EcoPerspectives Blog
Does Pollution End at U.S. Borders? – Why U.S. Military Pollution is a Reason for Agencies to Implement the Global Social Cost of Carbon
By Mariah Bowman, J.D. Candidate, 2024, Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law
July 31, 2023
The social cost of carbon (SCC) has been the basis for policies such as tax credits for carbon capture technology and zero-emissions credits. This model can represent a domestic or global scenario of climate damage, but many in the United States favor domestic views only. The question is whether the U.S. should account for global damages from climate change in its SCC modeling based on how their emissions exacerbate that global harm. The short answer is yes, the U.S. should account for the global economy in its SCC policies. Based on the country’s international presence through the military, the U.S. should calculate an SCC that incorporates characteristics of the global economy.
The social cost of carbon is an economic tool used to determine how much the cost is, in dollars, of emitting another ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, it also traps heat surrounding the planet. The damage this heat creates is SCC. In other words, it is the quantitative benefit of reducing one ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Economists and policymakers use SCC to analyze the costs and benefits to environmental policies since carbon emissions are not reflected in market prices. Estimates of economic damages from climate change are approximately $1.7 trillion each year by 2025 and $30 trillion each year by 2075 if the status quo remains unchanged. If the temperature eventually reaches five degrees Celsius, damages will reach an estimated $140 trillion annually and $730 trillion at seven degrees Celsius.
The U.S. military has carried its carbon footprint across the globe for over a century, and because the U.S. is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, the military does not have to report its emissions. The military may not have to report emissions to global institutions, but its stations across the globe leave an impact. The war in Iraq not only destroyed ecosystems, but also elevated rates of cancer for those living in the area. Additionally, the war in Afghanistan caused mass deforestation, and U.S. armed forces released toxic pollutants into the air, causing sickness in Afghans and U.S. veterans. In total, the “War on Terror” released 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which equates to the emissions of 257 million cars each year. If the U.S. military were a nation, it would be the 47th largest emitter in the world.
The military has an interest in reducing emissions and mitigating climate change because it predicts climate change will exacerbate current security threats or create new dangers. The Department of the Army released its Climate Strategy in February 2022, and the Department of the Navy released its Climate Action 2030. The problem is that these strategies are not required by statute, and their implementation is up to Congress’ discretion. However, the U.S. Department of Defense releases a different report as required by Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act that details the vulnerabilities the military faces as climate change-related events become more prevalent. The DoD’s report explains, “DoD is continuing to work with partner nations to understand and plan for future potential mission impacts. This is a global issue and a number of Ministries of Defense across the world are beginning to plan now for future impacts. . . .” The Department of Defense also released its Climate Risk Analysis in October 2021, detailing international effects of climate change, but it fails to explain how the actions of the military exacerbate those effects. Yet, it does include a map of its global aid missions. A government agency acknowledging that the climate crisis is a global issue and planning to work with other nations to address that issue means the U.S. government should be able to employ a global measurement of SCC to account for the effects of climate change in partner countries.
The argument of arbitrariness may be the strongest obstacle to the implementation of the global social cost of carbon. Courts will overturn an agency’s action if it deems it arbitrary and capricious or seen as unreasonable use of discretion. Courts may even see the act of following executive directions without question or review as arbitrary. For agency action to be reasonable, there must be factual and policy determinations, meaning there needs to be a plausible reason for taking that action and supported with facts. If an agency were to implement a global SCC without an explanation, a court would likely find this arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act. Even with an agency’s detailed justification for a global SCC, there are still constraints from the courts because “scientific and economic judgments are overridden by purely political considerations.” The global calculation of the SCC may be ruled as arbitrary because measurements of state-specific impacts on climate change are heavily scrutinized due to political tension.
If the executive branch were to argue that a global SCC calculation would solve international tensions and climate change negotiations, this would likely reduce questioning of arbitrariness. Also, accounting for the duty of preventing transboundary harm could be another counter to arbitrariness. Defending an argument against a hard look review of arbitrariness would need to involve deliberation over its merits, scientific evidence, and institutional capacities. While the method of calculating a global SCC is not unanimously agreed on, it is important for agencies to exhaust all techniques for calculating a range of global SCC, so that it creates a strong record to present in court. Administrative obstacles will remain in the way of implementing a global SCC, but the U.S. should maintain its focus on campaigning for a global SCC because of the impact the U.S. military has beyond its own borders.