88:1, it's the ratio we value
Tim Strube
Issue date: 2/5/08 Section: Opinion
It's Super-cali-fragil-istic-expiali-Tuesday.
But amid all the high jinks and saturation of election coverage, a few things always manage to slip through the media's cracks and get lost in the jungle.
Exhibit A: This year, as the Institute for Policy Studies reports, the country's military expenses will outpace climate-related programs by 88 to 1. As such, our military expenses now consume just under a quarter of our entire federal budget.
While scientific evidence continues to surface supporting the hypothesis that Earth's climate patterns are shifting due to its some 6 billion inhabitants and years of industrial growth, our nation chooses to wage wars, set up military bases and commit thousands of soldiers to extremely dangerous and somewhat questionable conflicts for the sake of the ambiguously defined concept of national security
The IPS report inevitably makes us question what our country holds dear.
As the report notes, "Only $212 million is devoted to helping poor countries obtain clean, renewable energy sources that do not contribute to global warming - less than what U.S. military forces in Iraq spend each day."
Though many critics are quick to criticize the war itself, few are able to delve into the issue beyond muttering, "exit strategy."
It's not just a matter of leaving Iraq, but more a matter of how much it will cost us for years to come.
Understandably, this is how things have been since the end of the second World War and few can realistically expect our highly militarized government to start pandering to the hippies and treehuggers, while annually allotting $600 billion for environmental programs.
Beyond the significant diversion of funds for increasing military presence in an oil-rich region, our refusal to participate in multinational efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol which serve to lower carbon emissions doesn't help our environmental woes either. Our nation seemingly refuses to seriously consider the implications of climate change and what we can do about it. Instead, we're concerned, like all of the presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul), with increasing the military's size and continuing to spend more money on it than the top 168 international military-spenders combined.
But amid all the high jinks and saturation of election coverage, a few things always manage to slip through the media's cracks and get lost in the jungle.
Exhibit A: This year, as the Institute for Policy Studies reports, the country's military expenses will outpace climate-related programs by 88 to 1. As such, our military expenses now consume just under a quarter of our entire federal budget.
While scientific evidence continues to surface supporting the hypothesis that Earth's climate patterns are shifting due to its some 6 billion inhabitants and years of industrial growth, our nation chooses to wage wars, set up military bases and commit thousands of soldiers to extremely dangerous and somewhat questionable conflicts for the sake of the ambiguously defined concept of national security
The IPS report inevitably makes us question what our country holds dear.
As the report notes, "Only $212 million is devoted to helping poor countries obtain clean, renewable energy sources that do not contribute to global warming - less than what U.S. military forces in Iraq spend each day."
Though many critics are quick to criticize the war itself, few are able to delve into the issue beyond muttering, "exit strategy."
It's not just a matter of leaving Iraq, but more a matter of how much it will cost us for years to come.
Understandably, this is how things have been since the end of the second World War and few can realistically expect our highly militarized government to start pandering to the hippies and treehuggers, while annually allotting $600 billion for environmental programs.
Beyond the significant diversion of funds for increasing military presence in an oil-rich region, our refusal to participate in multinational efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol which serve to lower carbon emissions doesn't help our environmental woes either. Our nation seemingly refuses to seriously consider the implications of climate change and what we can do about it. Instead, we're concerned, like all of the presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul), with increasing the military's size and continuing to spend more money on it than the top 168 international military-spenders combined.
Be the first to comment on this story