War and the Environment - "Green" death machines

As I've mentioned previously, there are limits to what you can get away with in a "just war," and this is the basis of just war theory. Yet when one thinks of war, one rightly thinks about destruction - destruction of physical objects, destruction of lives, destruction of nature. At the same time, what goes on in the military during non-war time is equally damaging to the environment, and people around the world. In the end, however, no matter how much the killing machine reduces its environmental impact through measures like efficiency, or building solar panels, there is a schizophrenia about these actions - under no conditions is war benign to the environment, and under no conditions is preparing for war benign, either. But you may have come across this article, in which it is stated that the US military wants to go "net zero" for energy, water, and waste.

What are interesting, but sad, really, are the military's definitions of "net zero." For energy, that means that they'll just produce on site what they need, which is a lot (the US military uses as much energy as the entire country of Nigeria, with a population of one-hundred and forty million people). For water, "net zero" means that they'll purify the water they use before they reintroduce it into the watershed (this sounds good, credit given, but I am wary of the accounting), and for waste, "net zero" means "no landfilling" bur rather converting waste into things with "resource value." Hmmm...

So the military "cares" about the environment and is at the same time preparing to kill other people and destroy lives elsewhere when it inevitably does go to war? What is the difference between humans and the environment? And when does the environment go out of the window? Of course, when we the military feels the pinch to say "mission accomplished." Gone then is the care for the environment, because if success requires another building to be blown up with a missile made from metals and toxic chemicals, then, so be it.

What is a discouraging about all of this is that since the military is such a massive institution and organisation in the US, with expenditures and presences dwarfing the sum of the expenditures and presences of all of the other militaries of the world, any portrayal of the US military doing anything "green" is lauded and commended with no thought that the very notion of war is unsustainable. Would a "green" military entice more people to join it? Would it result in committing to it more young minds and hearts, who will wield a gun in promotion of peace and "environment"? With that in mind, consider the following headline:

"Green Hornet to take Flight on Earth Day."

The Navy will demonstrate the 'Green Hornet,' an F/A-18 Super Hornet powered by a 50/50 biofuel blend, on Earth Day, April 22, at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., as part of its Energy Strategy.

You can read more here, here, here, here.

Do you find anything wrong with this? Is there something contradictory and morally depraved about this? I think so, and so does Matt, who told me about it. He said, "Last year, National Geographic ran an optimistic article, 'First Green Supersonic Jet to Launch on Earth Day.' It was a Navy F/A-18 Super "Green" Hornet(!) I was wondering how many things we could find morally/ethically wrong with this event and its implications - living plants harvested and chemically transformed to fuel a death machine to be launched on a day dedicated to our plant and the life it supports."

 couple of weeks ago the U.S. Army announced that it was on the verge of identifying a group of bases to adopt a net zero policy for energy, water and waste, and now we can all stop holding our breaths. The U.S. Army’s net zero bases were just announced and the program is even more ambitious than it first appeared. Net zero energy, water, and waste are assigned to six bases each, and two bases have volunteered to go net zero in all three categories. For those of you keeping score at home, that doesn’t actually add up to twenty, because some bases are going net zero in two categories. In any case, the point is to position the U.S. Army as a showcase, leader and learning center for sustainability, not only for the rest of the military but for the civilian world as well.

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12txM

On paper and communication

One of the rules I set for myself at the beginning of this project is that any trash that is generated because of someone gifting something to me will not be considered my trash. When someone gives you something as special as a gift, it is hard to say no to accepting it. To me, a gift is given to convey thought, love, spirit and appreciation. Not accepting a gift, I imagine, can hurt someone's feelings, especially if they didn't know that I was trying to create as little trash as possible. It may be a different story if the person gifting knew what I was trying to do, but that is a different story. In the end, I have made a trade-off, a significant one; I have traded in trying to not create trash, whether it is mine or someone else's, for the appreciation and kindness someone is willing to show me. This is by no means an easy trade-off, and such situations always make me think and reconsider my stance. The point is that, as a conversation between Matthew and I alluded to, we make trade-offs every day, as resolute we may be in our stances on issues. Many times, especially when making choices related to the environment, it is difficult to know what may be the lesser of two evils. I would say, in general, that if you are in such a decision-making place, it is probably better to avoid anything in which you have to make such a decision. But here now arises a quite difficult question - how do I feel about paper vs. a computer?

As many of you may know, I am technologically challenged, but this is not a bad thing. I have definitely been able to get done what I have needed to get done, especially in the laboratory, with the little skill I may have. I much prefer paper and pencil over computer screen and keyboard when it comes to reading and writing. Much of what we read and learn nowadays is on a computer screen, and that includes personal messages from other people and pictures from the National Geographic. The University of Michigan has been on a quest to digitise its entire library, which consists of millions of books, and billions of pages. I envision a future in which people grow up readings solely on their Nook or Kindle, without ever touching a piece of paper. But there is something wonderful about receiving a letter in the mail, or opening up your favourite magazine, especially if the magazine is beautifully edited and laid out. When taking notes in class or during a discussion, there is a definitiveness and uniqueness in the act of putting pencil (or pen if you please) to paper - no one in the world has my handwriting (although my sister's is very similar), and no one will be able to replicate exactly what I have written down. (With computers, Times New Roman here is definitely Times New Roman there.) There is a bond with the paper, and although it is not scientifically measurable, I contend that emotions are more adequately conveyed by paper than by computer.

But what about the environmental impact of paper? Paper can be made from trees that haven't been grown ethically or sustainably, and bleaching paper produces dioxins. This is an extremely difficult consideration, made more difficult by the fact that by 2014, as David Owen wrote in The New Yorker about Jevon's Paradox, the amount of energy used by the US computer network each year alone will be equivalent to the amount of electrical energy consumption in the entire country of Australia each year. This is besides the continued environmental and social impacts of resource extraction. So there is clearly a significant decision to be made - paper or computer? I vote for paper.