So the U.S. military has made the assessment that climate change is the single greatest threat to U.S. national security in the history if the U.S., and they've also simultaneously shrugged and said, nah man, we aren't going to do anything about it.. do I have that right?
military still has to buy it. i mean the infrastructure to produce oil has to be there and in good working order. subsidized by the public as required.
military will only decarbonize if it's a strategic advantage that they understand. i haven't heard any talk of them doing that except in out in the outer rim where it's difficult to ship fuel.
11 Comments
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 68 pts · 2y
So the U.S. military has made the assessment that climate change is the single greatest threat to U.S. national security in the history if the U.S., and they've also simultaneously shrugged and said, nah man, we aren't going to do anything about it.. do I have that right?
jmdatcs@lemmy.tf · 32 pts · 2y
Don't be silly. I'm sure the U.S. military has drawn up several contingency plans to massacre climate migrants.
vivadanang@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
there's a tremendous push to diversify the military's fuel use with EV stuff. they know what's coming.
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2023/10/09/us-army-ready-to-pursue-electric-light-recon-vehicle/
FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 2y
sigh
We're in for an increasingly rough ride in the coming years...
Shirasho@lemmings.world · 8 pts · 2y
If the rhetoric is that Santa delivers coal to bad kids then why are we subsidizing that industry?
mosscap@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 2y
Because the bad kids love coal, and they also run shit
lntl@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 2y
the US military runs on fossil fuel, can't disempower the military
silence7@slrpnk.net · 12 pts · 2y
The bulk of their operations are logistics, which can be decarbonized. And military use isn't generally subsidized in the usual sense of that word.
lntl@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2y
military still has to buy it. i mean the infrastructure to produce oil has to be there and in good working order. subsidized by the public as required.
military will only decarbonize if it's a strategic advantage that they understand. i haven't heard any talk of them doing that except in out in the outer rim where it's difficult to ship fuel.
vivadanang@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
I know the US military is one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels, but they see the times changing and are trying to adapt:
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2023/10/09/us-army-ready-to-pursue-electric-light-recon-vehicle/
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-lethality-case-for-electric-military-vehicles/
https://www.gmdefensellc.com/site/us/en/gm-defense/home/integrated-vehicles/e-isv.html
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/2/28/army-currently-focused-on-hybrid-rather-than-all-electric-vehicles-official-says
https://www.wusf.org/transportation/2023-04-15/the-military-is-converting-to-electric-vehicles-on-bases-but-charging-them-remains-a-challenge
https://www.cbtnews.com/u-s-army-receives-first-order-of-electric-pickups-from-ford/
iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 2y
typical rug-pulling from the US's part. Otherwise how could they have become the first world superpower smh