Questions of war and peace may not seem directly related to environmental matters, but they are. Fighting a war pulls financial and material resources away from the effort to protect or restore the environment, and when the war takes place in one's own territory, the displacement of individuals causes them to become more desperate for food, water, and shelter. As a result, they will wreak havoc on the environment so that they and their children and families can survive.
Of course this is understandable, and sadly it is happening in Africa in countries such as the Congo and the Sudan, as well as in other disturbed regions of the world. The solution is to avoid war and to solve environmental problems that affect the production of food, water, and shelter.
My mind got to thinking about war and peace while reading the excellent book, "Plan B 2.0" by Lester R. Brown. In a small and fast-moving section of that book, he credibly calculates a total estimated cost to repair the current damages to land, ocean, water supply, and air. Surprisingly it is only $93 billion. He phrases that amount as if it is a large amount, but I framed that amount in terms of the war in Iraq, where we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars already. In that way, I began to think more about the connection between conflicts and the environment.
This morning my mind went back to a word I heard a lot during my childhood, the word "Peacenik". It was meant at that time as an insult, much like the phrase "Tree hugger" might be intended (for some reason) as an insult to an environmentally-aware and active individual today. So, naturally I looked for a Peacenik.com, suspecting that someone must have grabbed it, and indeed it turned out there was a quality Web site at that location. What caught my eye immediately on the home page was a quote by Hermann Göring in the upper right corner. I did some Internet research in order to gain context and ensure that I had the wording correct, and I found the following excerpt from April 18, 1946, from a journal recollecting a series of interviews with Hermann Göring, one of the highest ranked leaders of Nazi Germany:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Unfortunately, these words apply to our country today - do I need to say it, or is it too obvious? And I am not claiming that the current Administration is directly interning and killing millions of our own citizens, as the Nazis did - but the actions of the United States recently have been full of demagoguery, deception, and destruction. There are similarities in the mindless march to war by the United States for grossly misguided and disingenuous reasons, and the pattern of arriving at war experienced before and during all the other bad wars in history.
The $93 billion need for environmental restoration mentioned by Lester Brown seems like a small (and possibly underestimated) fee to pay for the health of the globe and the stability of societies worldwide. Without these wars, and with some reduction in militaristic attitudes and costs, the world could afford to recover its environmental health, and to work on raising awareness and stimulating action for challenges that are in their early phases right now and will have increasing impact as time advances this century, such as peak oil.
We can not afford the "luxury" of empty wars - and nearly all of them are empty of value. A posture of militarism suits the needs of those whose careers are the selling of weapons, but not the health of the country, nor the health of the planet.
The aggressive and greedy mind can not hear the rest of the world calling for peaceful inspections, for embargoes, and for other actions that without violence can force a country to cooperate. Individual countries ruled by dictators are out of step with the new world that is developing, and they should be made to feel that way. The added benefit of pursuing these goals peacefully via alliances is increased trust and stronger and stronger cooperation between countries. The current "leadership" of my country, the United States, derides the United Nations, pushes to expand on the right to torture and to hold people endlessly for no good reason, and commits other violations of human rights that isolate our country from the good will of the citizens of much of the world.
The war itself is bad enough. But taking our eyes off of the world's environmental crises could be an additional critical error. We need a unified world effort to cooperatively unwind the non-sustainable way of life that has become the standard and the goal world-wide. A non-aggressive and pro-cooperation leadership is needed in this and in all countries in order to reach the right goals.
Maybe the 21st century can be the time when the remaining demagogues and dictators will be tossed out of their positions, and those who think for the common good will become the leaders.
This may sound utopian, but such uprisings of awareness and action have happened before on a country-by-country basis. When the temperature keeps rising, when the hurricanes keep coming back, when oil hits $200 a barrel, maybe the sleeping giant of global popular understanding will wake up and demand that attention be paid to the real issues of the day instead of to the fantasies pursued in a few ambitious and narrow minds.
Comment by: jfheinrichs (John Heinrichs) (Sep-16-2007) Web site
This is an excellent writeup on a critical subject... War not only destroys innocent human life, it causes immense destruction to the environment. I would add that militaries are huge consumers of all sorts of products, and as one might suspect pollution control is a minor concern in military training and operations. The US military, for example, right now consumes 395,000 barrels of oil per day, which about the same as the entire nation of Greece. The American GI is the most energy-consuming soldier ever seen on the field of war. Read more at http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html
In 2006 I started building the PlanetThoughts.org Web site to raise awareness of environmental issues, but I have been in the software field since 1978, working primarily on healthcare-related and not-for-profit organizations, but also for some general commercial companies. I have also long been a supporter of environmental causes.
I am an enthusiastic Tai Chi Chuan practitioner and teacher. This helps balance my brain after sitting at a screen for hours at a time, and lends some balance to life.
In early 2006 global warming and other environmental and energy challenges, as well as escalating wars in numerous locations, became central to my understanding of issues that our whole planet faces, and I wanted to do something with my skills to spread awareness and understanding of environment and energy issues, as well as discuss better philosophies of living, for greater satisfaction beyond consumerism.
Full
PT
jfheinrichs (John Heinrichs)
