Weapons of Mass Emissions: The Carbon Cost of War

Weapons of Mass Emissions: The Carbon Cost of War

Davie Loria

As we understand climate change more and the world highlights the need to cut greenhouse gasses, one of the planet’s largest emitters has remained mostly unchecked: the global military sector. Despite the scale of emissions generated by armed forces worldwide, the environmental cost of war remains overlooked by climate agreements and largely unreported by nations. The U.S. military alone emits more carbon dioxide than entire countries’ totals, yet reporting of these emissions by countries is voluntary and standards are vague. Despite being a major contributor to greenhouse gasses, military emissions remain in a regulatory gray area, leaving significant climate impacts unchecked and underreported. The military’s carbon footprint is vast in every aspect of planning to action to rebuilding, and in an era of rising global temperatures and escalating conflict, ignoring the military's climate cost is no longer an option.

In December of 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third ever Conference of the Parties—a gathering of representatives from 160 nations. It marked a global effort under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and was a step in the green direction, citing global warming as a concern and binding developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

During negotiations, the U.S. government demanded a specific exemption for military emissions, arguing that disclosing their carbon footprint could jeopardize military readiness. So, they lobbied for an exception for military emissions. Despite this, the Kyoto Protocol was never submitted for ratification by the U.S. Senate— they had already voted to approve the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, arguing that a climate treaty like the Kyoto Protocol didn’t hold developing nations to the same standards as developed ones and could negatively impact the U.S. economy. The international treaty was enforced starting in 2005, but the U.S. never ratified it, and global emissions have still risen 44% since then.

This loophole established a precedent that allowed militaries around the world to operate without accounting for their carbon footprints, a practice that continued even after other attempts. In 2015, another international treaty on climate change was adopted. The Paris Agreement aimed to limit and even decline greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030. However, there is still an issue—while the Paris Agreement removed the formal exemption for military emissions, it did not mandate reporting, making military emissions reporting effectively voluntary.

Because of this exception, not only is there no accountability for the environmental destruction done by militaries, but tracking and any available data is inconsistent, unreliable, and incomplete. Many groups have urged the U.N. to mandate that countries are more transparent in their military emissions reporting—the climate crisis cannot handle any exceptions.

The Military Emissions Gap is one group that attempts to track and analyze what data they can find about military emissions. Governments are supposed to report their military emissions to the UNFCCC, but the group states on their website that “reporting to the UNFCCC to be either wholly absent or incomplete, generally unclear, and highly inconsistent between countries.” They aim to not only track emissions, but expose reporting inconsistencies that they find. They study not only obvious emissions from explosives and vehicles/aircrafts, but extraction of raw materials, disposal, rebuilding, deforestation, and more. They question whether it is enough for militaries only to report on their direct emissions (likely not).

Current estimates suggest that militaries account for around 5.5% of global emissions, but that number is likely an underestimate due to insufficient data reported to the UNFCCC. The U.S. was the largest emitter from 1850 to 2006, when it was surpassed by China. The U.S. military is the single largest institutional energy consumer and emitter worldwide, with over 750 overseas bases in 80 countries and a significant carbon footprint from operations.

Research director of the US-based Climate and Community Project Patrick Bigger stated that “The US now has more than triple the number of overseas bases as it does diplomatic missions, all of which require fossil fuels for operations and generate waste and pollution.” The U.S. military alone emits more than some entire countries, and that the Department of Defense accounts for nearly 80% of the federal government’s fuel consumption. U.S. military fuel use, particularly jet fuel, is one of the largest contributors to its greenhouse gasses, yet much of it, especially from overseas operations, is omitted from official reports, due to it being delivered and used outside of the U.S., leading to yet more gray areas and gaps in reporting.

Of the 20 top military spending countries, Germany was the only one to report its greenhouse gas emissions from military fuel use in 2021. When they are reported, the U.N. says that if reported, military emissions should be included in a category marked “non specified.” That makes things even more difficult to separate and piece together when trying to get a straight answer about emissions. Every part of the process—supply chains, base operations, fuel consumption, explosive atmospheric emissions, rebuilding after destruction—should be accounted for, and unfortunately it is hard to get a straight answer from most governments.

This lack of regard for the environment for the “at all costs” military mindset is still active in modern times. The destruction done by Israel in their siege of Gaza is a very clear example—in the first two months, planet-warming emissions generated were more than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world's most climate-vulnerable nations. Some research projected that after one year, the total emissions could reach 629 million tonnes CO2e. This has yet to be verified due to the difficulty of gathering data.

In fact, Israel’s director of Middle East economic relations Ran Peleg said calculating greenhouse gas emissions from IDF operations has never been discussed: “This is actually the first time this issue has been raised, and I’m not aware that there are any ways to count these kinds of things.” According to the interactive map of The Military Emissions Gap website, Israel has no data reported about military emissions. Palestine is not indexed.

Not only does conflict cause environmental problems in that very moment, but post-conflict reconstruction emits even more. The construction industry accounts for around 11% of global CO2 emissions, so rebuilding an entire urban civilization after conflict will produce an incredible amount of impact. In those first two months, one study used remote sensing and imaging to estimate that 36-45% of Gaza’s buildings—including homes, schools, mosques, hospitals—were destroyed or damaged. Now more than a year later, we see the entire Gaza Strip virtually flattened—the cost of rebuilding, both financially and environmentally, will be astronomical. Every single building releases CO2 when demolished, and it will cost more to build it back up. 

It’s hard to know where to start when there is no precedent or example to follow. In 2021, NATO announced that it was creating a methodology to help its members track and report emissions. However, while NATO has developed this framework, it does not require member nations to use it and specifically excludes emissions from NATO-led operations, missions, training, and exercises. Again, with lack of data and also lack of experience reporting on it, it’s hard to define realistic goals for reduction of emissions. However, these exceptions and loopholes are what we saw in the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, and need to be more stringent. 

As climate change only intensifies, the lack of transparency around military emissions remains a critical gap in global climate accountability. Without good reporting of these, researchers are left to piece together incomplete estimates,  making it challenging to assess the full climate impact of global military activities. While NATO and some individual countries have begun to acknowledge this problem, most emissions linked to military activities still go unaccounted for. The urgency of the climate crisis demands that military emissions be included in climate goals and international policy discussions.