Militarism and the mutually assured destruction of climate change

Inwood, Joshua; Tyner, James A.

doi:10.1080/13562576.2022.2052720

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Essential and generative work has been done that examines the relationship between US militarism and climate change (e.g. Amster, 2013; Hooks & Smith, 2005; Hynes, 2014; Inwood & Tyner, 2022) and that explores the social consequences of the US project of global primacy more broadly (e.g. Bacevich, 2016; Johnson, 2004; Payne & Silver, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling the US military's climate change paradox: An institutional approach

Payne

Swed

2023

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies estimate that the US military it is a bigger polluter than 140 individual countries, having emitted hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gases in the twenty‐first century. Despite this, the military is also one of the organizations most affected by climate change, given its global infrastructural reach, and one that is positioning itself to grapple with the social and political upheavals resulting from the climate crisis. Thus, paradoxically, despite its role as a major driver of ecological degradation, the military is one of the few influential institutions in the US that has demonstrated a willingness to grapple with the effects of climate change. In this paper we explore these two sides of the relationship between the military and climate change. Combining perspectives from the military and environmental sociology literature, we review the military's role as a polluter as well as a stakeholder. We examine the military's attempts to reconcile those two approaches through the adoption of a philosophy of “winners and losers” of climate change, highlighting the limits and possibilities of this approach. To make sense of the military's response, we review the conflicting institutional logics guiding the Pentagon's efforts. We conclude by suggesting that policymakers resolve these tensions through a strategic retreat from its globe‐spanning presence.

show abstract