impress.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:09 am
01 Feb 2008
Put a third of this into direct incentives for distributed wind, solar, and biogas generated power. Every power company could then pay 23 cents per kwh to the producers of solar, wind, or biogas generated power. Like Wisconsin electric does now, voluntarily, for solar power.
Put a third of it into buying plugin hybrids for government service, the best deal for taxpayers negotiated with mass production contracts with US auto manufacturers. For vehicles to be manufactured or converted in the US.
Put the other third into conservation. Geo heat exchange heating/cooling, cogeneration and waste heat recovery, mass renewable electric transportation, light rail and buses. And bike lanes and trails. And smart grid projects that match supply and demand without burning more fuel in a power plant.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:32 am
01 Feb 2008
First of all Army guys wear green.
Ok, that's a joke...get it...Army...green...
Anyway, the most advanced technology comes from Defense spending. So, all your nanotech and nonsuch that's gonna bail your butts out of the ecomess is coming from G.I. Joe's budget.
Get with the program, soldiers.
CO2. It does a Planetary Body Good!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:51 am
01 Feb 2008
We already have the means now. Though further technological advances would certainly be nice and helpful, it's not absolutely necessary.
What we do need however, is more funds...which the military has more than enough of already.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:10 am
01 Feb 2008
Permalink