By Doug Weir, Benjamin Neimark and Oliver Belcher
Climate change leadership requires more than stirring speeches. It means facing up to hard truths. One truth that governments around the world are struggling with is the immense contribution their militaries are making to the climate crisis.
For example, the US Department of Defense is the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world – and the largest institutional emitter. Two of us worked on a 2019 study which showed that if the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal. In other words, the US military is a more consequential climate actor than many of the industrialized countries gathered at the COP26 summit in Glasgow.
Despite the outsized role of militaries, we know surprisingly little about their emissions. This is remarkable given their reach and fossil fuel dependency. Some scientists estimate that, together, militaries and their supporting industries might account for up to 5% of global emissions: more than civilian aviation and shipping combined.
One reason we know so little is due to militaries being one of the last highly polluting industries whose emissions do not need to be reported to the United Nations. The US can take the credit for that. In 1997, its negotiating team won a blanket military exemption under the Kyoto climate accord. Speaking in the Senate the following year, the now special presidential envoy for climate, John Kerry, hailed it as “a terrific job”.
At present, 46 countries and the European Union are obliged to submit yearly reports on their national emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 2015 Paris Agreement removed Kyoto’s military exemption but left military emissions reporting voluntary.
Our research into this military emissions gap has for the first time shed light on the dire state of global military emissions reporting. Under-reporting is the norm, as is data that is inaccessible, or aggregated with non-military sources. For example, Canada reports its emissions under multiple IPCC categories, reporting military flights under general transport, and energy for bases under commercial/institutional emissions.
Military emissions reporting by the many countries that do not have to report annually to the UNFCCC is even worse. This includes countries with massive military budgets, such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
That “terrific job” in 1997 has unfortunately cast a long shadow. In 2020, global military expenditure reached nearly US$2 trillion (£1.5 trillion), and the international community remains largely oblivious to the carbon cost of these dollars, irrespective of where they are spent.
This vast military imprint on the Earth’s atmosphere is not on the formal agenda of COP26. However, hopes are that it will be for COP27 next year, as countries begin to wake up to their huge military carbon bootprint.
In June, the military alliance NATO announced that it would set concrete targets for it “to contribute to the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050”. Meanwhile, countries like Switzerland and the UK, which have passed domestic legislation setting net zero targets, are finally having to face up to the uncomfortable truth that their defense ministries are the largest institutional emitters within government.
While military emissions are gaining attention, the culture of military environmental exceptionalism that birthed it will continue to drive the long war that militaries have been quietly waging on the climate. For all their spending power and political influence, militaries are behind the curve on sustainability. This was clear from NATO’s additional 2021 pledge to develop a carbon counting methodology for its members to use – an area where militaries are lagging behind other major sectors.
Which emissions should militaries count? Should such accounting exercises focus exclusively on fuel use and energy consumption? Or should the operation of the massive, global supply chains – like those run by the US government’s Defense Logistics Agency – also be included? Emissions from supply chains can be 5.5 times higher than an organisation’s own operational emissions.
And what about overseas operations, whether overt or covert, or the wider climatic costs of war and peace, such as landscape degradation, deforestation or rebuilding?
Western governments, including institutions like NATO, are busy positioning themselves as leaders on the security implications of the climate crisis. Their credibility on climate security, and on climate action more broadly, will be contingent on their willingness to first face up to some difficult truths about their own contribution to climate change. It will also require far more openness and transparency. Both will be vital for delivering real change, rather than more weapons-grade greenwash.
There should be no illusions as to the scale of the challenge governments face. War is a dirty business. Militaries are institutionally complex, and procurement cycles last decades, which can “lock in” emissions. Things will not change overnight, but what they do not count, we can’t see. And what we cannot see, they will not cut.
Doug Weir is the Research and Policy Director at the Conflict and Environment Observatory, and Visiting Research Fellow, Department of Geography, King’s College, London. Benjamin Neimark is Senior Lecturer at the Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University. Oliver Belcher is Assistant Professor of Geography at Durham University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
FlaglerLive relies on a strong core of donors. But they’re just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who daily depend on FlaglerLive for reliable, fearless reporting and analysis you cannot get anywhere else. If you’re still on the sidelines, we need you to join the Friends of FlaglerLive today. Elections, storms, the latest catastrophe - when dependable and factual local reporting will be more essential than ever, take a stand for integrity and have a direct voice in fostering serious journalism in your community. As little as $10 makes a difference, or better still, become a monthly donor: Become a "Friend of" FlaglerLive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible. Think of it as buying a "scoop", in every sense of the term!
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Mark says
China and China’s military are what, in second?
William Moya says
What’s your point Mark? China’s military’s budget is 1/3 of ours, we’re currently training our shock troops in Cyprus, Lebanon, and Syria, those are the ones that I know . We will, or are, moving large military assets to Asia, think the Nimitz which travels with a flotilla of 90 ships.
Dennis says
Maybe to satisfy the “tree huggers” we can try rubber band powered aircraft? Like when we were kids, just wind them up and let them go. We can also convert all our oil powered massive ships to sail boats too.
William Moya says
And maybe we can also scrutinize, as we do to all other expenses, billions that we spend in “defense”, while we rank last in social spending compare to every other Western developed country, all the while the Capitalists make billions, and spend millions controlling our political system.
Deborah says
William, you’re right, socialism will fix everything. Capitalism bad. Authoritarian socialism good.
WILLIAM J NELSON says
I’m sure Pelosi and her “gang of 20+” considered this as they jetted to Scotland to party on we, the taxpayers.
Timothy Patrick Welch says
Yep I might agree…
Better yet I would suggest the Federal government and there suppliers are the largest polluters in America.
I guess we could reduce are military and Federal Government. But since most of their suppliers are based in America, and no leader would willingly reduce their power and influence, Im guessing no real action will happen. But can you imagine the talented individuals that would be released from the Federal government into the free market and the gains they might make.
Denali says
In 1992 I was a private consultant to the engineering and construction industries in Anchorage, Alaska. One of my clients had an environmental division which secured a unit price contract with the DOD for remediation work at Elmendorf AFB. They had contracted to locate and remove a minimum of 1,000, 55 gallon drums of asphalt which had been ‘stored’ in the early 60’s after a major resurfacing of the runways and taxiways at the base. The ‘storage’ area was originally a cleared of about 450 acres. In the intervening years the cleared area had become very heavily wooded (well – heavily wooded for south central Alaska) making locating and removing the drums difficult at best. Most of the drums had settled into the soft, boggy soils which make up a great deal of the northern Anchorage bowl. The majority of the drums were located between 5 and 15 feet below grade. To make matters worse, the drums had either rusted or fractured to the point where they could not be lifted and transported.
The only way to move the drums was to use a 966 Cat end loader after they had been dug out with 335 Cat excavator. Metal detectors were used to locate the buried drums but occasionally they would find a ‘pool’ of asphalt on the surface. During the contract term it was learned that the Air Force had used the storage area for excess asphalt from Eielson AFB runway projects so the project was extended accordingly. When the Air Force and the EPA called an end to the contract more than 120,000 gallons of asphalt had been recovered at a cost of over $10 million. A far cry from the initial government estimate of 55,000 gallons. This same company performed similar contracts at several remote bases in Alaska as well as Fallon NAS in Nevada and Larson AFB in Washington.
My point of this is to show that the DOD is not just polluting by the performance of its job, (flying planes, sailing ships and driving vehicles) they have in the past and continue to pollute by their dumping, burning and burying of toxic and hazardous materials.
Tanks for Nuttin says
Gee, I wonder how much pollution is caused by ALL the democrats methane gas released in the Capitol during the entire year ? I’m not saying the majority of them are FAT, but their Blood Type is GRAVY !!!!
The dude says
Curious reply coming from someone who considers a soft (and tiny) handed, orange spray tanned, medically obese tub of goo as their messiah, “Alpha”, and leader …
mark101 says
I think I worry more about inflation, the overall cost of living, medical insurance, health care for our homeless and vets than I worry about what country is consuming the most fossil fuels. Happy Veterans Day to all that have served.
Joe says
What a giant waste of money. We spend ten times more than any other country and we can’t defeat some bearded guys in the desert driving around in Toyota pickups.