Today is the five-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. I don't have a whole lot to say about it that other people haven't said better. I would just stress one point:
People frequently fret that we can't afford the measures necessary to fight climate change. That is false. We are an enormously rich country. We're in the midst of spending trillions on a war that is providing no benefits whatsoever, just to stoke the imperialist fantasies of our ruling class. We can afford whatever we want. It's whether we really want it that's the question.
Here's some reading you might consider:
Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the ultimate cost of the war will top $3 trillion.
Sen. Harry Reid's office has released its own attempt at tallying the cost of the war, not only in money but in lives, military readiness, security, and the stability of the Middle East.
Barack Obama gave a major speech on foreign policy today, claiming that "there is a security gap in this country -- a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions."
Oil Change International has issued a new report called A Climate of War (PDF), which attempts to quantify the greenhouse gases associated with the war and the opportunity costs of fighting the war rather than climate change. Here are some of the top-line conclusions:
1. Projected total US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends.
2. The war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.
3. Emissions from the Iraq War to date are nearly two and a half times greater than what would be avoided between 2009 and 2016 were California to implement the auto emission regulations it has proposed, but that the Bush Administration has struck down. Finally, if the war was ranked as a country in terms of annual emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world's nations do. Falling between New Zealand and Cuba, the war each year emits more than 60% of all countries on the planet.
4. Just the $600 billion that Congress has allocated for military operations in Iraq to date could have built over 9000 wind farms (at 50 MW capacity each), with the overall capacity to meet a quarter of the country's current electricity demand. If 25% of our power came from wind, rather than coal, it would reduce US GHG emissions by over 1 billion metric tons of CO2 per year -- equivalent to approximately 1/6 of the country's total CO2 emissions in 2006.
5. In 2006, the US spent more on the war in Iraq than the whole world spent on investment in renewable energy.
6. US presidential candidate Barack Obama has committed to spending "$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of green energy technology and infrastructure." The US spends nearly that much on the war in Iraq in just 10 months.
What a horrific, heartbreaking waste.
Comments
View as Threaded
naturescene Posted 11:14 am
19 Mar 2008
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather go into debt to build solar panels than bombs. I'm just saying...
Permalink
bigTom Posted 12:00 pm
19 Mar 2008
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:14 pm
19 Mar 2008
What? still some WMD'ers out there, or Al Quaeda
boogy man theorist.
Iraqi freedom, remember the lines from the song, "Freedoms just another word for nothin else to lose"
It was always about the oil.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:29 pm
19 Mar 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/business/19coal.html
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 12:42 pm
19 Mar 2008
Robert Repetto, an economics professor at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies who created the site, said, "As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy," he said. "The world's leading economists who have studied the issue say that's wrong. And you can find out for yourself."
The interactive website, http://www.climate.yale.edu/seeforyourself, synthesized thousands of policy analyses in order to identify the seven key assumptions accounting for most of the differences in the models' predictions. It allows visitors to the site to indicate how likely they believe each of these assumptions is, and on that basis see what the economic models would predict. ...
"The website shows that even under the most unfavorable assumptions regarding costs, the U.S. economy is predicted to continue growing robustly as carbon emissions are reduced," said Repetto. "Under favorable assumptions, the economy would grow more rapidly if emissions are reduced through national policy measures than if they are allowed to increase as in the past."
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:50 pm
19 Mar 2008
Certainly the other thing to consider, when you are spending money on infrastructure and technology, often you aren't merely throwing that money away.
It actually pays dividends.
Permalink
human power Posted 2:04 pm
19 Mar 2008
We could still do it. We were willing as a country to blow up the National debt by 50% for a war, what's another 50% to hand over a livable planet to our children?
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:04 pm
19 Mar 2008
If President Bush blew our collective wad of money on a war but it could have financed so many good things like climate change and education, that is still called ... blowing your wad!
The think-tank folks say that "fixing global warming is cheap" simply must face the present condition that we're slap out of money. Poof, it's gone. You can credit Mr. Bush for a slight down-tick in US global warming gases simply because the economy has gone to pot. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
justlou Posted 11:33 pm
20 Mar 2008
If this war has proven anything it is that the US will always find the resources and wealth to open a can of whoopass even if it means undermining its own economic stability and world security.
Some of us have predicted the end of living in an unsustainable civilization -- collapse -- but few could have imagined the strange pathway which included the selection of Bush for president. Dumb does select for dumber. Ugly does select for uglier. When you are so far along on the wrong path, when all your choices lead to negative or dubiously effective outcomes, and you realize that you are on the wrong path, what is it exactly that keeps us on this path? It is not freedom. So, tell me again, what are we fighting for?
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 3:30 am
21 Mar 2008
No need to build anymore freeways, mass transit of all forms and electric cars.
The push to electric cars in the metro area's and hybrids short term for the inter-state.
Hydro electric, geothermal, wind and solar. We got the second largest oil reserve in the world now to help stave off our 2nd peak oil crisis.
Secure it and take advantage of this new breathing space to get off oil.
I don't agree with this war or the reason we went, we garnered more bad blood and mistrust in the world than what it is going to be worth.
It will go down as the biggest mistake this country ever made, the depression it may yet cause aside.
What's done is done, only thing we can do now is try to crawl out of this hole Bush dug for us. The Japanese were a great example of a ruined economy and infra-structure after WWII that built themselves back up to the second largest economy in the world. With no natural resources and with an economy not based on the gold standard.
They went in with new technology in their steel industry, improved oxygen blast while we were still using open hearth. Kicked out but with new technology and an improved management style. Our CEO's take vulgar profits for non-performance and invest nothing anymore in capital or R&D.
Leave a small force in to guard the oil we stole and take this money we are wasting and build a green infr-structure that is not oil dependent.
Of course we all know the means of production or the transportation of oil in that region is not secure. It will take mega bucks for years to keep the 5th Fleet parked there and a large military presence to guard our oil reserve. Did I say our oil reserve, you know I mean Iraq's.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Nowist Posted 3:56 am
21 Mar 2008
What investments are we making by spending $3 trillion on a war? What dividends are we reaping? An educated student will have a voice, and a way to speak it, to speak it, a desire for democracy, ability to start businesses, a potentially smaller family. Educated people spread peace. People with limited education, and limited resources get into planes and smash into buildings. Educated people take ownership of their land.
Dead people do nothing for us. The numbers of wounded and killed civilians will never thank us and work to spread peace. They will not find us more oil in the earth. They will not make us energy-independent. They are dead.
Permalink
PJD Posted 3:26 am
22 Mar 2008
While very informative in showing the magnitude of the horrible financial consequences of the war and qualitatively showing the lost opportunity cost, this is the type of statement that I believe also can create some unrealistic ideas in the public mind.
There is simply no way that the wind industry could have ramped up quickly enough to have produced this many turbines by now. Already turbine prices are rising because of multiple constraints starting with the raw materials used in turbines and continuing clear through the production and installation industries.
So it would be much more accurate to say "could build" rather than "could have built". Too many well meaning environmentalists have the mistaken impression that an arbitrarily large amount of money can be thrown at something like PV or windmills and the capacity will magically appear almost overnight. Especially if there is a lack of long term planning and commitment, rapid increases in outlays of subsidies for a technology can simply lead to inflated prices and bigger profits for the industry... without necessarily implying the stable profits that would entice new competitors into the market.
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 4:38 am
28 Mar 2008
It's very late in the day. The problems of peak oil, overpopulation and global warming are at the red-light-flashing and siren-screaming stage now. But what we as a nation will do about them, apparently, is continue to do all we can to make them worse as rapidly as possible, because we have allowed this criminal gang to take over our government.
Soon we will have an election. Will the outcome affect any of this? Hard to say. We all want to believe Obama would be different,but he has made no strong promises. Every candidate with a really good energy plan--that is, every candidate who challenged the fossil fools--has already been eliminated by a mass media that is a part of the cabal.
What to do?
Permalink