As countries push to minimize their carbon footprints, efforts to reduce emissions within their defense sectors will play a central role in achieving sustainability targets. According to recent data published by Scientists for Global Responsibility, the total combined military emissions worldwide account for 5.5% of all global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, not including emissions from active warzones. For sake of comparison, if world militaries were counted as one country, they would represent the fourth largest carbon footprint worldwide. In the United Kingdom alone, the military, including its supply chain accounts for 50% of all government emissions. In the United States, the figure jumps to 80%. Simply put, net-zero ambitions are futile unless a holistic, all-of-government approach is taken to drastically cut GHG emissions.
However, military emission reporting has been inconsistent and unreliable from the start. Military GHG emissions are often undeclared or lumped together with civilian emission reporting. This is not an action undertaken inconspicuously, rather quite the opposite. In 1997 during the Kyoto Climate Negotiations, the Pentagon demanded exemptions for specific military operations from emission requirements. While countries are obliged under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to detail inventory of their GHG emissions – including military reporting, the signatories of the 2015 Paris Accords agreed that miliary emission reporting was to be voluntary – ultimately creating gaps and inaccurate data overall.
The challenge to reduce emissions has long remained a peripheral issue for most defense ministers as mission-critical capabilities such as safety, reliability, and performance have long remained the priority. Military emissions run inherently high compared to other sectors due to several factors. Heavy industry defense-related systems such missiles and weapons remain challenging to de-carbonize as their direct emissions are a result of necessary chemical reactions required to make them highly-functional, both in terms of speed and precision.
Considering all varieties of military transport are intrinsically reliant on fossil fuels only further complicates a clean energy transition. From army combat vehicles to fighter jets, ships and submarines -all such essential defense equipment requires some form of fuel that is derived from petroleum. For instance, on any given day a sizable U.S. Army division can consume up to nearly 6,000 gallons of gasoline – not to mention the fuel needed to ship such large quantities to military installations and active theatres of war worldwide.
Furthermore, investments in militarized heavy-duty systems typically have longer life-cycles, meaning fossil fuel reliant machinery in use today, such as tanks and jet-fuelled aircraft will remain operational for decades to come. In addition to the environmental damage brought on by an over-reliance on fossil fuels for the world’s top militaries, this dependency also serves to undermine national security. The risk of inflated oil prices or a snap decision from oil CEO’s to cut production can take hostage of military operations and foreign policy decision making.
Currently the US Department of Defense (DoD) is studying how to leverage its buying power as the government’s largest energy consumer to optimize a transition to 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2030. The DoD has become increasingly reliant on lithium batteries to power both electric vehicles and unmanned systems. Which such technology drastically cuts the CO2 emitted from traditional internal combustion engines, three-quarters of the world’s lithium batteries are manufactured in China where coal-fired power plants serve as the primary source of energy, undermining lithium’s environmental purpose.
As a result of the complex challenges global defense ministries face in realistically cutting emissions without affecting defense-related capabilities that are critical for mission success, the UK, among others are adopting pragmatic, long-term goals to lessen their environmental impacts. Efforts include establishing supply chain decarbonization requirements for their suppliers, testing bio-fuels for efficiency in ships and aircraft, further optimizing areo- and hydro-dynamic designs to increase equipment performance, and studying the installation of carbon-capture systems which seize CO2 emissions from a polluting source and store the concentrate underground in reservoirs or geological formations.
In addition to minimizing military-related emission, defense ministries are prioritizing their readiness to respond to the physical impact climate change has on the natural environment which can compromise military effectiveness, posing serious risks to national security. For its part, the DoD has spent millions of dollars funding wargames to simulate climate-related weaknesses within the military’s supply chains and analyse climate vulnerabilities for military bases at home and abroad.
For instance, U.S. coastal military installations which serve as critical logistical or training hubs will be subject to the impact of rising sea levels and remain vulnerable to flooding and extreme weather patterns which are expected to increase in pace and intensity. Rising temperatures amplifies the chances of heat-related health risks for soldiers, challenging troop readiness. Climate change has also impacted the severity and frequency of sandstorms which complicate visibility during reconnaissance missions.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently labelled climate change as a ‘crisis multiplier’ due to its ability to disrupt defense preparedness, jeopardize lives and livelihoods, and fuel geopolitical tensions over land and natural resources – including the availability of food and water resources, only to spur conflict and unrest. Active warzones serve as concentrated pollutant’s, resulting in contaminated air, water, and soil, causing widespread devastation to surrounding biodiversity and wildlife.
In 2022 alone, global defense expenditures increased 3.7 percent – an all time high, reaching over $2.24 trillion. It is an inescapable fact that an increase in military spending will result in defense-related emissions to rise in unison. During the upcoming 28th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) which is scheduled to be held in Dubai this November, world governments will participate in the first “Global Stocktake” to asses if collective progress has been made in meeting the goals outlined of the Paris Agreement from 2015. If governments are genuinely aiming to limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius as agreed upon in the Paris Accords, there is no better opportunity that COP28 to re-address laps in military emission reporting.
While the obvious approach to reducing military emissions does not solely involve innovations in climate-tech or a transition to biofuels, but rather the immediate method towards decarbonizing defense is the simplest, albeit naïve option – banking on international cooperation and diplomacy to foster lasting stability. The question remains, do world leaders have the political will to invest in a sustainable, peaceful future – and more importantly, to divest in the methods that brought our environment to this dire, unattainable reality.
