Earth’s Greatest Enemy
It is rare to see a video like that which was published by Double Down News the other day. However its considerable in its length and scope and features Abby Martin 1 in this abridged version of her film ‘Earth’s Greatest Enemy’. 2 The video details the US military (but there’s no doubt the same applies to all military forces across the world), which by decree of its prowess and campaigns that are fought, is perhaps the most damaging of all the world’s military in terms of the environment and resulting ecological damage that’s occurring to the planet.
As Abby Martin points out, few in any important climate change/global warming conferences ever discuss the impact of the military. I have discussed this several times on this blog and have known for many years about how the military has contributed to a substantial portion of the world’s environmental problems. As Abby Martin has pointed out, its only with what’s happening both under the Trump and the Netanyahu regimes we are really getting to see the fullest impact the military has on the environment. And what happens in terms of the war machine is of major concern for all of us.
The US military has around 800 based all over the world, and the entire consist requires 270,000 barrels of oil per day. That makes the US Military the world’s largest institutional polluter, not forgetting the activities it undertakes include oil depot destruction, dispersal of toxic waste through explosions and land shifting as well as concrete destruction which posits a huge concern, as well as the weaponry production which too has problematic emissions. In short the military are a major contributor to planetary environmental degradation. The surprise is military emissions have been exempt from global climate agreements since Kyoto 1997.
Even when the military is not undertaking any activities, there is considerable impact on the environment. This is a from a report published today (2nd September 2026):
Military infrastructure has a permanent footprint. Bases, airfields, naval facilities, radar installations, military housing and training grounds consume electricity and heating fuel, and require construction and maintenance. Maintaining a worldwide network of military installations therefore generates emissions even when no war is taking place. 3
Interestingly, at about the same time as Martin’s film came to prominence, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists had published a lengthy report showing how the US Military is priming for yet further conflict but at the same time is ignoring the fact that a good part of the world’s environmental problems are caused by it.
For decades, the military has been a significant contributor to global warming, but there is no full accounting of military and war-related emissions. Military industrial emissions are also high, and the global volume and value of arms transfers has grown rapidly over the past half-decade. And then of course, by destroying infrastructure and the environment, war itself contributes to global warming. 4
The above statement clearly tells us there is no full account of military activity – an important point made by Abby Martin. Because there has been no such endeavour made (at least not until recently) the military has essentially been able to fly under the radar with regards to its environmental impact.
Researchers writing in a recent Journal of Environmental Management article, 5 were able to produce one of the most comprehensive overviews of what is happening in terms of the military and the environment. The authors state ‘Military activity is a current blind spot in global climate policy.’ They add that its evident ‘current literature remains fragmented across narrative accounts, case-specific analyses, and econometric studies.’
In terms of the UK military, there’s little to go on. A FOI made in 2020 6 suggests that no records of any sort were made in terms of the British Army, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or any other branches of the Ministry of Defence. Certainly its obvious the UK’s military has little in the way that the US Military has, but even so, it should not be exempt from any scrutiny either – especially with the calls currently being made for defence spending to be ramped up considerably – which doubtless means the UK MIlitary would be also ramping up its environmental damage contribution. Figures from 2016 do show the military were globally responsible for 20% of environmental degradation, and from the same source we are told the UK Military have been responsible for vast swathes of emissions amounting to around 6.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide – a figure far greater than the combined CO2 emissions of 60 other countries! 7
It must be said however that attempts to evaluate the impact of the military and of war upon the environment are nothing new. Back in 1996 a Colonel Frank Finch of the US Army undertook a study 8 on the issue and he reported on early means of such intracities – for exmaple in 424BC there was an agreement not to damage sacred areas, however the Athenians took that to task and conducted widespread damage simply in order to gain a military advantage. Invariably war turns out to be something where rules, regulations and the norm are constantly flouted – including any care or concern for the environment.
Abby Martin discusses Gaza in the video and rightly highlights the horrific extent to which it construes a massive environmental disaster. Concrete, in its pulverised for is a massive health disaster – that besides the problems that also arise when it is used to construct buildings. Its a disaster for both the surviving inhabitants of Gaza as well as for the entire world itself and that is because the particulates that resulted form these six ‘Hiroshimas’ (its getting to around ten or so of those now in late 2026) infiltrate the air and spread across the planet and the oceans. So far it seems the impact is unquantifiable but it is certainly having a major impact on the health of the planet.
That alone can be discerned by the amount of bombing that has been undertaken on Gaza. In WWII there was one Hiroshima and one Nagasaki, yet in the last few years we have seen an equivalent of at least six Hiroshimas dropped on Gaza. As a result virtually all of Gaza has been razed to the ground – not forgetting the countless deaths and the number of victims with limbs blown off. This has resulted in the largest number of newly disabled children anywhere in the world.
One other aspect of war that’s almost never discussed is the decimation of numerous animal species and the razing of their habitats to the ground. Animals have no choice in any war thus are among some of the worst to suffer from the consequences of this gross abomination – including species that have been exploited for the pursuance of humanity’s sheer idiocy. Even those few reports that attempt to make ground on the impact of war upon the world fail to include that aspect, quite obviously because its hard for humanity to even focus upon such matters. Nevertheless it should be included in assessments of environmental damage – because if its not, then the fullest impact of war is simply being ignored.
- Wikipedia: Abby Martin ↩︎
- The Empire Files: Earth’s Greatest Enemy (2026) ↩︎
- Stop the War Coalition: NATO’s rearmament drive will impose severe environmental costs ↩︎
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The US military’s fatal stance on climate change ↩︎
- Journal of Environmental Management: From conflict to climate crisis: How wars shape the future environment ↩︎
- Office for Nuclear Regulation: Environmental impacts of UK military activities ↩︎
- University of Birmingham: The impact of militaries on climate change ↩︎
- International Law Studies: This Land Is Our Land – The Environmental Threat of Army Operations ↩︎
