The US Military Climate Conundrum

Climate change is going to be a source of conflict. There's already plenty of research pointing in that direction. The worst effects of a warming planet will displace millions, adding pressure to an already difficult situation, while making resources get scarcer and sparking ethnic conflict elsewhere. I'm not entirely convinced, but some even say that a few of our current conflicts, such as Syria's civil war and Boko Haram's terror campaign have been caused or intensified by climate change.

The Pentagon, on the other hand, is the world's largest single institutional emitter of greenhouse gases. While it seems obvious that it should reduce its carbon footprint to contribute to the fight against climate change, the American military fears this could make its mission more difficult.

Meanwhile, climate change also affects the American military directly, particularly the US Navy. Many of its coastal bases face flooding, (including the largest in the world, in Norfolk, Virginia) and dependance on fossil fuels weighs down foreign missions, making supply lines and operations more rigid and cumbersome.

Finally, to top it all, we have Donald Trump, a self-confessed climate denier, at the White House. He's a strong proponent of increasing the military's size (but not the strongest, as you'll see in the article), but how should these extra funds be used? And where will they come from?

All these issues, and some more, come together in this very complex article, written by Sean Mowbray for Mongabay. It's probably the longest and best sourced piece I've recommended here, and a prime example of what excellent analytical journalism looks like. A look at all the angles, with an amazing quantity of links for further reading and documentation and dozens of interviews. Save it and read it.