The military of the United States (U.S.) alone could be its own country through its sheer size, strength, bureaucracy, and massive carbon footprint. In 2015, the military would squeeze itself right between Portugal and Peru in terms of liquid fuel consumption. The question is, are the climate costs for the military simply dismissed because of its perceived role in protecting the nation? What would happen if the climate costs become too great? Will there be a nation left to protect? The emission of fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses during conflict, U.S. deployment, or counterinsurgency missions is one of the most significant carbon footprints of the 21st century. The U.S. is arguably the largest belligerent climate actor, and the return of Donald Trump to the White House requires a deeper dive into his foreseeable foreign and climate policies. As Israel’s closest ally and main weapons supplier, the U.S. military bears some of the responsibility for the climate costs of the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The conflict thus provides a case study for how the U.S. military might be held accountable in climate justice because of the domestic decisions on foreign policy.
Since the Second World War, the U.S. military has evolved into a living and breathing bureaucracy. Recent scholarship has thus developed a framework for evaluating its role as a climate actor through its global supply chain of hydrocarbons and fuels. The Defense Logistics Agency – Energy (DLA-E) is one of the many branches of the Department of Defense which oversees the global network of fossil-based military supply and further shapes fossil dependence, domestically and internationally. The DLA-E rests on a foundation of path dependencies, which can otherwise be defined as public policies influenced by the institutional paths (practices, rules, structures or other norm-engraving framework) stemming from past decision-making. The agency’s day-to-day operation, thus, relies solely on the management of fossil fuels, through infrastructure, organization, expert knowledge, and software both domestically and in laboratories across the globe. This form of logistics marks the U.S. as the prime fuel distributor in the world, through its capacity to acquire, process, and send its product. The U.S. military becomes not only the largest consumer of fuel, but it leaves a trail of carbon emissions in its wake, especially in regions ruptured by violent strife.
While the logistical conceptualization of the DLA-E provides an insight into the analysis of the U.S. as a climate actor, hidden carbon costs zero in on the carbon footprint its military leaves in other countries. Hidden carbon costs focus more on emissions from activities on the grounds, such as soldier’s weapons or air and sea carriers for soldier drop-off. When there is a network of omnipresent troop presence, such as in Afghanistan in 2009-2010, they could easily drain over 500,000 gallons of fuel per day. Through this statistic only, the U.S. leaves a more important mark on the environment with its foreign policies than what may be accomplished through its climate policies.
After the November 5th elections, Donald Trump was officially re-elected as president of the U.S. Former President Trump does not believe in climate science; he has said about climate change that it is the “greatest scam of all time.” As such, his policy recommendation leading up to his reinstatement was the unlimited use of fossil fuels and continued oil drilling, as well as claiming he would withdraw from the Paris Agreements during his campaign. The DLA-E framework will then, in all likelihood, continue to be operational; the increase in fossil fuel would help balloon the military. Presently, the U.S. military’s biggest client is Israel, as it has received over USD 310 billion since its establishment in 1948. Historically, both nations have long had a close relationship. However, domestically, the Republican party’s white evangelical constituency has been a key player in pushing the Israeli agenda. The group’s fight for Israel lies in dispensationalism, which plays a meaningful role for Israel in evangelical circles; they understand the return of the Jewish people to Israel as a key event for their Armageddon. The pressure exerted by their lobby has structured U.S. foreign policy to include a disproportionate amount of diplomatic, economic, and military aid – in terms of its domestic interests and other allied countries – toward Israel. They have largely thrown their support for Donald Trump in the past 12 years, with exit polls showing that 75% of evangelical Christians voted for him in the 2024 election. Trump has been consistent with this support for Israel. In his first term, he generously gave Israel political gifts and supported Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government. The relationship between the two leaders had been strained after Nethanayhu congratulated Joe Biden for his presidential win in 2020. However, it seems Netanyahu rejoiced at Trump’s win, calling it a “huge victory” on X, along with a picture of the both of them, and Sara Netanyahu. Moreover, the Prime Minister (PM) spoke as if his relationship with Trump was mended, and that they had “agreed to work together for Israel’s security and also discussed the Iranian threat.” Indeed, Trump has already made threats to Iran, both regarding Israel’s security and his own personal security.
Beyond Trump’s championing of Israel, many are afraid of what they consider a disregard for the global order. Notably, Oona A. Hathaway, a professor of law and political science at Yale University, criticized his incredibly hawkish behaviour and characterized his re-election as “a threat to global peace and security.” Hathaway reviewed his most recent picks for his administration, including Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard. Hegseth, the defence secretary pick, was controversial not only because of his lack of experience but also his support of army soldiers committing war crimes. Gabbard also has a history of being an apologist for autocratic regimes, namely with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin of Russia. Hathaway’s opinion illustrates a larger concern by many experts on the inclination of Trump and his administration toward an extremely realist perception of the global order and a lack of willingness to follow the shared norms and rules that have organized the relationships between nation-states; this approach will undoubtedly translate into Trump’s foreign policy.
The U.S. can hence be expected to continue to play a huge part as a belligerent climate actor in the Gaza conflict. The role of the U.S. in military aid is great: by October 2024, the U.S. had sent at least USD 17.9 billion. The DLA-E bureaucracy was instrumental in this gift, as the aid consisted of military financing and weapons, which required fuel to be transported and used. In fact, in the first two months of the conflict, the annual emissions of greenhouse gasses were greater than 20 individual countries and territories, demonstrating the huge repercussions of military carbon emissions. President Biden led the charge, and because of Trump’s foreign and climate policies, as well as his relationship with PM Netanyahu, it seems he will follow suit. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, will then, with the U.S. as an accessory, play a huge role in the devastation of the planet.
Edited by Aimee Wang
This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Amélie Garneau-Daigneault is currently in her second year at McGill University. She is completing her bachelor’s in international development studies, along with minors in gender studies and history. Amélie is especially interested in researching health disparities and the global transmission of diseases. Moreover, she examines the cultural and social consequences of global health. Amélie aspires to attend law school after her B.A. and to apply her learnings to engage in international law.