Forum on the Arms Trade
  • Home
  • Experts
  • Emerging Experts
  • Expertos y Expertas Emergentes
  • Trump's First 100 Days
  • Events
  • U.S. Arms Transfers to Israel - Trump
  • Biden Arms Transfers To Israel
  • Jobs Corner
  • Media directories
    • Middle East
    • General US arms sales
    • Ukraine
  • Major Arms Sales Notifications Tracker
  • U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy
  • U.S.-Saudi Arms Sales
  • U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan
  • U.S. Arms Sales to India
  • U.S. Landmine Policy
  • Resource Page - Under Threshold Arms Sales
  • Resource Page - USML Cat I-III to Commerce
  • HD State Tracker
  • Get on the list
  • About
  • Archives
    • All archives
    • Newsletter
    • Blog

Tackling militarism’s contribution to the climate emergency

1/5/2022

1 Comment

 
This is the first blog post in a series looking at an array of issues in 2022 related to weapons use, the arms trade and security assistance, often offering recommendations.
Picture
Doug Weir
The past year saw the dial finally shift on reducing the carbon bootprint of the military. Since the topic was excluded from international climate processes by the United States back in the late 1990s, it has received scant attention. Efforts to track and estimate the emissions that $2 trillion of annual global military spending creates had largely been the preserve of a few academic researchers and peace organisations. That changed in 2021.

Many highly industrialised countries have been moving towards declaring goals to reach Net Zero emissions by 2050 for a while. For some of them, the fact that militaries are the largest emitters within government – often responsible for more than 50% of emissions - has made them increasingly difficult to ignore, particularly where whole of government targets have been enshrined in law. It should be noted that Net Zero is not a panacea and will likely come too late but the concept has been widely accepted by governments as a safely distant and impressive sounding target.

But this is also a story of individuals. We saw multiple voices within national militaries, and NATO, advocating for change. These are people who could see that the wind is changing, and who could also see that the future of military energy consumption was not going to be one wholly based on fossil fuels. Moreover, Western governments have been orienting towards the security risks of climate change, with actors like NATO keen to play a leading role. However, legitimacy in this space requires that those who seek to lead it aren’t contributing to the problem.

More broadly, militaries reflect the societies that provide them licence to operate. There is a rising tide of concern over climate change and therefore pressure on militaries to be seen to be acting on it, and not just in response to it. And if the policy changes that we saw in 2021 have appeared to be rapid, this should be seen as a reflection of just how far behind the curve militaries have been in this space. They and their political masters had opted to exclude themselves from international efforts to reduce emissions.

The past 12 months have seen a flurry of announcements. In May, NATO members gave the first vague commitments that they would cut military emissions. The UK and Switzerland had already acknowledged that military emissions cuts would be part of their 2050 Net Zero goals. NATO also announced that it would work on an emissions tracking methodology for its members – a good example of how far behind other sectors the military are on cuts. Almost unnoticed during the Glasgow climate summit in November, the U.S. Department of Defense quietly announced that it too would aim to be Net Zero by 2050. NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg had attended its first COP to confirm that global emissions targets would not be met without military emissions being included.

The acknowledgement by states that their militaries are major emitters, and that they cannot be exempt from society-wide decarbonisation feels like a watershed moment. But it is just the first step in what will be a very long and difficult road. Militaries, and the technology companies that support them, are highly polluting industries. Just like cement, steel or aviation, tackling emissions will be a huge challenge. It also carries with it risks. These include military-grade greenwashing when targets can’t be met, increasing military spending to rearm with less polluting vehicles, the temptation to offset difficult emissions instead of reducing them at source, or transitions to costly new synthetic fuels, diverting resources away from other more important reduction pathways.

Looking ahead

In 2022, the trends initiated in 2021 will intensify and accelerate. We will see more industrialised countries accept the need for military decarbonisation. Luxembourg’s Green Party defence minister set out his its plans in December, South Korea did likewise, following a pledge made at COP26 in Glasgow. But beyond the headline pledges, the hard work needs to begin to establish expectations and standards on militaries. The historic environmental exceptionalism that kept them out of climate talks, and global environmental norm-setting bodies more generally, will continue. Scrutiny will be needed over how they record and what they report. Transparent data is at the core of any action to reduce emissions, which is why we launched the data portal militaryemissions.org with colleagues from Lancaster and Durham universities at COP26. What we can’t see, they won’t cut, so making emissions reporting open and standardised is a critical first step.

The UK will pass on its COP presidency to Egypt in November 2022. We do not expect them to be overly sympathetic to calls for military emissions to be placed on the formal agenda of COP27. But it is vital that they are. While the U.S.’s massive military expenditure and relative transparency has meant that much of the discourse has focused on the Department of Defense’s gargantuan annual emissions – equivalent to those of Portugal, or Sweden – this is a global problem, and it needs global standards. As we show on militaryemissions.org there are many large military spenders who report very little emissions data, this includes China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel. We hope and expect that 2022 will see increasing attention on their emissions.

Beyond military emissions themselves, we expect to see a steady uptick in attention on the linkages between conventional arms and climate change. We have already documented how the arms industry reports its environmental footprint – more transparently than most militaries, as it turns out – and colleagues at UNIDIR have posed several research questions in this space. But we need to get ahead of this issue. The pledges made in Glasgow are far short of what is needed to slow global heating. The climate crisis will have a massive impact on human security globally and it’s critical that we understand how arms transfers and militarism will be influenced by it, and how they will drive and exacerbate insecurity. We would encourage everyone working in this space to spend a little of 2022 exploring how the issues they work on will be impacted by a hotter, more insecure world, and how they may make that world a more dangerous place.
 
Doug Weir is the Research and Policy Director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), www.ceobs.org @detoxconflict  Find our more about military emissions on CEOBS’ dedicated page www.ceobs.org/projects/military-emissions and explore the military emissions that your government reports to the UN at militaryemissions.org
1 Comment

    About

    The "Looking Ahead Blog" features comments concerning short- to medium-term trends related to the arms trade, security assistance, and weapons use. Typically about 500-1000 words, each comment is written by an expert listed on the Forum on the Arms Trade related to topics of each expert's choosing.

    We have a number of special series including: 


    Looking Ahead 2025
    Looking Ahead 2024
    Looking Ahead 2023
    Looking Ahead 2022
    ​Looking Ahead 2021
    Looking Ahead 2020

    Looking Ahead 2019
    Looking Ahead 2018
    First 100 Days (April/May '17)

    Looking Ahead 2017

    Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. Institutional affiliation is indicated for identification purposes only.

    Archives

    May 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    March 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    October 2023
    August 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    April 2021
    January 2021
    July 2020
    May 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    July 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    May 2018
    December 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015

    Pdf's

    March 11 (2015)

    Categories

    All
    Adam Isacson
    Africa
    Alejandro Sanchez
    Allison Pytlak
    Amy Nelson
    Anna Stavrianakis
    Arms Sales
    Arms Trade Treaty
    Arms Trafficking
    Aude Fleurant
    Bonnie Docherty
    Brian Castner
    Child Soldiers
    Colby Goodman
    Corruption
    Cyber
    Dan Gettinger
    Danielle Preskitt
    Divestment
    Doug Weir
    Drones
    Emerging Experts
    End-use Monitoring
    Environment
    Erin Hunt
    Europe
    Exploration Of Arms Reduction And Jobs
    Explosive Weapons
    First 100 Days
    Frank Slijper
    Gender
    Global Trade Trends
    Harm To Civilians
    Hector Guerra
    High School Debate '19 20
    High School Debate '19-20
    Humanitarian Disarmament
    Human Rights Due Diligence
    Iain Overton
    Investors
    Jeff Abramson
    Jen Spindel
    Jobs
    John Lindsay Poland
    John Lindsay-Poland
    Jordan Cohen
    Kate Kizer
    Killer Robots
    Landmines/cluster Munitions
    Latin America
    Laura Boillot
    Lode Dewaegheneire
    Looking Ahead 2017
    Looking Ahead 2018
    Looking Ahead 2019
    Looking Ahead 2020
    Looking Ahead 2021
    Looking Ahead 2022
    Looking Ahead 2023
    Looking Ahead 2024
    Looking Ahead 2025
    Maria Pia Devoto
    Martin Butcher
    Matthew Bolton
    Middle East
    Military Expenditures
    Natalie Goldring
    Nicholas Marsh
    Non State Actors
    Paul Holtom
    Rachel Stohl
    Ray Acheson
    Robert Muggah
    Robert Watson
    Roy Isbister
    SALW
    Samuel Perlo Freeman
    Samuel Perlo-Freeman
    Security Assistance
    Seth Binder
    Shannon Dick
    Suicide Bombing
    Summit For Democracy
    Sustainable Development
    Tobias Bock
    Transparency
    Ukraine War
    UN Register
    Victim Assistance
    Wanda Muñoz
    War In Ukraine
    William Hartung
    Wim Zwijnenburg
    Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly