is the war on terrorism good for the environment?

After recalling parts of the Second Gulf War on 'reality TV' which included footage of environmentalist against war, I reached a startling counter-intuitive hypothesis, 'The war on terrorism is good for the environment. Conversely peace and prosperity is bad for the environment'.

Basically I reason during times of war when large numbers of people put more of their earning into savings, less stuff is consumed. When less consumer goods and services are produced, less natural resources are used (such as oil used to produce plastics, oil for transportation, etc.), and there is less environmental damage (hence the environment is saved).

During times of peace and prosperity, when large numbers of people have extra time and money, more stuff is consumed. When demand for more consumer goods and services increases, more natural resources are used (such as oil used to produce plastics, oil for transportation, etc.), and the result is more environmental damage.

Anyway I posted a page full of arguments why war is good, peace is bad (for the environment).
http://www.phaster.com/war_is_good/

I was hoping to get other opinions and empirical data so I could finally prove or disproving my counter-intuitive environmental

You are forgetting the increased usage of resources by the military, and the pollutants relesed by explosions, fires, leaks, etc. It is likely that the wastewater treatment plants for most major Iraqi cities will not be working properly for some time. In addition, it will take a lot of resources to repair the damage done by bombings, looting, etc.

Anti-environmental myths http://info-pollution.com/myths.htm Practical skepticism

The question I am asking is related to the GLOBAL environment not just the LOCAL environment in iraq.

For round numbers lets assume the USA has 5% of the worlds population and consumes 25% of the worlds resources, iraq has 1% and consumes 1% of the worlds resurces.

What I am asking is the what effect does the war in iraq have on decreasing american consumption by virtue of economic problems caused by a war in iraq, korea, etc. (this is a very complex problem because everything in interlated, politics, economics, how does one put a value on the environment, military security, etc.)

If the war causes US consumption to go down to something like 15% of the worlds resources then there is less GLOBAL environmental damage. As a country consumption in the USA is by far the largest in the world.

The question I pose has some interesting consequences, for example if total global consumption does go down because of economic uncertainty due to war, environmental groups may have to consider regional conflict a good thing.......

The question you ask is whether global economic recession/depression will help purify the environment. Obviously yes. The reverse/obverse of that question is whether global economic health will help purify environmentalism. Again the answer is yes. Environmentalism and economics are diametrically opposed. That's why environmentalists are called Luddites.

So if my observation:

'The war on terrorism (which thus far has been limited in scope) is good for the environment, because it decreases over all global consumption. Conversely peace and prosperity is bad for the environment, because it increases over all global consumption.'

is correct, then logically shouldn't environmental groups support the 'hawks' and want to have some kind of war on terrorism (not oil, yeah right).

And logically shouldn't conservative republicans who are suppose to be in love with all out capitalism and consumption be against the war because it decreases trade, consumption.....

Weird role reversal to think about eh?

The environmental groups are hawks. Military hawks find enemies without, environmental hawks find enemies within.

Adoph Hitler was a military hawk and an environmental hawk.