Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 505–514 | Cite as

The temporal stability and developmental differences in the environmental impacts of militarism: the treadmill of destruction and consumption-based carbon emissions

  • Andrew K. Jorgenson
  • Brett Clark
Technical Report
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Sustainable Production and Consumption

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between national-level militarism and consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions. We analyze panel data from 1990 to 2010 for 81 nations to determine whether the magnitude of the effects of (1) military expenditures as percent of total gross domestic product and (2) military personnel as percent of total labor force on carbon emissions change over time. Results of two-way fixed effects models highlight the temporal stability of the environmental impacts of both national-level military characteristics. The findings also reveal that the effect of military expenditures on emissions is larger in the more developed OECD nations than in the developing non-OECD nations. Overall, the results support the treadmill of destruction perspective, which suggests that the nations’ militaries are an important social institution to consider in sustainability science research on the human drivers of global environmental change.

Keywords

Climate change Carbon emissions Militarization Treadmill of destruction Sustainability science Environmental sociology 

References

  1. Allison P (1999) Multiple regression. Pine Forge Press, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison P (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck N, Katz JN (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. Am Political Sci Rev 89(3):634–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady D, Kaya Y, Beckfield J (2007) Reassessing the effect of economic growth on well-being in less-developed countries, 1980–2003. Stud Comp Int Dev 42:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brauer J (2009) War and nature: the environmental consequences of war in a globalized world. Alta Mira Press, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase-Dunn C (1998) Global formation: structures of the world-economy. Rowman & Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark B, Jorgenson AK (2012) The treadmill of destruction and the environmental impacts of militaries. Sociol Compass 6(7):557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark B, Jorgenson AK, Kentor J (2010) Militarization and energy consumption: a test of treadmill of destruction theory in comparative perspective. Int J Sociol 40:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins R (1981) Does modern technology change the rules of geopolitics? J Political Mil Sociol 9(2):163–177Google Scholar
  10. Conca K (2004) Ecology in an age of empire: a reply to (and extension of) Dalby’s imperial thesis. Global Environ Politics 4(2):12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutler T (1989) Myths of military oil supply vulnerability. Armed Forces J Int 126:43–49Google Scholar
  12. Dalby S (2004) Ecological politics, violence, and the theme of empire. Global Environ Politics 4(2):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickens P (2004) Society and nature. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietz T, Rosa EA, York R (2007) Driving the human ecological footprint. Front Ecol Environ 5:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster JB (2009) The theory of monopoly capitalism. Monthly Review Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Fragkias M, Lobo J, Strumsky D, Seto KC (2013) Does size matter? Scaling of CO2 emissions and US urban areas. PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064727 Google Scholar
  17. Frey RS (2013) Agent orange and America at war in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. Human Ecol Rev 20(1):1–10Google Scholar
  18. Gonzalez G (2005) Urban sprawl, global warming and the limits of ecological modernisation. Environ Politics 14:344–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould K (2007) The ecological costs of militarization. Peace Rev J Soc Justice 19(4):331–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hooks G, McLauchlan G (1992) The Institutional Foundation of Warmaking: three eras of US Warmaking, 1939–1989. Theory Soc 21(6):757–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooks G, Smith CL (2004) The treadmill of destruction: national sacrifice areas and native Americans. Am Sociol Rev 69(4):558–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hooks G, Smith CL (2005) Treadmills of production and destruction: threats to the environment posed by militarism. Organ Environ 18(1):19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooks G, Smith CL (2012) The treadmill of destruction goes global: anticipating the environmental impact of militarism in the 21st century. In: Gouliamos K, Kassimeris C (eds) The marketing of war in the age of neo-militarism. Routledge, London, pp 60–83Google Scholar
  24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. http://www.ipcc.ch. http://www.trillionthtonne.org. Accessed 31 Jan 2015
  25. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2008) World energy outlook 2008. IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins C, Scanlan S (2001) Food security in less-developed countries, 1970–1990. Am Sociol Rev 66(4):714–744Google Scholar
  27. Jorgenson AK (2014) Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being. Nature Clim Change 4(3):186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jorgenson AK, Birkholz R (2010) Assessing the causes of anthropogenic methane emissions in comparative perspective, 1990–2005. Ecol Econ 69:2634–2643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2009) The economy, military, and ecologically unequal relationships in comparative perspective: a panel study of the ecological footprints of nations, 1975–2000. Soc Probl 56:621–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2010) Assessing the temporal stability of the population/environment relationship in comparative perspective: a cross-national panel study of carbon dioxide emissions, 1960–2005. Popul Environ 32(1):27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2012) Are the economy and the environment decoupling? A comparative international study, 1960–2005. Am J Sociol 118(1):1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jorgenson AK, Clark B, Kentor J (2010) Militarization and the environment: a panel study of carbon dioxide emissions and the ecological footprints of nations, 1970–2000. Global Environ Politics 10:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jorgenson AK, Clark B, Givens J (2012) The environmental impacts of militarization in comparative perspective: an overlooked relationship. Nature Culture 7:314–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jorgenson AK, Auerbach D, Clark B (2014) The (De-)carbonization of urbanization, 1960–2010. Clim Change 127:561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaldor M (2006) New and old wars. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Kentor J (2000) Capital and coercion. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Kentor J, Kick EL (2008) Bringing the military back in: military expenditures and economic growth 1990 to 2003. J World-Syst Res 14(2):142–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kentor J, Jorgenson AK, Kick EL (2012) The ‘new’ military and income inequality: a cross-national analysis. Soc Sci Res 41(3):514–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klare M (2007) The pentagon v. peak Oil. Posted on TomDispatch Website, June 15. [Online]. http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174810/michael_klare_the_pentagon_as_global_gas_guzzler. Accessed 31 Jan 2015
  40. Knight KW (2014) Temporal variation in the relationship between environmental demands and well-being: a panel analysis of developed and less-developed countries. Popul Environ 36(1):32–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knight KW, Schor JB (2014) Economic growth and climate change: a cross-national analysis of territorial and consumption-based carbon emissions in high-income countries. Sustainability 6(6):3722–3731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koplow D (1997) By fire and ice: dismantling chemical weapons while preserving the environment. Gordon and Breach, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Le Quéré C, Moriarty R, Andrew RM et al (2013) The global carbon budget. Earth Syst Sci Data 5:165–185. doi: 10.5194/essd-5-165-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lengefeld M, Smith CL (2013) Nuclear shadows: weighing the environmental effects of militarism, capitalism, and modernization in a global context, 2001–2007. Human Ecol Rev 20(1):11–25Google Scholar
  45. Levy Y (1998) Militarizing inequality: a conceptual framework. Theory Soc 27(6):873–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Magdoff H (1978) Imperialism: from the colonial age to the present. Monthly Review Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Magnum S, Ball D (1989) The transferability of military-provided occupational training in the post-draft era. Ind Labor Relat Rev 42(2):230–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mann M (1988) States, war, and capitalism. Basil Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Mann M (2003) Incoherent empire. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Mann M (2012) The sources of social power: volume 3, global empires and revolution, 1890–1945. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mann M (2014) The sources of social power: volume 4, globalizations, 1945–2011. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Mills CW ([1956] 2000) The power elite. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  53. Pilisuk M, Hayden T (1965) Is there a military industrial complex which prevents peace?: consensus and countervailing power in pluralistic systems. J Soc Issues 21(3):61–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Podobnik B (2006) Global energy shifts: fostering sustainability in a turbulent age. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  55. Rees W, Wackernagel M (1996) Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16:223–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Renner M (1991) Assessing the military’s war on the environment. In: Starke L (ed) State of the world. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, pp 132–152Google Scholar
  57. Renner M (1997) Environmental and health effects of weapons production, testing, and maintenance. In: Levy BS, Sidel VW (eds) War and public health. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 117–136Google Scholar
  58. Rosa EA, Dietz T (2012) Human drivers of national greenhouse-gas emissions. Nature Clim Change 2:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosa EA, York R, Dietz T (2004) Tracking the anthropogenic drivers of ecological impacts. Ambio 33(8):509–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sanders B (2009) The green zone: the environmental costs of militarism. AK Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  61. Schnaiberg A (1980) The environment: from surplus to scarcity. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Seager J (1993) Earth follies: coming to feminist terms with the global environmental crisis. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Shaw M (1988) Dialectics of war. Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Singer D, Keating J (1999) Military preparedness, weapon systems and the biosphere: a preliminary impact statement. New Political Sci 21(3):325–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith G (2003) How fuel-efficient is the pentagon? Military’s oil addiction” posted on environmentalists against the war website, September 10. [Online]. Retrieved on 7 Mar 2012 from: http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=593
  66. Smith CL, Hooks G, Lengefeld M (2014) The war on drugs in Colombia: the environment, the treadmill of destruction and risk-transfer militarism. J World-Syst Res 20(2):182–203Google Scholar
  67. Teachman J, Call V (1996) The effect of military service on educational, occupational, and income attainment. Soc Sci Res 25:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tilly C (1990) Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990–1992. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) A rift in modernity? Assessing the anthropogenic sources of global climate change with the STIRPAT model. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 23(10):31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Environmental Studies ProgramBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and Environmental and Sustainability Studies ProgramUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations