Greenwashing Wars and the US Military

A recent congress of major conservation groups soft-pedaled criticism of the U.S. military and other war-makers despite the massive damage they inflict on humans, animals, plants, cultural sites and the environment, reports retired Col. Ann Wright.

By Ann Wright

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has come in for criticism due to its lack of attention to the detrimental effects of wars and military operations on nature. Considering the degree of harm to the environment coming from these human activities, one would think that the organization might have set aside some time at its World Conservation Congress this past week in Hawaii to specifically address these concerns.

Yet, of the more than 1,300 workshops crammed into the six-day marathon environmental meeting in Honolulu, followed by four days of discussion about internal resolutions, nothing specifically addressed the destruction of the environment by military operations and wars.

Protest signs urging global conservation meeting to address the environmental damage from U.S. military bases. (Photo by Ann Wright)

Protest sign urging global conservation meeting to address the environmental damage from U.S. military bases. (Photo by Ann Wright)

The heavy funding the IUCN gets from governments is undoubtedly the rationale for not addressing this “elephant in the room” at a conference for the protection of the endangered planet – a tragic commentary on a powerful organization that should acknowledge all anti-environmental pressures.

At a presentation at the USA Pavilion during the conference, senior representatives of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy regaled the IUCN audience of conservationists with tales about caring for the environment, including protecting endangered species, on hundreds of U.S. military bases in the United States.

The presenters did not mention what is done on the over 800 U.S. military bases outside of the United States. In the one-hour military style briefing, the speakers failed to mention the incredible amounts of fossil fuels used by military aircraft, ships and land vehicles that leave mammoth carbon footprints around the world. Also not mentioned were wars that kill humans, animals and plants; military exercise bombing of entire islands and large swaths of land; and the harmful effects of the burn pits which have incinerated the debris of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Each military service representative focused on the need for training areas to prepare the U.S. military to “keep peace in the world.”  Of course, no mention was made of “keeping the peace” through wars of choice that have killed hundreds of thousands of persons, animals and plants, and the bombing of the cultural heritage in many areas around the world including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Miranda Ballentine, Air Force Assistant Secretary for Installations, the Environment and Energy, said the U.S. Air Force has over 5,000 aircraft, more than all the airlines in the United States — yet she never mentioned how many gallons of jet fuel are used by these aircraft, nor how many people, animals and cultural sites the aircraft have bombed.

To give one some idea of the scale of the footprint of U.S. military bases, Ballentine said Air Force has over 160 installations, including 70 major installation covering over 9 million square miles of land, larger than the country of Switzerland, plus 200 miles of coastland.

Incredibly, Ballentine said that due to commercial development around military bases, military bases have become “islands of conservation” — conservation takes place inside the protected base while there are larger conservation issues outside the fence lines of the bases.

Adding to the mammoth size of the military base footprint, Dr. Christine Altendorf, the regional director of the U.S. Army’s Installation Management Command of the Pacific, said U.S. Army bases have 12.4 million acres of land, including 1.3 million acres of wetlands, 82,605 archeological sites, 58,887 National Historical Landmarks and 223 endangered species on 118 installations.

The U.S. Navy’s briefer, a Navy Commander, added to the inventory of military equipment, saying the Navy has 3,700 aircraft; 276 ships, including 10 aircraft carriers; 72 submarines. Seventy naval installations in the United States have 4 million acres of land and 500 miles of coastline. The Navy presenter said the Navy has never heard of a marine mammal that has been harmed by U.S. Naval vessels or acoustic experiments in the past ten years.

Only One Question

At the end of the three presentations, there was time for only one question — and luckily, my intense hand waving paid off and I got to ask: “How can you conserve nature when you are bombing nature in wars of choice around the world, practicing military operations in areas that have endangered species like on the islands of Oahu, Big Island of Hawaii, Pagan, Tinian, Okinawa and bombing islands into wastelands like the Hawaiian island of Koho’olawe and the Puerto Rican island of Vieques  and now you want to use the North Marianas ‘Pagan’ Island as a bombing target. And how does the construction of the new South Korean naval base in pristine marine areas of Jeju Island that will be used by the U.S. Navy and the proposed construction at Henoko of the runways into the pristine Oura Bay in Okinawa fit into conservation of nature?”

A crater that was created on the Hawaiian island of Koho’olawe from massive explosions of TNT in 1965. (Photo from Hawaii Archive)

A crater that was created on the Hawaiian island of Koho’olawe from massive explosions of TNT in 1965. (Photo from Hawaii Archive)

Interestingly, in the large audience of approximately 100 people, not one of them applauded the question indicating that either audience was composed primarily of Department of Defense employees, or that the conservationists are uneasy about confronting the U.S. government and particularly the U.S. military about its responsibility for its large role in the destruction of much of the planet’s environment.

The Navy representative was the only person to respond to my question. He reiterated the national security necessity for military exercises to practice to “defend peace around the world.” To his credit, he acknowledged the role the public has in commenting on the possible impact of military exercises. He said that over 32,000 comments from the public have been made on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the possibility of artillery firing and aircraft bombing of the Northern Marianas island of Tinian — that has only 2,300 inhabitants.

Despite all odds, someone in Hawaii was able to get an exhibit of photographs of the cleanup of Koho’olawe placed on the third floor of the Hawaii Convention Center. There was no sign announcing the exhibition, just a series of photos with some explanation. In five days of attending the conference, I observed that 95 percent of the conference attendees who walked past the exhibition did not stop to look at it – until I stopped them and explained what it was about. Then, they were very interested.

From 1941 to 1990, the island of Koho’olawe was used as a bombing range for U.S. military aircraft and naval vessels. One photograph in the exhibition showed the crater called “Sailor’s Hat” which was made by several massive explosions of TNT in 1965 to recreate and study the effects of large explosions on nearby ships and personnel to simulate in some manner the effects of a nuclear explosion. The crater affected the island’s fresh water aquifer and now no artesian water remains on the island.

After Hawaiians stopped the bombing through their protests and by staying on the island during bombings from the 1970s, the U.S. Navy returned Koho’olawe to the State of Hawaii in 2004 after a 10-year clean-up process. But only 66 percent of the surface has been cleared of unexploded ordnance (UXO), and only 10 percent cleared to a depth of 4 feet. Twenty-three percent of the surface remains uncleared and 100 percent of the waters surrounding the island have not been cleared of UXO, putting divers and ships at risk. 

Okinawan Environmental Activists

Environmental activists from Okinawa had a booth at the IUCN at which they told about the attempt of the U.S. military and the national Japanese government to construct a runway complex into Oura Bay, a pristine marine area that that is the home of the protected species of marine mammal, the dugong.

The Deputy Governor of Okinawa and the Mayor of Nago city, Okinawa, both of whom have been key figures in the grassroots campaign to stop the construction of the runways and the lawsuits filed by the provincial government of Okinawa against the federal Japanese government, gave presentations about the citizens’ struggle against the construction of the runways.

However, there was no mention of the environmental effects on the marine environment from the construction of a huge new naval base on Jeju Island, South Korea, the site of the previous IUCN conference four years ago. At that conference, IUCN, no doubt at the request of the South Korean government, refused to allow citizen activists to have a booth inside the convention or make presentations like the Okinawans did this year. As a result, the Jeju Island campaigners were forced to stay outside the conference site.

Four years later in the 2016 WCC conference in Hawaii, the Government of Japan and the Province of Jeju Island sponsored a large multi-media pavilion about Jeju island which did not mention the construction of the new naval base and the destruction of the cultural heritage of the site nor the displacement of women divers who had dived at the location for generations.

On Sept. 3, local groups in Honolulu came to the Hawaii Convention Center with signs to remind the IUCN of the U.S. militarization of Asia and the Pacific. Signs and posters from local environmentalists cited the environmental impact from the huge 108,863-acre Pohakuloa bombing range on the Big Island of Hawaii, the largest U.S. military installation in the Pacific; the Aegis missile test center on the island of Kauai; and the four large U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine bases on the island of Oahu.

Other signs referenced the extensive number of U.S. military bases in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Guam and new U.S. military installations in the Philippines and Australia.

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel.  She also served 16 years as a US diplomat in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia.  She was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001.  She resigned from the US Department of State in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq 

20 comments for “Greenwashing Wars and the US Military

  1. Agent76
    September 23, 2016 at 13:22


    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

  2. guest
    September 13, 2016 at 00:35

    Rally and March to the IUCN in Honolulu
    The International Union for Conservation of Nature is “the largest conservation group in the world but the military’s destruction of the environment is no where on the agenda.  They talk about climate change without recognizing that the U.S. military is the largest institutional user of fossil fuels in the world! They talk about  biodiversity without addressing the military’s destruction of habitat.” ^1

    They do not address some of what is happening here in terms of the destruction by and the usurping presence of the US. They do not highlight the desecration of Mauna Kea. They do not mention the proposed Department of Interior Rule to create a governing entity in the form of an Native Hawaiian Tribe with whom capitalists will negotiate to exploit millions of acres of land here in Hawai‘i and many other drastic actions by hegemony

    They do not mention other priorities of political economy, which may help many towards an understanding of what is happening not only here but around the world; as seen exemplified in The Transpacific Partnership and systems of capitalism and other forms of hegemony. They do not highlight threats posed by the Dakota Access Pipeline.

    There are attacks by militarism unmentioned from all over the Pacific and across the world as born witness to in: Henoko – Pagan – Tinian – Guåhan – Pohakuloa – Makua – Barking Sands – Bikini – Kwajelein and Ebeye – Oyster Bay – Jeju – Red Hill….the list goes on and on

    “The U.S. Military has left a trail of destruction across the Pacific.” ^1

    “Today these are INCREASING as the U.S. military expands operations in the Pacific. Islands like Pagan and Tinian are being targeted for bombing and live fire ranges.  Pohakuloa has been expanded.  Base expansion in Guåhan.  Pristine reefs being dredged.” ^11

    People from all over the world came together in solidarity in Honolulu on 9. 3. 16

    1. see article @

    Mahalo Nui Loa

    Mahalo for pics: Save Pagan Island
    sea sea creative commons

    World Can’t Wait Hawai‘i @

    Jeju, South Korea, Save Jeju Island Now @

    Henoko Okinawa Japan, Stop Construction of Henoko @ ,

    Oyster Bay, Palawan, Philipines, on web @

    P?hakuloa, Moku o Keawe videos @

    Pagan Island, Northern Marianas, Save Pagan Now @ ,

    Guåhan @

    Protest Na’i Aupuni @, facebook @

    Hawai‘i Okinawa Alliance @ & facebook 

    Womans Voices, Womens Speak @ & facebook

    ‘Aha Aloha ‘?ina @, facebook @ and archiving of videos on youtube @

    ‘?ina L?hui

  3. Steve
    September 12, 2016 at 17:47

    The US military does not “make” wars. It fights them. Wars are made by the civilian politicians that give the orders.

  4. September 12, 2016 at 13:59

    Every day there are dozens of organizations around the US fighting military expansion, waste, lack of accountability, pollution and proposed future military pollution. The Peaceful Skies Coalition (, which I work with, responds to military requests for more land and ever more environmentally harmful missions using the rights afforded to the “public” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Recent Pentagon proposals have been for massive takings of the public lands, navigable waterways and oceans. Expansions plan are underway to take more state lands, National Forests, National Parks, land under Bureau of Land Management, and Wilderness Areas.

    Peaceful Skies Coalition works with and supports groups across the US and around the world which are also standing up to the environmentally destructive practices of the Pentagon.

    While national “Big Green” groups have not been as helpful as they should be, local chapters have been good allies across the US. New revelations of Pentagon pollution, from radioactive waste in suburban back yards in St. Louis to 1.5 million civilians and military poisoned by bad water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina are aggregating into calls for clean-up and oversight. Peaceful Skies Coalition is a member of the national Cease Fire campaign which has linked the communities fighting to stop open air burning of “excess” ammunition and explosives. (

    Communities are standing up, primarily with volunteers, to hold the Pentagon accountable to the environment. As we continue to increase our power, I predict that Big Green will be forced to join us.

  5. J'hon Doe II
    September 12, 2016 at 12:51

    J — “but let’s not manufacture falsities while thumping your chest.”

    Genocide of indigenous peoples, Ethnic cleansing, Genocide, Genocidal rape, Racism, Prejudice, intolerance, Utilitarian genocide.

    Demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas – Indian removal

    Genocide of indigenous peoples is the mass destruction of entire communities or races of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are understood to be ethnic minorities whose historical and current territory has also become occupied by colonial expansion, or the formation of a nation state, by a dominant political group such as a colonial power.

    While the concept of genocide was formulated by Raphael Lemkin in the mid-20th century, the earlier expansion of various European Colonial Powers such as the Spanish and British empires, and the subsequent establishment of nation states on indigenous territory, frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in the Americas, Australia, Africa and Asia.

    According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself “intrinsically genocidal”. He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population’s way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the minority group.

    According to David Maybury-Lewis, imperial and colonial forms of genocide are enacted in two main ways, either through the deliberate clearing of territories of their original inhabitants in order to make them exploitable for purposes of resource extraction or colonial settlements, or through enlisting indigenous peoples as forced laborers in colonial or imperialist projects of resource extraction.

    Some scholars, among them Lemkin, have argued that cultural genocide, sometimes called ethnocide, should also be recognized. A people may continue to exist, but if they are prevented from perpetuating their group identity by prohibitions against cultural and religious practices that are the basis of that identity, this may also be considered a form of genocide.

  6. Oz
    September 12, 2016 at 12:27

    You are raising a very complicated issue here, perhaps more complicated than you realize. If you look at the origins of the “green” movement, it was a creation of powerful monied interests that wanted to promote Malthusianism for reasons that had little to do with protecting nature (take a look at the membership lists for the “1001 Club” which launched the original World Wildlife Fund.). Indeed, many of the most cherished viewpoints of the Greens, such as opposition to water diversion projects and nuclear energy, tend to have a net negative impact on nature. The money behind NGOs in general tends to come from the most vicious oligarchical circles (which is why the “anti-corruption” and “human rights” NGOs wind up acting to promote the neo-con agenda.) So regardless of how sincere the grassroots “Green” activists may be about their love for nature, you must evaluate the movement from the standpoint of how it is being used, top-down, for geopolitical purposes.

  7. J
    September 12, 2016 at 10:30

    I do enjoy reading all the hyperbolic and unsupported comments, such as the US being the world’s #1 polluter (factually incorrect), and DOD being the US Gov’s #1 polluter (also factually incorrect). It is easy to attack the US military because it is relatively transparent and liable to litigation, unlike military’s in, let’s say, China, Russia, etc. I find curiously absent the author’s mention of China’s desecration of coral reefs in their insatiable expansion in the South China Sea. The author also finds it hard to believe that military installations are havens for large numbers of endangered species. Unfortunately for the author, this happens to be true as large military installations are protected from commercial development that has subsumed large tracts of critical habitat outside of the bases. But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of righteous indignation.

    This article is replete with misinformation and inaccuracies, and is really about political protest against US military campaigns (in Iraq) that the author finds disagreeable. Just be honest, continue to restate your opposition to military campaigns you disagree with, as is your right, but let’s not manufacture falsities while thumping your chest.

    • J'hon Doe II
      September 12, 2016 at 13:15

      FYI —

      Permanent War

      Since 1980 the US has engaged in aggressive military action in 14 countries in the Islamic world alone, according to research published in the Washington Post: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. In this hemisphere, US military forces invaded Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989), and landed 20,000 military forces in Haiti (1994).

      US Global War Machine

      The US has 1.3 million people in the military and another million serve in the military reserves. The US has over 700 military bases in 63 countries across the world deploying over 255,000 US military personnel there. The Department of Defense officially manages over 555,000 buildings on 4400 properties inside the US and in over 700 properties across the globe. The US has over 1500 strategic nuclear warheads, over 13,000 military aircraft, dozens of submarines, many of which carry nuclear weapons, and 88 huge destroyer warships.

      Global Harm

      Nearly 7000 US military people died as a result of the wars waged by the US since 9/11. Just as important, in Iraq over 216,000 combatants, most of them civilians, have died since the 2003 invasion. No one even counted civilian deaths in Afghanistan for the first five years of our war there. Our drone attacks have murdered hundreds of children and hundreds of civilian adults in Pakistan and dozens more in Yemen.

      World Leader in War Spending

      US military spending is about the same as the total of military spending by the next eight largest countries combined, that is more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, UK, India and Germany combined.

      Since 9/11 US spending on our military cost well over $3 trillion. Direct combat and reconstruction costs for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11 have officially cost US taxpayers $1.6 trillion dollars according to the Congressional Research Service. Additional trillions have been spent on growing the Pentagon budget and for present and future increased health and disability benefits for veterans.

      The US military captures 55 percent of our national discretionary spending and spending on veterans benefits is another 6 percent. Since 9/11 military spending has increased by 50 percent while spending on other discretionary domestic spending increased by 13 percent according to the National Priorities Project.

      • Joe L.
        September 12, 2016 at 14:53

        J’hon Doe II… actually I think the number on Iraqi casualties in definitely on the low side and I tend to believe that it was 1 Million or more people. I have read articles putting the number between a 1/2 Million to 1 Million Iraqis (National Geographic: “Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says” and Reuters: “Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis: survey”) and that does not even include people dying from exposure to depleted uranium in places like Fallujah. Then we can look at history, such as Vietnam where maybe a lot of people only consider the, I believe, 56,000 US Servicemen that died in the war but fail to consider the 3 to 4 Million Vietnamese that died in that war let alone the destruction caused by Agent Orange which still causes malformations in infants to this day.

    • Joe L.
      September 12, 2016 at 14:44

      J… I did not read once, in this entire article, about the US being the world’s number one polluter nor did it say that the US Military is the world’s number one polluter. What the article did mention was the fact of the US military bases around the world creating a great amount of pollution, coupled with the devastation to nature by bombing sites, and the overwhelming destruction by the current wars in the Middle East (the US currently bombing in 7 countries). So, that is all factually correct and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out ( You point out Russia and China where China is the world’s largest polluter but when you look at China on a per capita basis then they produce much less pollution than the average US or Canadian citizen (I am Canadian). Also, how many foreign military bases do both China and Russia have all around the world that are polluting the environment? How many countries are Russia and China currently bombing in to create such environmental devastation? Certainly China and Russia are not blameless but definitely the US Military is one of the biggest polluters on Earth – Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, White Phosphorous etc.

      As for “transparency”, I usually don’t see transparency by the US Government until it is caught doing something bad – such as what was revealed by Chelsea Manning (and Edward Snowden) where the US military gunned down innocent, unarmed Reuters photographers.

    • Curious
      September 15, 2016 at 00:43


      An interesting postulate and brave, or foolish of you to say the information is “factually incorrect”. I believe Ann in her article could have also mentioned the DoD is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world. According to our own GAO the DoD consumes 93% of all fuel consumption in the US. When one thinks of fossil fuels and carbon footprints it is hard not to believe the comments are simply “hyperbolic”, but keep trying and failing. The Air Force is the largest offender.

      If one considers the Abrams M1 tank for a different example, it has a fuel capacity of 500 gallons with an effective range of 265 miles, which means it burns roughly 2 gallons per mile and that’s probably on a paved road without sand blowing around.. The US military needs fossil fuels more than any organization on this earth and so they have to keep the lies alive and the reasons for pilfering oil hidden, since they are the ones who need it most.

      The 1.5 Trillion debacle F-35, as it is not often reported, will cost about 5-6 thousand dollars an hour to fly. Guess who doesn’t like to talk about that?

      The world medical organization WHO has covered up the disastrous problems left over in Iraq by the ordinance from the US using depleted uranium munitions, producing birth defects never know before in that part of the world. Fortunately they are starting to talk about it. If you consider using nuclear tipped uranium as a good thing and green and good for the earth, then this discussion is over. We have nuked Iraq and other countries by our tipped ordinance, but all is hush hush. I wonder what our pilots really think about creating an environment so toxic by their ordinance that humans will not endure.

      Ann could have used many more examples from her experience, but no one wants to talk about it until by chance maybe a nuclear tipped bomb hits your area by accident, and then the discussion will change.

      Did you know the Japanese are still digging up barrels of Agent Orange on Okinawa to this very day? What environmental honesty from the US government! The article from Ann Wright was not about “military campaigns you disagree with” but the impact of our military on the environment. Try again. The saddest part of your dialectic is concluding with a line about “falsities while thumping your chest” I have no idea what that means in this context since you are so far off base I doubt you could find your own chest to thump.

  8. September 12, 2016 at 05:51

    The big environmental groups get a lot of their funding from conservative philanthropic foundations tied to Wall Street, the Democrats, and other polluters, which limits what they can say.

    Ford Foundation
    Pew Trust (aka Sunoco money)

    It’s a clever corporate tactic that dates back a century, control one’s opposition by funding them.

    • Oz
      September 12, 2016 at 12:32

      But the Ford Foundation, the whole array of Rockefeller foundations, and the Pew Trust are firmly in the Malthusian camp, which is consistent with their oligarchical outlook. Those environmental groups are not their “opposition.” The problem is that Malthusianism has become confused with the protection of nature in the minds of Europeans and North Americans.

  9. Joe L.
    September 10, 2016 at 11:40

    Whenever I think of US bases a few things come to mind. First of all, I remember hearing an interview from President Rafael Correa in Ecuador. The US wanted to renew their contract for a US base in Ecuador but Ecuador said no. I believe the US was upset by this and then Correa offered the US an alternative where the US could renew its’ contract for a base Ecuador if Ecuador could open a military base in Florida. I think you can guess what the US answer was. Next what comes to mind is the US base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands which was established in the 1960’s/1970’s. I watched a documentary about this from the award winning, and Consortium News contributor, John Pilger in which he explains how the US and Britain bullied the people of the Chagos Islands (killing all of the islanders pets) to leave where ultimately the US/Britain dumped the Chagosian people into the slums of Mauritius. Then I also think of the people of Okinawa which protest in the thousands to have US bases removed because too many times their daughters or sisters have been raped or killed by US servicemen. Ultimately, these bases are as I see them used to dominate the world and it is not about security, it is about Empire.

  10. Realist
    September 10, 2016 at 02:27

    We may have to destroy the planet to save it. Can’t you tree-hugging peaceniks understand that?

  11. Peppermint
    September 9, 2016 at 23:52

    With thanks, once again, to the Consortium News for excellent reporting. I can’t help but think, however, that no-one really cares about this. If a major environmental group won’t take this issue on, then we are in more trouble than any of us care to admit to ourselves. Think of just how many people are employed by the military or the various industries that supply the military apparatus.

    I’m retired and so can write to representatives regarding issues that are most near and dear to me, one being environmental issues. Daily I receive emails from groups I belong to about writing to elected officials…but it seems as though there’s no critical mass of citizens for these officials to actually listen to their constituents. Disheartening. Like I said, I think we are in deeper trouble with the environment and climate change than anyone wants to admit. And no, that doesn’t mean I’ll stop writing those letters. Thanks again.

  12. Bill Bodden
    September 9, 2016 at 21:58

    Interestingly, in the large audience of approximately 100 people, not one of them applauded the question indicating that either audience was composed primarily of Department of Defense employees, or that the conservationists are uneasy about confronting the U.S. government and particularly the U.S. military about its responsibility for its large role in the destruction of much of the planet’s environment.

    All that is needed for pollution and destruction to continue is for good (?) people to sit on their hands and do nothing.

  13. September 9, 2016 at 21:10

    The US government is the #1 polluter on Earth.

    The US military is the #1 polluter in the US government.

  14. Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
    September 9, 2016 at 19:34

    In, Hanford, Washington State; the nuclear waste is leaking into the ground water and from there into the Columbia River. Dr. Helen Caldicott has been talking about that for years. Remember the Manhattan Project?!……….People do not even like to talk about the subject…….The US Military has caused immeasurable damage to the planet………..

    Depleted Uranium: Scientific Basis for Assessing …
    Depleted Uranium: Scientific Basis for Assessing Risk July 2003 1925 K Street NW, Suite 210 • Washington D.C. 20006

  15. Bill Bodden
    September 9, 2016 at 16:57

    Unfortunately, this is another example of NGOs being compromised by funding sources so they are lucky if they get a slice, never mind half of the loaf. CODEPINK has a standard others would do well to follow.

Comments are closed.