248

The study, led by Ryan Thombs of Penn State University and published in PLOS Climate on July 2, drew on publicly available data from the DOD spanning 1975 to 2022, linking reductions in military spending to significant decreases in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Researchers found that a decrease in expenditures has a larger effect on slashing energy consumption than a rise in expenditures does on heightening energy usage. Additional analyses show that this is due to cuts in DOD energy consumption from facilities, vehicles and equipment, and jet fuel in particular.

"We started this study not entirely sure what we were going to find," Thombs told Newsweek on Thursday. "There are published studies on the impacts of increasing militarization on environmental outcomes, but studying the effects of cutting military spending was an open question.

"I think the finding that cutting expenditures had a larger impact than increasing expenditures was a little bit surprising but made sense, and it is also the thing that really stood out in our analyses."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 2 days ago

The headline is not what the article says. The article isn't measuring nations, it is measuring individual organizations. The US military is one of the largest, most logistically active organizations on the globe, so the conclusion makes sense. But per capita or per activity? That's going to be some energy intense manufacturer. Probably Chinese.

[-] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

The US has by far the most military activity per capita, so it would probably still be the US.

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

That's a billion people. Too many to be statistically highest per capital. It's probably somewhere in Eastern or Central Europe which is taken advantage of by the West and has a lot of oil/minerals. Maybe Romania or Slovakia.

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Per capita specifically controls for population size so it’s not possible to have too many people per capita.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Large populations tend to have a lot of shared utility and a lower per capita emissions standard as a result. Countries with lots of mass transit and dense housing enjoy significant efficiences of scale. One reason why India looks so good on paper, despite having some abhorrent ecological policies in practice.

Smaller countries - especially small tourist countries - tend to have emissions far higher than their native population size would suggest. Places like Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait regionally top the emissions per capita chart as a result. Canada and Russia also score badly in no small part because of how spread out the population ends up in countries with enormous amounts of wilderness.

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I get what you’re saying, but the person I’m replying to specifically said that China had too many people for it to have the highest per capita amount. And that’s simply not possible, the amount of people you have has no bearing on the per capita amount of anything, as you just described, and that’s what I said.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

China had too many people for it to have the highest per capita amount

It has too many people to avoid the economics of scale that blunt per-capita emissions rates.

the amount of people you have has no bearing on the per capita amount of anything

As the number of people using a public service increase, the per-capita waste declines. A bus takes roughly the same amount of gasoline to move 5 people as 50. Cooling an apartment block during a heat wave is more efficient than cooling an equivalent number of stand-alone houses. And as the apartment approaches 100% occupancy, the net benefit is spread over more people. Industrial scale refrigerators consume less energy overall than individual freezers.

The more people using a piece of capital, the less energy is wasted through its continuous operation.

[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

I already said I understood you I’m not really sure why your mansplaining this at this point, and more importantly that’s not what the person I replied to said.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

probably somewhere in Eastern or Central Europe

The worst per capita emissions tend to be in the Middle East. Qatar is regularly at the top of the charts

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
248 points (97.3% liked)

World News

57903 readers
1428 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS