The Environmental Costs of Militarization
As we recognize Earth Day, it is important that as peace economy advocates we think about how military operations and practices significantly degrade the environment, yet they often escape accountability. Militarization is resource-intensive, and encompasses a broad spectrum of activities, including the operation of military bases, weapons manufacturing, testing grounds, and the disposal of military waste, and the ecological damage these activities cause is enormous and often irreversible.[1]
Military bases, both domestic and overseas, are like small cities that contribute to air, soil, and water pollution. On October 13, 2023 the Guardian reported the use of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in firefighting foams at 245 military bases has led to groundwater contamination across the United States. These chemicals are linked to several health risks, including cancer, and are extremely persistent in the environment, necessitating costly remediation efforts that can span decades.
Moreover, the physical footprint of these bases often disrupts local wildlife habitats. Large tracts of land are cleared, and ecosystems are fragmented, leading to loss of biodiversity. Noise pollution from routine operations and training exercises also causes disturbances to nearby animal populations, which can alter migration patterns and reproductive routines.
The production and testing of military weapons are equally detrimental to the environment. The National Institute of Health reports the process of manufacturing weapons such as missiles, tanks, and firearms involves substantial resource extraction. Mining activities for metals like aluminum, titanium, and rare earth elements not only deplete these resources but also result in significant land degradation and pollution due to the heavy use of chemicals in processing these materials.
Testing grounds and proving facilities further exacerbate this issue. The EPA states, the “DoD suspects or acknowledges contamination by military munitions of an estimated 15 million acres of land. DoD estimates cleanup of these sites will cost from $8 billion to $35 billion.” Open-air testing of large-scale ordnance involves the release of toxic substances into the environment, which include heavy metals and other carcinogens that can contaminate the air and leach into the soil and waterways. For instance, the Nevada Test Site, where nuclear weapons were tested during and after the Cold War, remains one of the most radioactively contaminated areas in the United States.
Disposal practices for military waste also contribute heavily to environmental pollution. Decommissioned military hardware, unexploded ordnance, and obsolete weapons must be disposed of, yet often, these materials are not handled properly. In sea-dumping exercises, old ships and tanks are sometimes scuttled at sea to create artificial reefs; however, these practices are controversial due to the potential release of toxic substances like PCBs and asbestos into marine environments. The Society of Cultural Anthropology reports U.S. military bases in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt produced unparalleled amounts of waste. The Balad Base in Iraq was reported to produce 250 tons of waste per day.
In addition, the military generates a considerable amount of electronic waste through the disposal of outdated electronics, which often contain hazardous materials such as lead, cadmium, and mercury. Improper disposal can lead to leaching of these substances into the ground, posing significant health and environmental risks.
The worst environmental effects are of course the areas of actual combat. The “Zone Rouge” in northeastern France remains contaminated 100 years after combat in World War I ended, and French agencies estimate it will take another 300 to 700 years to clear it completely. There are areas where the soil is over 17% arsenic by weight. More recently, Iraqis downwind of burn pits have experienced birth defects and issues with crops and livestock.
The ecological implications of militarization are profound and far-reaching. The environmental costs associated with these practices are too significant to overlook. There is a critical need for stricter environmental regulations in the military sector, along with a shift towards more sustainable practices such as the increased use of renewable energy sources at bases, better waste management protocols, and the remediation of contaminated sites.
Promoting a peace economy, where resources typically allocated for military expenditure are redirected towards enhancing social programs and bolstering environmental protection efforts, could substantially mitigate these impacts. Such a shift would not only reduce the environmental footprint of military practices but also enhance global ecological health and stability.
Addressing the environmental cost of militarization requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders. By adopting more sustainable practices and focusing on cleaning up the aftermath of past military activities, it is possible to significantly reduce the ecological damage. True global security starts with taking care of the planet!
We urge all stakeholders, including policymakers, environmental advocates, and the general public, to take a stand against the unchecked environmental degradation caused by military activities. It is essential to advocate for policies that integrate environmental considerations into national security strategies and to support initiatives that aim to clean up military-contaminated sites.
Join us in calling for a reevaluation of military spending, emphasizing sustainable and peace-focused approaches. Contact your representatives, participate in advocacy campaigns, and spread the word about the pressing need to reduce the military’s environmental impact. Together, we can forge a path towards a more sustainable and peaceful world.
[1] Weir, D. (2023, June 26). How does war damage the environment?. CEOBS. https://ceobs.org/how-does-war-damage-the-environment/
