What we can afford

The money we've spent on the five-year Iraq War could have shifted the world to renewables

Posted by David Roberts at 5:05 PM on 19 Mar 2008

Read more about: politics

Today is the five-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. I don't have a whole lot to say about it that other people haven't said better. I would just stress one point:

People frequently fret that we can't afford the measures necessary to fight climate change. That is false. We are an enormously rich country. We're in the midst of spending trillions on a war that is providing no benefits whatsoever, just to stoke the imperialist fantasies of our ruling class. We can afford whatever we want. It's whether we really want it that's the question.

Here's some reading you might consider:

Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the ultimate cost of the war will top $3 trillion.

Sen. Harry Reid's office has released its own attempt at tallying the cost of the war, not only in money but in lives, military readiness, security, and the stability of the Middle East.

Barack Obama gave a major speech on foreign policy today, claiming that "there is a security gap in this country -- a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions."

Oil Change International has issued a new report called A Climate of War (PDF), which attempts to quantify the greenhouse gases associated with the war and the opportunity costs of fighting the war rather than climate change. Here are some of the top-line conclusions:

1. Projected total US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends.

2. The war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.

3. Emissions from the Iraq War to date are nearly two and a half times greater than what would be avoided between 2009 and 2016 were California to implement the auto emission regulations it has proposed, but that the Bush Administration has struck down. Finally, if the war was ranked as a country in terms of annual emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world's nations do. Falling between New Zealand and Cuba, the war each year emits more than 60% of all countries on the planet.

4. Just the $600 billion that Congress has allocated for military operations in Iraq to date could have built over 9000 wind farms (at 50 MW capacity each), with the overall capacity to meet a quarter of the country's current electricity demand. If 25% of our power came from wind, rather than coal, it would reduce US GHG emissions by over 1 billion metric tons of CO2 per year -- equivalent to approximately 1/6 of the country's total CO2 emissions in 2006.

5. In 2006, the US spent more on the war in Iraq than the whole world spent on investment in renewable energy.

6. US presidential candidate Barack Obama has committed to spending "$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of green energy technology and infrastructure." The US spends nearly that much on the war in Iraq in just 10 months.

What a horrific, heartbreaking waste.

For story: What we can afford
13 Comments | Post a Comment

well, i agree in principle, but...

given that this war has been financed largely by debt, can we really say that we could take those funds and divert them towards other projects?

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather go into debt to build solar panels than bombs. I'm just saying...

by naturescene at 6:14 PM on 19 Mar 2008

We wouldn't have done it anyway.

We might have done a little. It is interesting that the side that thinks climate-change is a fraud, manufactured their own bogieman, which has cost us far more, and has also made us broke. Now that we are rapidly discovering that we are a bankrupt formerly wealthy country we won't have the resources to do as should have.

by bigTom at 7:00 PM on 19 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

Iraqi Oil Reserve

This may delay our Peak Oil crisis, I don't feel the postponement will help. We never took advantage of the crisis in 73. I don't agree with making a grab for this oil, but what's done is done.

What? still some WMD'ers out there, or Al Quaeda
boogy man theorist.

Iraqi freedom, remember the lines from the song, "Freedoms just another word for nothin else to lose"

It was always about the oil.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

by Pompey Road at 7:14 PM on 19 Mar 2008

shift the entire world to renewables needed

Got Prozac?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/business/19coal.html

by sunflower at 7:29 PM on 19 Mar 2008

New interactive seeforyourself website

A new interactive website from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies:

Robert Repetto, an economics professor at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies who created the site, said, "As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy," he said. "The world's leading economists who have studied the issue say that's wrong. And you can find out for yourself."
The interactive website, www.climate.yale.edu/seeforyourself, synthesized thousands of policy analyses in order to identify the seven key assumptions accounting for most of the differences in the models' predictions. It allows visitors to the site to indicate how likely they believe each of these assumptions is, and on that basis see what the economic models would predict. ...
"The website shows that even under the most unfavorable assumptions regarding costs, the U.S. economy is predicted to continue growing robustly as carbon emissions are reduced," said Repetto. "Under favorable assumptions, the economy would grow more rapidly if emissions are reduced through national policy measures than if they are allowed to increase as in the past."

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 7:42 PM on 19 Mar 2008

Always handy

http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png

Certainly the other thing to consider, when you are spending money on infrastructure and technology, often you aren't merely throwing that money away.

It actually pays dividends.

by GreyFlcn at 7:50 PM on 19 Mar 2008

Opportunity delayed, not lost

Back when the cost of this unnecessary invasion/occupation was measured in the hundreds of billions, I used to do a "back of the napkin" calculation of how many households could meet all of their energy needs if we would have chosen to subsidize solar roofs instead of Blackwater et al. Several years ago we passed the point where we could have shuttered all coal plants and ceased all imports of oil (assuming a willingness to do local driving in electric wheelchairs instead of fossil-fool powered wheelchairs).

We could still do it. We were willing as a country to blow up the National debt by 50% for a war, what's another 50% to hand over a livable planet to our children?

by human power at 9:04 PM on 19 Mar 2008

We're outta cash, bro'

My point is that we could not afford the War in Iraq, are losing in Afghanistan (the real war), and are in a horrible recession. We're dead broke. Print more paper dollars and the price of the currency goes down and the commodities go up. Oh, THAT'S why oil is over $100. No duh.

If President Bush blew our collective wad of money on a war but it could have financed so many good things like climate change and education, that is still called ... blowing your wad!

The think-tank folks say that "fixing global warming is cheap" simply must face the present condition that we're slap out of money. Poof, it's gone. You can credit Mr. Bush for a slight down-tick in US global warming gases simply because the economy has gone to pot. /sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 10:04 PM on 19 Mar 2008

The Cost of Bush's War

On a footing of debt, resource scarcities, world overpopulation, growing inflation, and the overarching quest for growth to maintain a "healthy" economy, there is one very predictable outcome from waging this war -- more war.

If this war has proven anything it is that the US will always find the resources and wealth to open a can of whoopass even if it means undermining its own economic stability and world security.

Some of us have predicted the end of living in an unsustainable civilization -- collapse -- but few could have imagined the strange pathway which included the selection of Bush for president. Dumb does select for dumber. Ugly does select for uglier. When you are so far along on the wrong path, when all your choices lead to negative or dubiously effective outcomes, and you realize that you are on the wrong path, what is it exactly that keeps us on this path? It is not freedom. So, tell me again, what are we fighting for?

by justlou at 6:33 AM on 21 Mar 2008

If we ever get out:

Since the infra-structure is falling apart anyway why not go a new direction while we have the opportunity.

No need to build anymore freeways, mass transit of all forms and electric cars.

The push to electric cars in the metro area's and hybrids short term for the inter-state.

Hydro electric, geothermal, wind and solar. We got the second largest oil reserve in the world now to help stave off our 2nd peak oil crisis.

Secure it and take advantage of this new breathing space to get off oil.

I don't agree with this war or the reason we went, we garnered more bad blood and mistrust in the world than what it is going to be worth.

It will go down as the biggest mistake this country ever made, the depression it may yet cause aside.

What's done is done, only thing we can do now is try to crawl out of this hole Bush dug for us. The Japanese were a great example of a ruined economy and infra-structure after WWII that built themselves back up to the second largest economy in the world. With no natural resources and with an economy not based on the gold standard.

They went in with new technology in their steel industry, improved oxygen blast while we were still using open hearth. Kicked out but with new technology and an improved management style. Our CEO's take vulgar profits for non-performance and invest nothing anymore in capital or R&D.

Leave a small force in to guard the oil we stole and take this money we are wasting and build a green infr-structure that is not oil dependent.

Of course we all know the means of production or the transportation of oil in that region is not secure. It will take mega bucks for years to keep the 5th Fleet parked there and a large military presence to guard our oil reserve. Did I say our oil reserve, you know I mean Iraq's.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

by Pompey Road at 10:30 AM on 21 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

What if we had invested that money???

If you can't afford a college education, you can't afford to NOT have a college education. We go into debt to get an education, but that is an ivestment in our future, our well-being, our political stability, our economy, our enrichment, the list is endless.

What investments are we making by spending $3 trillion on a war? What dividends are we reaping? An educated student will have a voice, and a way to speak it, to speak it, a desire for democracy, ability to start businesses, a potentially smaller family. Educated people spread peace. People with limited education, and limited resources get into planes and smash into buildings. Educated people take ownership of their land.

Dead people do nothing for us. The numbers of wounded and killed civilians will never thank us and work to spread peace. They will not find us more oil in the earth. They will not make us energy-independent. They are dead.

by Nowist at 10:56 AM on 21 Mar 2008

Magnitude Comparison vs Reality

"4. Just the $600 billion that Congress has allocated for military operations in Iraq to date could have built over 9000 wind farms (at 50 MW capacity each)"

While very informative in showing the magnitude of the horrible financial consequences of the war and qualitatively showing the lost opportunity cost, this is the type of statement that I believe also can create some unrealistic ideas in the public mind.

There is simply no way that the wind industry could have ramped up quickly enough to have produced this many turbines by now. Already turbine prices are rising because of multiple constraints starting with the raw materials used in turbines and continuing clear through the production and installation industries.

So it would be much more accurate to say "could build" rather than "could have built". Too many well meaning environmentalists have the mistaken impression that an arbitrarily large amount of money can be thrown at something like PV or windmills and the capacity will magically appear almost overnight. Especially if there is a lack of long term planning and commitment, rapid increases in outlays of subsidies for a technology can simply lead to inflated prices and bigger profits for the industry... without necessarily implying the stable profits that would entice new competitors into the market.

by PJD at 10:26 AM on 22 Mar 2008

the real question here

is whether it's fair to say "we" as a nation made this awful choice? Did we elect Bush in 2000 or 2004? No, but we did vote for him in numbers close enough to allow a moderate amount of fraud to push him over the line. Did we support the war in opinion polls? Until the war started, more Americans opposed than supported it, though only by a slight margin and once the war started support grew by 10% overnight. At this point opinion polls in the US and Iraq are quite heavily in favor of US withdrawal--yet that is taken as irrelevant. As Dick Cheney sneered the other night, "So?" It doesn't matter what the American people want--it's not as though the democracy we're trying to install in Iraq has spread here yet.
It's very late in the day. The problems of peak oil, overpopulation and global warming are at the red-light-flashing and siren-screaming stage now. But what we as a nation will do about them, apparently, is continue to do all we can to make them worse as rapidly as possible, because we have allowed this criminal gang to take over our government.
Soon we will have an election. Will the outcome affect any of this? Hard to say. We all want to believe Obama would be different,but he has made no strong promises. Every candidate with a really good energy plan--that is, every candidate who challenged the fossil fools--has already been eliminated by a mass media that is a part of the cabal.
What to do?

by mwildfire at 11:38 AM on 28 Mar 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.