the treadmill of destruction and the environmental impacts of militaries

The Treadmill of Destruction and the EnvironmentalImpacts of Militaries1

Brett Clark1 and Andrew K. Jorgenson2*

1 North Carolina State University2 University of Utah

Abstract

This brief article considers the environmental impacts of militaries from a sociological perspective.The authors begin with an overview of treadmill of destruction theory, which highlights theexpansionary tendencies and concomitant environmental consequences of militarism. This discus-sion is followed by a narrative assessment of military developments and expenditures, with aparticular focus on the US military over the past century. Next, the authors detail the increasingenvironmental impacts associated with the growth and structure of militarization, and conclude bycalling for future sociological research to seriously consider the environmental impacts of theworld’s militaries.

Introduction

Military operations and war have long involved the degradation of land and ecosystems –including scorched earth practices, the diversion of rivers, the destruction of plants(through defoliation) and animals (such as bison on the Great Plains), the burning of oilwells, and the use of chemical and biological weapons. Distinct and new hazards accom-pany the technological development of the military. The testing of atomic and nuclearbombs in past decades generated radioactive fallout that spread throughout the world viawind, water, and living creatures (Commoner 1967, 1971). These tests gave birth to thenuclear age, as well as a conception of global ecological crisis (Hagen 1992; Worster1998). The legacy of war includes toxic landscapes, land mines, and unexploded ordi-nance, posing persistent environmental and social threats. Military operations havebecome forever linked to global contamination.

War and the testing of nuclear bombs are dramatic examples of ecological degradationby military actions; however, the environmental impacts of militarization are not limitedto these instances. Military institutions, in the name of national security, have developedlarge-scale built and social infrastructures to sustain and support the coercive power ofnations. In both times of peace and war, militarization is associated with environmentaldegradation. Emergent military technologies, the resource demands to maintain militaries,the testing of machinery and weapons, and the transportation of weapons and soldiers todistant regions of the world have increased the overall environmental impacts of theworld’s militaries.

In what follows we highlight the relationship between the military and environment.We provide a brief account of the treadmill of destruction theory, a sociological perspec-tive that examines the expansionary tendencies of militarism. We then present a snapshotof recent military developments and expenditures, with a specific focus on the US mili-tary, in order to present the ascent of militarism during the twentieth century. Following

Sociology Compass 6/7 (2012): 557–569, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00474.x

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

this discussion, we detail the increasing environmental impacts associated with the growthand structure of militarization, and we conclude by calling for future sociological researchto consider the environmental impacts of the world’s militaries.

The military and the treadmill of destruction

‘‘Militarization,’’ environmental sociologist Kenneth Gould (2007, 331) asserts, ‘‘is thesingle most ecologically destructive human endeavor.’’ Yet, with few exceptions, theori-zation and comparative research on the environmental impacts of militarism and militari-zation are rare within environmental sociology and other environmental social sciences.The general inattention to the military-environment relationship is greatly problematic.‘‘From depleting resources, eroding the physical environment, destroying natural floraand fauna, or leaving behind a vast array of toxins and radioactive elements, all aspects ofmilitary activity defile our environment in some way’’ (Singer and Keating 1999, 326).To make matters worse, ‘‘in the name of national security,’’ military forces, operations,and production facilities are often exempt from environmental laws (Gould 2007, 331;Koplow 1997). As a result, ‘‘the world’s armed forces are the single largest polluter onearth’’ (Renner 1991, 132).

The treadmill of destruction perspective within sociology explicitly addresses the mili-tary-environment relationship, revealing how the expansionary dynamics of militarismproduce profound environmental impacts and distinct patterns of environmental inequal-ity (Hooks and Smith 2004, 2005). This approach is influenced by and related to thetreadmill of production tradition within environmental sociology that indicates that ‘‘theinherent nature of competition and concentration of capital’’ within the economic systemincreases the demands on ecosystems and the amount of pollution in the environment(Schnaiberg 1980, 230; also see Foster 2005; Gould et al. 2008; Jorgenson and Clarkforthcoming). Hooks and Smith (2004) argue that while the military is connected to theeconomy, it is not simply a derivative of the latter. In fact, militarism has its own expan-sionary dynamics and produces specific forms of environmental degradation. For geopolit-ical reasons, states – rather than classes or firms – declare and wage wars (Mann 1988;Tilly 1990). Militaries actively seek to shape and control information to further their goalsto secure funding and to expand their infrastructure (Bond 2011). As nations attempt tomaintain and increase power, it spurs military development and concomitant forms ofenvironmental degradation (Hooks and Smith 2004). Militarism produces a treadmill ofdestruction that effectively limits environmental protection. The focus of the military inrelation to the environment is made clear by a US military base commander, who whenresponding to citizen’s concerns about pollution, stated: ‘‘We are in the business of pro-tecting the nation, not the environment’’ (Renner 1991, 152).

The treadmill of destruction also illuminates how a particular form of social-environ-mental inequality has accompanied military development. Hooks and Smith (2004)demonstrate how closed military bases that are deemed dangerous due to toxicity andunexploded ordinance tend to be located adjacent to Native American lands. They indi-cate that geopolitical and polity relations – distinct from economic relations – influencethe spatial distribution of environmental ‘‘bads’’ that are the result of producing, testing,deploying, and storing the hazardous and toxic weapons. As a result, indigenous peopleswithin the United States are disproportionately burdened – due to a history of coercion –with degraded landscapes and increased health risks due to exposure to toxic chemicals.

The expansion of militarism has global implications. Geopolitical competition oftendrives arms races as well as attendant technological advances, infrastructural development,

558 Environmental Impacts of Militaries

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 6/7 (2012): 557–569, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00474.x

and growth in troop size. Especially for developed nations, the environmentally damagingcapabilities of their militaries are partly a function of technological developments withweaponry and other machinery (Jorgenson 2005; Jorgenson and Clark 2009; Jorgensonet al. 2010). These capital-intensive militaries employ advanced weaponry and utilize stateof the art transportation systems – that require an enormous amount of resources, such asoil – to facilitate the rapid movement of troops and to enhance the strike capabilities ofnations, including an extensive system of vehicles and infrastructure to aid in the deploy-ment of equipment and personnel (Clark et al. 2010). Further, capital-intensive militariesare likely to increase their material infrastructure or become more spatially dispersed,bringing more land under its operations (Kentor and Kick 2008; Kentor et al. forthcom-ing). These militaries are also associated with ecologically unequal exchange relations andthe extraction of natural resources from developing nations (Downey et al. 2010; Jorgen-son and Clark 2009). The structure and organization of the military expands the treadmillof destruction, which by necessity increases the overall environmental demands and deg-radation associated with militarism (Jorgenson and Clark 2009).

The global nature of the treadmill of destruction is becoming increasingly important toconsider in light of recent technological and geopolitical developments. The World Warsduring the twentieth century were primarily fought within the Global North, leavingbehind landscapes contaminated with chemicals and heavy metals contained in ‘‘conven-tional ordnance’’ (Hooks and Smith 2012). The testing of weapons and storage of toxicancillary materials has produced toxic sites throughout the United States and the formerSoviet Union. During the Cold War, military campaigns were waged throughout theGlobal South. ‘‘Scorch the earth’’ strategies, such as defoliation through the application ofchemical poisons in Southeast Asia, were employed in an effort to undermine resistanceand to cause social disorder (Buckingham 1983). These actions foreshadowed the trendsthat characterize military operations in the twenty-first century. The ecological impactsand social inequalities of the military are increasingly being concentrated in the GlobalSouth (Hooks and Smith 2012).

Martin Shaw (2002, 2005) details how the leaders in the Great Powers are pursuing‘‘risk-transfer militarism,’’ whereby the environmental damages, health risks, and casualtiesare shifted to the populations in developing nations. Asymmetries in economic and mili-tary strength are facilitating this transfer of environmental risks and impacts to the mostvulnerable populations. Through technological innovation and by employing modernweapons, the Global North is able to reduce injuries and casualties to their own troopsand citizens, while subjecting distant lands to environmental destruction and social disrup-tion (Hooks and Smith 2012). Ironically, perhaps, as the militaries in the North areattempting to reduce their ecological footprint within homelands, the global reach of theworld’s militaries expands the toxic legacy and social-environmental degradation of thisinstitution.

The ascent and expansion of the military

International superpowers, such as the United States, use part of the social surplusgenerated through economic dominance to invest in military development (Hooks andMcLauchlan 1992; Kentor 2000). Domestic politics, the position of nations within theglobal interstate system, and actual and perceived threats shape the course of militarydevelopment. During the twentieth century, technological, political, economic, and ideo-logical changes contributed to the ascendancy of the military into the power elite (Mills2000). With these changes, the treadmill of destruction became firmly rooted within

Environmental Impacts of Militaries 559


national and international politics, expanding the influence and scale of the military. Thediscussion that follows is largely focused on the military within the United States, in partdue to the predominance of this nation’s military within the world and the magnitude ofannual military spending of this country. However, it is important to note that multiplecross-national and longitudinal studies within sociology indicate that the relative size andtechnological capacity of nations’ militaries both contribute to growth in energy con-sumption (Clark et al. 2010), carbon dioxide emissions (Jorgenson et al. 2010; York2008), and overall resource consumption in the form of the ecological footprints ofnations (Jorgenson 2005; Jorgenson and Clark 2009, 2011). These cross-national studiesare all situated within the treadmill of destruction perspective.

The introduction of new weapons during both World Wars in the twentieth centuryescalated the toll of war and changed warfare. Following the Second World War, withinthe United States the military joined the economic and political elite, who had accepteda ‘‘military definition of reality’’ (Mills 2000, 198). In part, this position and worldviewemerged from further transformations in the social order. The scale of military operations– including troops, equipment, and the theater of war – had greatly expanded. Scientificresearch was heavily involved in the production of high-tech equipment and the develop-ment of new weapons. The expansion of the military provided economic benefits forpowerful segments within industry due to armament and other military contracts. Thedestructive potential of nuclear weapons elevated military matters, increasing the influenceof the military in both the state and economy (Mills 2000). Due to geopolitics and theascendancy of the military, the overall expenditures on the military and expenditures persoldier continued to increase, as it comprised the largest share of the national budget inthe United States, helping create a permanent war economy.

Figure 1 provides the total annual military expenditures (defined as the ‘‘total militarybudget’’) for the United States for the 1900–2007 period, while Figure 2 provides theannual expenditures per soldier2 for the same range of years. These data, which arereported in 1990 Int’l Geary-Khamis Dollars3 and thus adjusted for inflation, wereobtained from the Correlates of War online dataset (http://www.correlatesofwar.org/).As indicated by Figure 1, total military expenditures increased from roughly $440thousand in 1900 to approximately $650 billion in 2007. Military spending within theUnited States – including acknowledged and actual spending (such as grants to foreigngovernments, medical payments, etc.) – exceeds ‘‘that of all the other countries in theworld put together’’ (Foster et al. 2008; 16). Turning briefly to Figure 2, militaryexpenditures per soldier increased from approximately $3 in 1900 to over $431 thousandin 2007.

In President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1961, he noted that followingthe Second World War the United States, and by extension the world, had entered anew era of militarism. Prior to this period, domestic industrial operations were redirectedto support the war effort during times of conflict. The ascent of the military and geopo-litical concerns helped create ‘‘a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions’’ andan expansive military structure that included millions of enlisted soldiers. While Eisen-hower warned against the ‘‘unwarranted influence’’ of the military-industrial complex – aconcept and term used by Winfield W. Riefler in 1947 and C. Wright Mills in 1956 –he upheld ‘‘the imperative need for its development’’ (Eisenhower 1961; see also Mills2000; Riefler 1947). These changes increased the interaction between the corporate andmilitary realms. Prior to President Eisenhower’s famous speech, C. Wright Mills (2000,215) indicated, ‘‘the economy has become concentrated and incorporated into greathierarchies, the military has become enlarged and decisive to the shape of the entire



0

100 000 000 000

200 000 000 000

300 000 000 000

400 000 000 000

500 000 000 000

600 000 000 000

700 000 000 000

1900

1904

1908

1912

1916

1920

1924

1928

1932

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

US military expenditures, 1900-2007

Figure 1. US Military Expenditures, 1900–2007. Notes: expenditures are measured in constant 1990Int’l Geary-Khamis Dollars and come from the Correlates of War dataset (see http://www.correlatesofwar.org/).

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

1900

1904

1908

1912

1916

1920

1924

1928

1932

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

US military expenditures per soldier, 1900-2007

Figure 2. US Military Expenditures Per Soldier, 1900–2007. Notes: expenditures are measured inconstant 1990 Int’l Geary-Khamis Dollars and come from the Correlates of War dataset (see http://www.correlatesofwar.org/).



economic structure; and moreover, the economic [sic.] and military have become struc-turally and deeply interrelated, as the economy has become a seemingly permanent wareconomy; and military men and policies have increasingly penetrated the corporateeconomy.’’

As Mills highlighted, there is a distinct and important relationship that emergedbetween the state, the military, and corporate elite. Yet, he did not reduce the operationsof the military to the logic of capitalism. He sought to explain the distinctive historicaldevelopment of the military as an institution (Hooks 1993; Hooks and Smith 2005).4 Fol-lowing the Second World War, ‘‘big science’’ was wedded to the military in the UnitedStates (and elsewhere), as research and development were geared to addressing the spe-cialized technological needs for advanced military performance (Hooks and McLauchlan1992). The military directed social resources to designing, developing, testing, anddeploying superior vehicles, planes, boats, and weapons for national security and potentialuse in future conflicts. The new equipment was made of special materials, correspondingto advances in weapons. These technological developments have made the military morecapital and material intensive (Shaw 1988). Through such technological advances, themilitary is able to move massive amounts of equipment and soldiers throughout the world(Collins 1981). More ground can be covered in less time, what social geographers com-monly refer to as time-space compression. These advances have increased the expense ofmilitary operations, especially the costs associated with operating special equipment suchas aircraft carriers, planes, helicopters, and tanks. Such trends helped spur an internationalarms race between the global powers, setting a new standard for the technologies poten-tially employed in warfare.

William Catton, an environmental sociologist, argues that the military-industrial com-plex is part of the social drivers of ecological degradation, that promises endless growthand that does not recognize natural limits. He notes:

The military-industrial complex helped perpetuate the illusion that we still had a carryingcapacity surplus; it made it profitable for the living generation to extract and use up naturalresources that might otherwise have been left for posterity. It absorbed for a while most of theexcess labor force displaced by technological progress from older occupational niches that hadbeen less dependent on drawing down reservoirs of exhaustible resources. It thus helped usbelieve that the Age of Exuberance could go on. (Catton 1982, 170)

While the military (i.e., the treadmill of destruction) is obviously tied to the economy(i.e., the treadmill of production) in complex ways, given the military-industrial complex,it also generates its own separate growth dynamics that require immense amounts of capi-tal, supplies of energy, and other raw materials to sustain its operations (Clark et al. 2010;Jorgenson and Clark 2009). Historical coercion, geopolitics, and the arms race give thetreadmill of destruction distinctive expansionary characteristics. Thus, it is important toalso consider how this treadmill ‘‘generates additions to and withdrawals from the envi-ronment’’ (Hooks and Smith 2005, 21).

Environmental impacts of militarism

The systematic expansion of militarism throughout the world, as represented by the dra-matic increase in military expenditures in the United States, has simultaneously enlargedthe scale of environmental impacts. Rather than provide a complete accounting of theenvironmental consequences of militarism, we highlight through a sociological lens anumber of important institutional, structural, and technological characteristics to illustrate



the importance of considering how the military as a large organization and institutioncontributes to ecological degradation and various environmental problems.

While it is obvious that warfare causes significant environmental and public healthharms, it is important to explicitly note a few examples. The use of biological and chemi-cal weapons, such as Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, contaminates land andwater ecosystems. In the 1990s, depleted uranium started being used in the manufacturingof bullets, shells, and bombs, which contributes to the contamination of the land duringand following war and presents serious health risks for human and animal populations(Birchard 1998; Sanders 2009; White 2008). War debris – which includes fuel deposits,ammunition dumps, drums filled with oil and solvents, asphalt, grease, paint, tires, cables,unexploded munitions, gunpowder, fiberboard, etc. – introduce an array of chemicalsand other toxins into ecosystems that will continue to harm both flora and fauna unless a‘‘clean operation’’ is conducted (Lanier-Graham 1993). Military conflict generally trans-forms territory ‘‘beyond recognition,’’ leaving a scar upon the land (Jarret 2003; 880).Landmines and unexploded ordnance leave the land unfit for farming and raising animalsand present persistent dangers to the population (Berhe 2007).

Military campaigns consume enormous amounts of fossil (and nuclear) fuels in planes,ships, and tanks (Grimes 1999; Klare 2002; Lanier-Graham 1993; Marshall 2005; Pellow2007; Thomas 1995). Michael Klare (2007) indicates that the US military consumes atleast 1.3 billion gallons of oil annually in the Middle East alone – more than the annualconsumption of Bangladesh. Fuel is also consumed to provide air conditioning to troops– the military spent over $20 billion dollars annually to cool troops stationed in Iraq andAfghanistan alone (National Public Radio Staff 2011). Such levels of fossil fuel use con-tribute to the accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions and thus cause climate change(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). War also contributes to deforesta-tion and the loss of wildlife habitat, as people attempt to rebuild what was lost during theconflict (Lanier-Graham 1993). Given the global shifts in military strategy and operations,the systematic transfer of ecological impacts to developing nations deepens global socialinequalities (Hooks and Smith 2012).

The expansionary dynamics and environmental impacts of militarism are not limited toperiods of war. Vested geopolitical and military interests as well as constant preparation forfuture conflicts escalate the scale and operations of militaries. As a result, even in theabsence of armed conflict, military institutions and their activities consume vast amounts ofnonrenewable energy and other resources for research and development, maintenance, andoperation of the overall infrastructure (Dycus 1996; Jorgenson 2005; Jorgenson et al. 2010;Sidel and Shahi 1997; York 2008). At the same time, military operations generate largeamounts of toxic substances and waste, which contribute to the contamination of land andwater. Some toxins are released directly into the environment through the testing of weap-ons, such as strontium-90 and iodine-131 due to the atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs(Birks 1990; Hastings 2000; LaDuke 1999; Shulman 1992; Ward 1999). At the DugwayProving Grounds in the state of Utah, an array of poison gases, such as mustard gas andnerve gas, were tested in the open air. Also, incendiary and hydrogen cyanide bombs weretested to estimate maximum damage to German and Japanese cities during the SecondWorld War (Brophy et al. 1959). Other toxins are introduced into the environmentthrough the production, storage, transportation, and disposal of biological and chemicalweapons (Lanier-Graham 1993). For example, one of the most toxic sites in the world isthe Rocky Mountain Arsenal, where ‘‘by-products from the production of mustard gas,napalm, incendiary weapons, and other types of munitions were dumped on the land fordecades’’ (Lanier-Graham 1993, 80). Pesticides, solvents, mercury, lead, and arsenic also



contaminate the land at this site. These toxins are known to pollute groundwater. Militarybases throughout the world have been identified as sites of toxic contamination, and in the1960s and 1970s, millions of gallons of radioactive waste were dumped by the US Navyinto Pearl Harbor (LaDuke 1999, 173).

Militaries use a broad range of thinners, solvents, lubricants, degreasers, fuels, pesticides,and propellants as part of the everyday operation and maintenance of military equipment,increasing both the demands placed on nature and the stock of wastes. As a result, ‘‘theDepartment of Defense…generates 500,000 tons of toxic waste annually, more than thetop five US chemical companies combined, and it is estimated that the armed forces ofthe major world powers produce the greatest amount of hazardous waste in the world’’(Singer and Keating 1999, 338). Thus, ‘‘the most ecologically devastated locations onEarth’’ are found wherever ‘‘military production facilities’’ operate (Gould 2007, 331).

According to the United Nations’ Center for Disarmament (1982), armed forces haveused a steadily increasing amount of land for bases, other installations, and training exer-cises over the last century. The end of the Cold War did not reduce the use of publiclands for military operations, training, testing, and exercises (Singer and Keating 1999). In2003, the United States alone had over 900 military bases located domestically and oper-ated over 700 military bases in 130 countries (Johnson 2004). By 2007, there were over800 US military bases overseas (Sanders 2009). A network of military bases encompassesthe globe, requiring a vast amount of fossil fuels and other resources to staff, operate, andtransport equipment and personnel between destinations. Even with advanced technolo-gies, military operations require bases close to theaters of action to supply energy andpersonnel needs (Collins 1981). To a significant extent military power remains dependentupon access to land (Foster 2006; Jorgenson and Clark 2009). The network of militarybases facilitates the transfer of risks to distant places, while enhancing the ability to fightwars far removed from homelands (Hooks and Smith 2012; Van Creveld 2008).

In order to support their operations and personnel, whether domestic or abroad, mili-taries must have ready supplies of raw materials and energy as well as the infrastructure tomeet specific needs. Consequently, military-oriented resource use involves strategic stock-piling of munitions, spare parts, fossil fuels, and other ancillary equipment to sustain itsoperations. The resource consumption of the military is further increased by industriesthat produce munitions and marginal equipment for the armed forces and their supporteconomies, expanding the overall toxic footprint (Jorgenson 2005; McNeill 2000; Sidel2000). The production of such marginal equipment and stockpiling of fuels places greaterdemands upon the environment. The populations of armed forces also use large quantitiesof materials for uniforms and specialized forms of clothing that would not otherwise beconsumed. Further, the labor intensity of militaries increases the resources required fortraining, armaments, transportation, and the housing of troops and support personnel(Jorgenson and Clark 2009; Jorgenson et al. 2010).

During regular operations, including peacetime activities, the armed forces consumelarge amounts of fossil fuels, adding to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmo-sphere (Jorgenson et al. 2010; Roberts et al. 2003). In part, this is a reflection of thehigh-tech equipment employed by the armed forces. Of course, soldiers must beconstantly trained to use this equipment and the high-tech machinery and vehicles mustbe tested. Planes, helicopters, ships, tanks, and armed vehicles all require enormousamounts of oil to make them move – not to mention the various ancillary infrastructuresthat are required for their operation, such as air strips, roads, and supply vehicles. Forexample, one hour of operation of a non-nuclear aircraft carrier consumes 21,300 liters(over 5,621 gallons) of fuel; large, high-tech military helicopters burn five gallons of fuel



for every mile that they travel; and fighter planes, such as the F-15 and F-16, consumebetween 1500 and 1700 gallons of fuel per hour. If their afterburners are used, up to14,400 gallons are exhausted per hour (Cutler 1989; Renner 1997, 120; Sanders 2009;Smith 2003). Renner (1997, 120) notes that ‘‘a modern battle tank’s fuel consumption isso voracious that it is better measured in gallons per mile than in miles per gallon.’’Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that only two combat vehicles – the Apachehelicopter and the M-1 Abrams tank – are included on the list of the top ten fuel guz-zlers. The other eight are all support vehicles that carry fuel and supplies (Karbuz 2007).

Superior combat performance of equipment is a greater priority than energy efficiencyfor military institutions. According to Smith (2003), as the military pursues ‘‘bigger, faster,and more sophisticated weapons, fuel efficiency continues to plummet.’’ In the 1980s,‘‘nearly a quarter of all jet fuel’’ was consumed by militaries throughout the world; andapproximately three quarters of the petroleum used by the armed forces fuels the vehicles,aircrafts, sea vessels, and other forms of warfare machinery (Renner 1991, 1997, 120).The Pentagon has the largest fleet of high-tech military equipment, which is fueledalmost entirely by oil. According to Klare (2007), it is perhaps the ‘‘leading consumer ofpetroleum’’ in the world.

High-tech militaries employ advanced weaponry to enhance strike capabilities and uti-lize state of the art equipment to facilitate the rapid movement of troops. As alreadynoted, this often involves the movement of vehicles, planes, and ships within the exten-sive global network of bases, further increasing energy demands. Thus, the military isimportant to consider as a social institution that has established a path dependency thatrequires the mass consumption of fossil fuels and other resources (Clark et al. 2010).Future sociological studies need to consider the global inequalities associated with naturalresource consumption by militaries. ‘‘The worldwide military use of aluminum, copper,nickel, and platinum is greater than the entire Third World’s demand for these materials’’(Singer and Keating 1999, 330), and nations with relatively larger and more technologi-cally advanced militaries often utilize their coercive power and global military reach togain disproportionate access to natural resources and fossil fuel (Chase-Dunn 1998; Conca2004; Dalby 2004; Jorgenson 2005; Kentor 2000; Magdoff 1978; Podobnik 2006). Morebroadly, it is important for any valid sociological assessment of the environmental impactsof militarization to consider how and the extent to which coercive power allows formore powerful nations to gain access to the natural resource stocks and waste sinks withinless-powerful nations, typically within the Global South (Jorgenson and Clark 2009).

Conclusion

Natural and social scientists, including sociologists, have identified a number of anthropo-genic drivers that contribute to global ecological problems, including climate change, thedegradation of land, and water pollution. Much of their focus is appropriately on the eco-logical demands of the global economy and growing human populations. Unfortunately,the environmental impacts of militarism have not received much attention, minus a fewnotable exceptions, within environmental sociology or other environmental social sci-ences. The military, especially within the United States, is a large institution that receivesa vast amount of monetary resources annually to fund its operations. A full understandingof the human dimensions of global environmental change, whether domestically or inter-nationally, requires a sociological examination of the world’s militaries.

The military has its own growth dynamics that operate in relation to and independentof the treadmill of production. As a result, the treadmill of destruction that characterizes



the military produces a broad array of impacts that undermine environmental sustainabil-ity. As nations develop more capital-intensive militaries, their environmental impacts willincrease. It engenders energy use as well as other forms of resource consumption andenvironmental degradation, which are associated with the continual development of mili-taries’ high-tech equipment and vehicles, testing of weapons, their vast infrastructures,and their numbers of soldiers. Regardless of whether it is during war or peacetime, mili-taries consume vast quantities of fossil fuels that contribute to the accumulation of carbondioxide in the atmosphere, produce enormous quantities of toxic wastes that presentenvironmental concerns at every stage of their lifecycle, and increase the demands placedon natural resources to support military infrastructure. Given the scale of its operations,the military must be considered a key driver of ecological degradation – thus, presentingan additional challenge for society to confront in relation to sustainability efforts. Further-more, ‘‘the environmental scars left by the treadmill of destruction are neither transcen-dent nor do they represent a fully shared sacrifice: Environmental inequality is thehallmark of the treadmill of destruction’’ (Hooks and Smith 2012, 67).

We assert that the environmental impacts of the military must be seriously consideredin future sociological research on the anthropogenic drivers of environmental harms.Doing so will not be easy, but this broader perspective is imperative given that globalclimate change and unsustainable resource consumption are among the most seriouschallenges currently facing the world. The treadmill of destruction perspective withinsociology makes an important contribution highlighting how the expansionary practicesof the military produce a system that is highly resource consumptive and waste generating– not to mention it creates distinctive forms of environmental inequality. It exacerbatesecological problems at multiple scales, in different locations throughout the world. Likethe treadmill of production, the treadmill of destruction is undermining global environ-mental sustainability.

Short Biography

Brett Clark is an assistant professor of sociology at North Carolina State University. Hisareas of research interest are ecology, political economy, and the sociology of science. Hehas published articles in Social Problems, Social Science Research, Theory and Society, Sociologi-cal Inquiry, The Sociological Quarterly, Organization & Environment, Population & Environment,Global Environmental Politics, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, and other schol-arly publications. He is the author of several books, including The Science and Humanismof Stephen Jay Gould (with Richard York), The Ecological Rift (with John Bellamy Fosterand Richard York), and Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism fromAntiquity to the Present (with John Bellamy Foster and Richard York).

Andrew K Jorgenson is associate professor of sociology at the University of Utah. Hiscomparative international research on society ⁄nature relationships appears in AmericanJournal of Sociology, Social Forces, Social Problems, Social Science Research, International Sociologyas well as many other journals and scholarly outlets. He is the former editor of the Jour-nal of World-Systems Research as well as guest editor for special issues of Human EcologyReview and the International Journal of Comparative Sociology.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Andrew K. Jorgenson, Department of Sociology, University of Utah, 380 South 1530East, Room 301, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Email: [email protected]



1 An earlier version of this essay was presented by the second author as the opening address at the 2011 workshoptitled ‘‘Advancing the Right to Health on a Sick Planet: Redefining Security & the Role of Militarism,’’ Universityof Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.2 Military personnel data are used to calculate the per solider measures. Military personnel are defined as troopsunder the command of the national government, intended for use against foreign adversaries, and held ready forcombat as of January 1 of the referent year.3 The Geary-Khamis dollar, also known as the international dollar, is a hypothetical unit of currency that has thesame purchasing power that the US dollar had in the United States at a given point in time. The years 1990 or2000 are often used as a benchmark year for comparisons that run through time. It is based on the twin concepts ofpurchasing power parities (PPP) of currencies and the international average prices of commodities. It shows howmuch a local currency unit is worth within the country’s borders. It is commonly used to make comparisons bothbetween countries and within countries over time.4 Hooks and Smith (2005) explain that while the economic and military are connected in complex ways, it isimportant to recognize each has distinct properties and cannot be reduced to each other. Thus, there are distincttreadmills. The treadmill of production is associated with growth imperative of the capitalist economy. The tread-mill of destruction is linked the distinctive logic and organization of the military, shaped by geopolitics and theinternational arms race.

References

Berhe, A.A. 2007. ‘Contribution of Landmines to Land Degradation.’ Land Degradation & Development 18: 1–15.Birchard, Karen. 1998. ‘Does Iraq’s Depleted Uranium Pose a Health Risk?‘ The Lancet 351(9103): 657.Birks, John. 1990. ‘Weapons Forsworn: Chemical and Biological Weapons.’ Pp. 161–89 in Hidden Danger: Environ-

mental Consequences of Preparing for War, edited by Anne Ehrlich and John Birks. San Francisco, CA: Sierra ClubBooks.

Bond, Eric. 2011. ‘The Knowledge-Shaping Process: Elite Mobilization and Environmental Policy.’ Critical Sociology37(4): 429–46.

Brophy, Leo, Wyndham Miles and Rexmond Cochrane. 1959. The Chemical Warfare Service: from Laboratory to Field.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Buckingham, William Jr. 1983. ‘Operation Ranch Hand: Herbicides in Southeast Asia.’ Air University Review 34:42–53.

Catton, William. 1982. Overshoot. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1998. Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little-

field.Clark, Brett, Andrew K. Jorgenson and Jeffrey Kentor. 2010. ‘Militarization and Energy Consumption: A Test of

Treadmill of Destruction Theory in Comparative Perspective.’ International Journal of Sociology 40: 23–43.Collins, Randall. 1981. ‘Does Modern Technology Change the Rules of Geopolitics?’ Journal of Political & Military

Sociology 9(2): 163–77.Commoner, Barry. 1967. Science and Survival. New York: Viking Press.Commoner, Barry. 1971. The Closing Circle. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Conca, Ken. 2004. ‘Ecology in an Age of Empire: A Reply to (and Extension of) Dalby’s Imperial Thesis.’ Global

Environmental Politics 4(2): 12–9.Cutler, Tom. 1989. ‘Myths of Military Oil Supply Vulnerability.’ Armed Forces Journal International July: 43–9.Dalby, Simon. 2004. ‘Ecological Politics, Violence, and the Theme of Empire.’ Global Environmental Politics 4(2):

1–11.Downey, Liam, Eric Bonds and Katherine Clark. 2010. ‘Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Envi-

ronmental Degradation.’ Organization & Environment 23(4): 417–45.Dycus, Stephen. 1996. National Defense and the Environment. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.Eisenhower, Dwight D. 1961. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Foster, John Bellamy. 2005. ‘The Treadmill of Accumulation.’ Organization & Environment 18(1): 7–18.Foster, John Bellamy. 2006. Naked Imperialism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Foster, John Bellamy, Hannah Hollman and Robert McChesney. 2008. ‘The U.S. Imperial Triangle and Military

Spending.’ Monthly Review 60(5): 1–19.Gould, Kenneth. 2007. ‘The Ecological Costs of Militarization.’ Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 19(4): 331–

4.Gould, Kenneth, David Pellow and Allan Schnaiberg. 2008. The Treadmill of Production: Injustice & Unsustainability in

the Global Economy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Grimes, Peter. 1999. ‘The Horseman and the Killing Fields: The Final Contradiction of Capitalism.’ Pp. 13–42 in

Ecology and the World-System, edited by Walter Goldfrank, David Goodman and Andrew Szasz. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.



Hagen, Joel. 1992. An Entangled Bank. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Hastings, Tom. 2000. Ecology of War and Peace. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Hooks, Gregory. 1993. ‘The Weakness of Strong Theories: The U.S. State’s Dominance of TheWorld War II

Investment Process.’ American Sociological Review 58: 37–53.Hooks, Gregory and Gregory McLauchlan. 1992. ‘The Institutional Foundation of Warmaking: Three Eras of U.S.

Warmaking, 1939-1989.’ Theory and Society 21(6): 757–88.Hooks, Gregory and Chad Smith. 2004. ‘The Treadmill of Destruction: National Sacrifice Areas and Native Ameri-

cans.’ American Sociological Review 69(4): 558–75.Hooks, Gregory and Chad Smith. 2005. ‘Treadmills of Production and Destruction: Threats to the Environment

Posed by Militarism.’ Organization & Environment 18(1): 19–37.Hooks, Gregory and Chad L. Smith. 2012. ‘The Treadmill of Destruction Goes Global: Anticipating the Environ-

mental Impact of Militarism in the 21st Century.’ Pp. 60–83 in The Marketing of War in the Age of Neo-Militarism,edited by Kostas Gouliamos and Christos Kassimeris. London: Routledge.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Gen-eva: IPCC Secretariat.

Jarret, Robert. 2003. ‘The Environment: Collateral Victim and Tool of War.’ BioScience 53: 880–2.Johnson, Chalmers. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metro-

politan Books.Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2005. ‘Unpacking International Power and the Ecological Footprints of Nations: A Quanti-

tative Cross-National Study.’ Sociological Perspectives 48(3): 383–402.Jorgenson, Andrew K. and Brett Clark. 2009. ‘The Economy, Military, and Ecologically Unequal Relationships in

Comparative Perspective: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1975-2000.’ Social Problems 56:621–46.

Jorgenson, Andrew K. and Brett Clark. 2011. ‘Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Foot-prints of Nations, 1960-2003.’ Social Science Research 40: 226–44.

Jorgenson, Andrew K. and Brett Clark. forthcoming. ‘Are the Economy and the Environment Decoupling?A Comparative International Study, 1960-2005.’ American Journal of Sociology.

Jorgenson, Andrew K., Brett Clark and Jeffrey Kentor. 2010. ‘Militarization and the Environment: A Panel Studyof Carbon Dioxide Emissions and the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1970-2000.’ Global Environmental Politics10: 7–29.

Karbuz, Sohbet. 2007. ‘U.S. Military Energy Consumption – Facts and Figures.’ Energy Bulletin. [Online].Retrieved on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925. (May 20,2007).

Kentor, Jeff, Andrew K. Jorgenson and Ed Kick. forthcoming. ‘The ‘New’ Military and National Income Inequal-ity: A Cross-National Analysis.’ Social Science Research.

Kentor, Jeffrey. 2000. Capital and Coercion. New York: Garland.Kentor, Jeffrey and Edward Kick. 2008. ‘Bringing the Military Back In: Military Expenditures and Economic

Growth 1990 to 2003.’ Journal of World-Systems Research 14(2): 142–72.Klare, Michael. 2002. Resource Wars. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Klare, Michael. 2007. ‘The Pentagon v. Peak Oil’. Posted on TomDispatch Website, June 15. [Online]. Retrieved

on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174810/.Koplow, David. 1997. By Fire and Ice: Dismantling Chemical Weapons While Preserving the Environment. London, UK:

Gordon and Breach.LaDuke, Winona. 1999. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Boston, MA: South End Press.Lanier-Graham, Susan. 1993. The Ecology of War: Environmental Impacts of Weaponry and Warfare. New York: Walker

and Company.Magdoff, Harry. 1978. Imperialism: from the Colonial Age to the Present. New York: Monthly Review Press.Mann, Michael. 1988. States, War, and Capitalism. New York: Basil Blackwell.Marshall, Alan. 2005. ‘Questioning the Motivations for International Repositories for Nuclear Waste.’ Global Envi-

ronmental Politics 5(1): 1–9.McNeill, J.R.. 2000. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth Century World. New

York: Norton.Mills, C. Wright. 2000. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.National Public Radio Staff. 2011. ‘Among the Costs of War: Billions a Year in A.C.’ National Public Radio June

2011. [Online]. Retrieved on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning.

Pellow, David. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Podobnik, Bruce. 2006. Global Energy Shifts: Fostering Sustainability in a Turbulent Age. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press.

Renner, Michael. 1991. ‘Assessing the Military’s War on the Environment.’ Pp. 132–52 in State of the World, editedby Linda Starke. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.



Renner, Michael. 1997. Environmental and Health Effects of Weapons Production, Testing, and Maintenance. Pp.117–36 in War and Public Health, edited by Barry S. Levy and Victor W. Sidel. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Riefler, Winfield W. 1947. ‘Our Economic Contribution to Victory.’ Foreign Affairs 26(1): 90–103.Roberts, J. Timmons, Peter Grimes and Jodie Manale. 2003. ‘Social Roots of Global Environmental Change:

A World-Systems Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions.’ Journal of World-Systems Research 9: 277–315.Sanders, Barry. 2009. The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism. Oakland, CA: AK Press.Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: from Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.Shaw, Martin. 1988. Dialectics of War. London, UK: Pluto Press.Shaw, Martin. 2002. ‘Risk-Transfer Militarism: Small Massacres and the Historic Legitimacy of War.’ International

Relations 16: 343–59.Shaw, Martin. 2005. The New Western Way of War. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Shulman, Seth. 1992. The Threat at Home: Confronting the Toxic Legacy of the U.S. Military. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.Sidel, Victor. 2000. The Impact of Military Preparedness and Militarism on Health the Environment. Pp. 426–43

in The Environmental Consequences of War, edited by Jay E. Austin and Carl E. Bruche. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sidel, Victor and Gurinder Shahi. 1997. ‘The Impact of Military Activities on Development, Environment, andHealth.’ Pp. 283–312 in International Perspectives on Environment, Development, and Health: Toward a SustainableWorld, edited by Gurinder Shahi, Barry Levy, Al Binger, Tord Kjellstrom and Robert Lawrence. New York:Springer Publishing Company.

Singer, J. David and Jeffrey Keating. 1999. ‘Military Preparedness, Weapon Systems and the Biosphere: A Prelimin-ary Impact Statement.’ New Political Science 21(3): 325–43.

Smith, Gar. 2003. ‘How Fuel-Efficient Is the Pentagon? Military’s Oil Addiction’ Posted on EnvironmentalistsAgainst the War Website, September 10. [Online]. Retrieved on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=593.

Thomas, William. 1995. Scorched Earth: The Military’s Assault on the Environment. Philadelphia, PA: New SocietyPublishers.

Tilly, Charles. 1990. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.United Nations’ Center for Disarmament. 1982. The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development (Disarmament

Study Series No. 5). New York: United Nations.Van Creveld, Martin. 2008. The Changing Face of War. New York: Presido Press.Ward, Chip. 1999. Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West. London, UK: Verso.White, Rob. 2008. ‘Depleted Uranium, State Crime and the Politics of Knowing.’ Theoretical Criminology 12(1):

31–54.Worster, Donald. 1998. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.York, Richard. 2008. ‘De-Carbonization in Former Soviet Republics, 1992-2000: The Ecological Consequences of

De-Modernization.’ Social Problems 55(3): 370–90.



the treadmill of destruction and the environmental impacts of militaries

Documents