果冻影院

Amid the hubbub of goals, pledges, commitments, demands, hopes, fears and the 鈥榬ace to zero鈥� in the run-up to COP26, one source of greenhouse gas emissions receives barely a mention: that from military-related activity. We already know that war is a humanitarian catastrophe causing unfathomable suffering, but we must recognise that it is an environmental catastrophe too.

The relationship between climate change and war is a vicious circle.听It is now well recognised by major charities, policy makers and senior military personnel that climate change can lead to soil degradation, competition for scarce resources, mass migration and instability, thus greatly multiplying the threat of war.听The UK Government鈥檚 Integrated Review, published March 2021, recognises that climate change and global health risks are major security issues requiring urgent action. [1]

Still barely acknowledged, though, is the other half of that vicious circle: that war itself contributes significantly to climate change. Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that around 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions result from military-related activity.摆2闭听This figure covers the whole cycle: extraction of raw materials and manufacture of equipment and weaponry; trials and training with massive fuel use; maintenance of vast numbers of bases and buildings worldwide; use of fuels and explosives in warfare and resulting fires; and, often overlooked, the extensive rebuilding of devastated infrastructure with its reliance on carbon-heavy cement and steel. [3]

Accurate figures are difficult to obtain 鈥� often shrouded in secrecy on grounds of 鈥榮ecurity鈥�.听Some relevant data is available from manufacturers of military hardware.听The Ministry of Defence (MOD), too, in recent years has disclosed a small proportion of its emissions.听 Attempts at reduction have mostly concerned 'estates' emissions - installing solar panels on military buildings, changing to electric cars at bases, etc.听Minimal mention has been made of 鈥榦perational鈥� emissions.听However, in its March 2021 report, the MOD acknowledges the 鈥榲icious circle鈥�: 鈥�The threats of our modern world, made worse by rising seas, extreme weather conditions and creeping desertification, will almost certainly lead to more conflict.听More conflict in itself will damage the planet 鈥� therefore making it far less likely that we will reach any of the climate change Paris goals鈥�.摆4闭

It may seem astonishing that there was no mention of these military-related emissions in the COP25 conference programme in Madrid. In fact, the precedent was set at Kyoto in 1997, when it was decided, under pressure from US negotiators, that there would be no obligation on countries to disclose such emissions or include them in reduction targets. Other nations took advantage of this exemption.听At the Paris conference in 2015 the rather vague agreement was that countries no longer have automatic exemption from consideration of military emissions but are not obliged to cut them.

So why is it acceptable to ignore these emissions when submitting our Nationally Determined Contribution?听The greatest threat facing our planet is the climate crisis: surely we need to know the facts and figures of ALL pollution.听鈥�The atmosphere certainly counts the cost of carbon from the military, therefore we must as well鈥� Stephen Kretzmann, then-Director of Oil Change International, told the Guardian.[5]

Counting these emissions, then, is the first hurdle but of course the real goal is reduction.听There is no doubt that the MOD is taking the climate crisis very seriously but its solutions lie in increasing the efficiency of the present system: in finding low carbon alternative fuels for war planes, low carbon manufacturing methods in its supply chains etc.

But with a little lateral thinking, alternatives present themselves.听Christiana Figueres (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010-2016) and others urge us to regard COP26 as an 鈥榦pportunity鈥� - to take stock, and welcome ways of doing things differently, more sustainably, to improve all areas of life.听The current existential threats we face show clearly that real security has much more to do with human and planetary well-being and international co-operation than with military might. This is the ideal time to question deeply- embedded assumptions about the acceptability, effectiveness and inevitability of armed conflict as a way of resolving disputes.听Time to resist the ruthless power and manipulation of the arms industry.听Time to divert some of the trillions of dollars of global military spending into (often good value [6]) climate transition needs, including addressing honestly the underlying causes of conflict, and utilising and improving already existing alternative resources and institutions.

Time to demand that COP26 sets limits with no exceptions for military-related emissions, no reliance on offsetting schemes, and a requirement for independent verification.听

Photo by听听on听

References

[1] HM Government (March 2021) 鈥楪lobal Britain in a competitive age鈥�, The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.听

[2] Parkinson, S. (2020) 鈥楾he Environmental Impacts of the UK Military Sector鈥�, Scientists for Global Responsibility.听

[3] See also Darbyshire, E. & Weir, D. (2021) 鈥楬ow does war contribute to climate change?鈥�, Conflict and Environment Observatory.听 听听and, for a US perspective, Crawford, N.C. (2019) 鈥楶entagon Fuel Use, Climate Change and the Costs of War鈥�.

[4] Ministry of Defence (March 2021) 鈥楥limate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach鈥�.听听

[5] The Guardian, 14 Dec 2015.

[6]听