HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Oct 3, 2004 - Printable Version
- All Those "Other Living Things"
by Robin Buckallew
Perhaps you have seen the poster "War is unhealthy for children and other living things". Every night on the news (if we are daring enough to venture beyond Fox), every morning in the newspaper (provided we eschew the Daily Oklahoman), you might be hearing and reading about casualties in war zones. More soldiers killed in Iraq. More bombings in Afghanistan. More genocide in Sudan. You might even hear about the civilians killed, the children dying in the hospitals. But rarely do you hear the news about the "other living things". How many living things are killed or injured in a war zone every day? How many miles of their habitat are destroyed? What is the overall ecological cost of modern warfare? Well, folks, you've come to the right place. I am prepared to talk about the environmental consequences of waging modern war. And, while you're reading this article, I would like you to keep in mind that, as of the time of the first Gulf War in 1991, there had been 227 wars worldwide in the 20th century alone. I will address only a handful of those wars (my editor is generous with space, but 227?!? Even if I could find the time to write it all, and he could find the space to carry it all, I am sure that you would be unable to find the time or the energy to read it all). I would like to begin my discussion of modern warfare with a brief discourse on the wars waged against the indigenous American population (popularly known as Indians due to Columbus' small problem with geography). These wars truly began with the arrival of western European settlement on these shores, but I am only going to address a small portion of the time, the late 19th and early 20th centuries - the era during which we created the mythology of the American West. Perhaps you are familiar with that delightful North American animal, the bison. Once upon a time, the bison roamed the plains in great herds, so great they would awe the settlers with their thundering hooves and their long lines of animals migrating to another suitable feed spot. These animals were a mainstay of Native American life. They provided food, clothing, shelter, and sport for the plains tribes. So, the American government, in their ultimate wisdom, decided they must be removed. To starve the tribes, of course. And so the bison was shot wholesale by our troops heading west, and left to rot. We all know the story of the bison, no doubt. The numbers dwindled from huge herds to a small handful of bison barely hanging on in refuges. Today, thanks to the dedicated efforts of many buffalo-huggers, the American bison is returning. But it will never return to its former glory. Chances are, the bison would have suffered even without the war against the Indians. It would have got in the way of Manifest Destiny - white civilization pushing its way westward in the "inevitable" quest for gold, oil and money. But the near demise of an American marvel was hastened by the act of modern warfare.
Now, we move into the 20th century. Once again, we are discussing Indians - but this time, the Indians that live in India. Most of you will remember that during the early part of the 20th century, India was a colony of Great Britain. What most of you will not remember is the devastation that was suffered by India as a result of the Dutch East India Company and the British government. The motive? Profit, of course. And war. No matter how little history you have had, or how little you remember about the history you had, you probably are aware that during the first half of the 20th century, Great Britain was involved in two rather memorable conflicts - World War I and World War II. There were also numerous smaller conflicts throughout the world. As a result, the British government needed to feed their massive military machine. Of course, Great Britain lacked the vast stores of natural resources needed to fuel such a hungry monster. After all, it is an island, and has been settled and stripped of resources for centuries. So they turned to their more resource-rich colonies for the resources they needed. India's vast forests were denuded, laid bare in the interests of providing railroad cars to move around the mighty armies that were needed to fight the wars. Huge logs were floated down mountainsides in the streams and rivers (for greater ease of transport, of course). Eventually, the mountain followed. India has suffered utter devastation, both ecological and economic, from the ensuing avalanches that wiped out entire villages. These avalanches were the result of mountainsides stripped of the vegetation that held the soil in place. That vegetation was seen as a commodity necessary to wage war, not as a vital part of a living ecosystem. Many of those trees, left alone, would still be living, holding the soil in place, providing oxygen. And they would have reproduced others like themselves to take up that role when they were gone. Instead, they served a short stint as a railroad car, and now lie rotting in some junkyard for abandoned railroad parts. Truly, yet another example of how war is unhealthy for "other living things".
It would perhaps be fair to say that the war that most captures the romantic imagination of the world is World War II. It is a war we all know about. Many movies, songs and stories have been generated from this war. Many of us know members of the "Greatest Generation" - the generation that fought and won WWII. It was a just war - we needed to remove Hitler from power. So, I should leave WWII alone, right? No. I think it is necessary to demonstrate that even the most righteous of wars, even the most noble of causes, can generate the direst of consequences. Of course, everyone knows of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Fat Man and Little Boy. I will not discuss those here, because of their prevalence in the literature. I will just mention that the ecological devastation wreaked by these two atomic bombs is self-evident. I would like to address other aspects of the Great War. Once again, we see the endangerment of the megafauna of a continent, as the European bison was slaughtered en masse to near extinction to feed the German and Soviet troops in Poland. We see exploitation of the Polish forests for timber, and retaliatory deforestation in Western Europe by the Soviets. In addition, we see the blasting of pristine Pacific atolls, which were burned and devastated. In Libya, over 450,000 acres of farmland was rendered unusable by 5 million landmines. And 17% of Dutch farmlands (494,000 acres) were flooded with seawater by the Nazis.
Vietnam. Ah, the very word brings chills to the spine. Memories of flag-draped coffins, reports of atrocities, sit-ins, protests, long-haired hippie freaks and clean cut soldiers. A time many of us still remember. We would rather not think about Vietnam. The pain is still fresh. The wounds still hurt. But not nearly so much for us as for the Vietnamese. The war, you see, left their country devastated, not just socially, not just economically, but ecologically as well. What is the ecological effect of carpet bombing? Thirteen million tons dropped, leaving 25 million craters with an average size of 60 square yards. Vast amounts of herbicidal spraying, leading to the decline of the red-shanked duoc langur, one of only eleven mammals endemic to southeastern Asia. Also brought to the brink of extinction were the lemur, the pleated gibbon, Ouston's civet, and the wild forest ox. The overharvesting of lobster to satisfy the palates of the coalition troops wrecked South Vietnam's lobster industry. Elephants and water buffalo were shot in huge numbers by American troops because they were used by the Vietcong to move supplies.
No discussion of Vietnam (or war in general) would be complete without a mention of Agent Orange. Known as a "jungle-eating" defoliant, Agent Orange contains DNA damaging mutagens. But, while this fact has been reported faithfully by the newspapers, there is one question that usually remains unasked (and, therefore, unanswered): What is the ecological effect of defoliating an entire country? What effect has that had on climate change? What effect has that had on soil loss? What effect has that had on the Vietnamese population in their effort to rebuild their destroyed country? During the period of the Vietnam war, elimination of ancient forests was undertaken by wholesale spraying of Agent Orange and by giant, three-ton bulldozers. The bulldozers also scraped clean 1400 acres of rice paddies that the Vietnamese depended on for food. Starving villagers, unable to eat contaminated rice, shot the threatened leaf monkey to provide much needed food for their families. The US troops destroyed 39,000 acres of sedge marshes by digging drainage ditches. These marshes provided vital habitat for the five foot tall sarus crane. More than half the mangrove swamps were destroyed by chemicals and napalm. Once the coastal mangrove swamps were dry, the shrubbery was sprayed with flamethrowers. The impact of these actions remains today. Deforestation, erosion, dried up water sources and flooding have increased since the war's end. In 1943, Vietnam had 44% forest cover; this had decreased to 24% by 1983. It has been estimated that 10-20,000 tons of topsoil wash down the rivers every year. Deforestation has continued, as the forests that are desperately needed for the sustainability of Vietnam's future are harvested to rebuild schools, churches, home and businesses. Approximately 494,000 acres of forests are harvested annually. Much of the ecological damage can never be repaired, and two-fifths of the country remains unusable for either agriculture or forestry.
Then there's the former Republic of Yugoslavia. This has been sold to us as a bloodless war (of course, we only believe that if we look only at the American figures and ignore the Serbs and Croatians that died). Again, a "just" war. A humanitarian intervention. During this "intervention", almost all the parks in the war zones were destroyed. Deer, game and domestic animals were starved, sickened, or shot by machine-guns. Many energy and chemical plants were destroyed, and the chemicals are leaking into the ecosystem. The full extent of the ecological damage in this war remains to be documented.
Probably the greatest contributor to environmental devastation of any war, the Cold War was waged in peacetime. And the devastation continues, even though the Cold War has ended. The nuclear arms race led to greater than 50,000 nuclear weapons worldwide. the production and transportation of hazardous materials left ecological sacrifice zones in its wake, and stockpiles of hazardous waste create risk on a massive scale. It should be noted that the military complex worldwide is the least regulated of any of the hazardous materials industries. In addition, massive use of electronics and fire extinguishers threaten the ozone layer with ozone-eating chemical compounds (most civilian fire extinguishers are never used, but the military tests theirs regularly with halons). I will use just one year, 1988, to demonstrate the massive threat to the environment from a huge military-industrial complex. In 1988, the military used 1,589 trillion BTUs of energy. The total carbon emissions from the combined force of the world's armed forces equal 140 million tons. This is nearly equal to the annual emissions of the entire United Kingdom. It has been estimated that the Department of Defense is responsible for 10-30% of global environmental damage, 6-10% of worldwide air pollution, 20% of CFC use, and 500,000 tons of toxic waste annually (this is more than the top five chemical companies combined). In addition, the excavation of uranium poisons large amounts of our precious, limited water supplies. Worldwide, a large portion of precious metals extracted is expropriated for military use. The vast military buildup of the Cold War required weapons testing, leaving huge areas of Europe and North America unfit for human habitation. Weapons testing has created "national sacrifice zones" in the United States, most of them home to indigenous populations. Across the American west, one could find dead animal disposal sites, plutonium hotspots, and military toxic dumps. The Great Basin was turned into a silent, toxic desert in the pursuit of military superiority. The Cold War lasted half a century. The ecological impacts will last for many millennia.
After the Cold War was over, hot wars continued. Fast forward to 1991. The first Persian Gulf War. The ecological impact of burning cities is easy to spot. Other legacies of the Gulf War include destroyed water and sewage systems and battlegrounds littered with the remnants of war. Probably the biggest impacts of the Gulf War were caused by oil. Oil was, of course, the motivating force behind the war. It was the revenue from oil that permitted the Middle East to arm. It was disputes over oil prices that caused Saddam Hussein to invade neighboring Kuwait. And it was oil that generated such intense Western interest in an area that otherwise would just be considered desert. During the short Gulf War, Hussein opened the valves on the oil wells, allowing vast stocks of oil to pour into the sea. Intertidal wetlands, which were already degraded by the oil industry, were further damaged by the influx of huge oil slicks. It is unknown how much oil was released into the water. At least half a million barrels, and by some estimates five times that, contributed to the miles long oil slick on the Gulf Beaches. And, since the beaches had been sown with landmines, clean up was even more difficult than usual. Among the species to suffer and die from the oil slick were turtles, cormorants, dugongs, shellfish, and dolphins. "Other living things". It is unknown how many died directly. Or how many died of starvation as the food web was destroyed. The intertidal wetlands, in addition to being home to a vast array of interesting wildlife, provided seafood vital to the survival of the Iraqi people, and, of course, algae that produced oxygen. Further oil related damage from the Gulf War occurred when Hussein set the oil fields of Kuwait ablaze. Over 500 oil wells were engulfed in flames, with about five million barrels burning everyday. Since the area around the wells was often strewn with landmines, containing the fires became difficult and dangerous beyond the usual. The oil in Kuwait is heavy with sulfur ("sour"), and the acid rains produced following the fires looked black and oily. The darkness of the sky in the brightness of day came from a heavy pall of smoke lying over the land.
What about Gulf War II? What are the environmental impacts of the current struggle? The correct answer: all of the above. Plus Depleted Uranium (DU). Depleted uranium first caught the interest of the military in World War II. It was first used on a large scale during the 1991 Gulf War, and is being widely used in Iraq now. It is finally catching the attention of the American public. Depleted uranium is used in our weapons systems because it is capable of penetrating the heaviest tanks. It catches fire on impact. And it was seen as a good way to get rid of hazardous waste products resulting from the production of more conventional nuclear weapons. Following the explosion of DU rounds, dust is widely dispersed into the environment. There is risk of groundwater and soil contamination. It enters the body through inhalation. Studies have shown high incidence of birth defects among babies born to individuals exposed to DU, but no studies have been done to show what the effect is on "other living things". Because DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years, the presence of these dust particles can pose a potential long-term threat to human health and the environment. This one war could threaten the world for millennia to come.
So, what all this adds up to is war as usual. In times of war, both sides will do whatever is necessary to win. In the process, all of earth is the loser. We look at war in terms of just or unjust, in terms of efficiency, in terms of numbers of lives lost, numbers of cities taken, and in terms of who won and who lost. But the fact that cannot be avoided is that, in times of war, there are no true winners. We are all losers. When the spoils of war become dead and dying animals, deforestation, soil loss, air pollution, water pollution and loss of the ozone layer, we are all the losers. There needs to be a clear accounting of the costs of war. Not just the economic costs. Not just the human costs. Not just the political costs. It is time to count the ecological loss. If we cannot learn to share the earth peacefully with our own species, we are going to find ourselves declaring war on the other species on which we depend. A scorched earth policy in wartime can have only one outcome - a scorched earth. We ignore this at our own peril. We fight over territory, we fight over religion, we fight over power, and we fight over oil. Before this is all over, we will be fighting over water, over grain, and over meat. And the fights we wage over these things will be because all our wars to date have been so efficient at destroying the resources on which we depend. The wars we fight over these precious resources will no doubt result in further destruction of the very resources we are fighting over. War is indeed unhealthy for children and other living things.
(Editor's note: This is a followup to one of Robin Buckallew's earlier articles, entitled "The Day it Rained Cats...". You can find that article in it's entirety at http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1009.html )
By Robin Buckallew
Oct. 5, 2004
This just in from Monterrey, Mexico. Chihuahua state officials are on the lookout for stray cats, hoping to collect around 700 cats to be relocated to a remote farming village known as Atascaderos. The ads requesting cat donations began circulating in Chihuahua newspapers last week, and the officials are hopeful that cat donations will begin arriving soon.
So, what’s with the cats? Well, remember the tale of the raining cats? It seems we are having a sort of rerun in Chihuahua. About a year ago, the local citizens began noticing a rat problem, and farmers started setting out rat poison in their barns. Unfortunately, this had no effect on the rats, who are healthy and fertile, reproducing in huge numbers. The animals that prey on the rats (cats, of course) died from the rat poison. The town now has no cats, and more rats than they know what to do with. It is estimated that about 800 households are infested with rats, with an average of 200 rats per home.
Once again, man thinks he has control over nature. And once again, it seems nature has the last laugh. Have you set out your rat poison today?
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).