The War and the Environment

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

WAR AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Those who know me personally know I have been an anti-war activist since
I was in junior high school. I have opposed nearly every U.S. military
action in my lifetime. Yet in recent years I have worked closely, on
environmental issues, with military leaders responsible, to one degree
or another, for carrying out such combat. Still, last week-end my family
and I dusted off our "Stop the Bombing" signs once again.

In meetings and workshops, I argue that the environment and peace are to
some degree separable issues. Environmental laws and standards, I argue,
should not be used to challenge military deployments. Opposition, I
suggest, should be expressed on a different track. Likewise, I support
the greening of - that is, the use of pollution prevention strategies in
the design of - weapons systems, the development of which I may oppose
on other grounds.

The war with Serbia, however, poses a serious dilemma, because it
threatens funding for environmental programs and because it is likely to
leave a legacy of hazards in Kosovo and the rest of Serbia long after
the fighting has stopped

First, the war, even in the first week, is proving costly to the U.S.
taxpayer, and there is no Saudi Arabia around offering to defray the
costs. This morning’s (Wednesday, March 31, 1999) news says the Air
Force may be running short on conventional cruise missiles. Money is
needed to produce more such weapons, to provide other materiel for the
war effort, and to replenish resources used in the Balkans by U.S.
troops. Since there is no end in sight, costs can be expected to
escalate.

Once again, the military, the White House, and Congress are likely to
see environmental programs as a source of soft money. Present and future
environmental budgets will be cut to pay for the war. Since many of the
best friends of environmental programs, in the administration and on
Capitol Hill, support the NATO air attack on Serbia, those budgets are
now likely to have few staunch defenders.

Second, the air assault on Serbia is not only doing a significant amount
of immediate destruction. It is depositing unexploded ordnance - usually
estimated at about five percent of all bombs and shells - wherever
munitions are targeted. Tank-killing aircraft, such as the A-10, are
likely firing large quantities of armor-penetrating depleted uranium
(DU) weapons. As in the Persian Gulf, this will release not only DU
fragments, but more hazardous (as both a toxic and radioactive
substance) uranium oxide dust.

I know. War is always Hell! But in this case, the environmental
implications work against NATO's stated goals. Despite the efforts of
U.S. forces to minimize civilian casualties, the legacy of our munitions
in Kosovo will make it dangerous for the residents of Kosovo to
repopulate the province whenever a cease-fire is achieved. Are we
committed to conducting or paying for the cleanup?

So, despite my best efforts to compartmentalize war from environment,
the two are inextricably linked. I don't expect U.S. environmental
officials to break with the Commander-in-Chief over the issue. Nor do I
expect a change-of-heart from those who passionately believe that
U.S.-led intervention will somehow save the beleaguered inhabitants of
Kosovo. But the current situation should serve as a reminder. Whenever
our government puts our credibility on the line by threatening military
action, there will be environmental costs, down the line, if our
adversary calls the bluff.

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org
(PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE PHASING OUT
MY OLD E-MAIL ADDRESS: lsiegel@igc.org)
http://www.cpeo.org