BONN SB58 CLIMATE CONFERENCE

SIDE EVENT:  MILITARY EMISSIONS AND THE GLOBAL STOCKTAKE.

Deborah Burton: Civil Society Perspective

Thank-you.

As the UNFCCC describes it ’The global stocktake enables countries and other stakeholders to see where they’re collectively making progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement – and where they’re not. …It means looking at everything related to where the world stands on climate action & support, identifying the gaps, and working together to agree on solutions pathways (to 2030 and beyond).’’

I’m here to speak to the civil society perspective on this issue – and it’s with some relief that researchers and civil society together are finally getting this military emissions data gap onto the radar of the media, policy-makers and – critically –onto the UNFCCC agenda.

As we are surely heading to overshooting 1.5 degrees Celsius, every single contribution to mitigation matters – which is why we need urgent action on the transparency and accountability of military emissions counting and reporting, leading in turn, to significant emissions reduction and ultimately decarbonisation.

However, this assumes decarbonisation is possible for such an intensively fossil fuel reliant sector and this is a dimension to the story we’re not here to discuss – suffice to say, the jury appears to be out on whether this is even remotely possible. The brand new F35, being bought up all over the world and planned to keep flying until 2070, drinks around 6000 litres of jet fuel per flying hour.

What we do know is that military emissions is estimated to be – on patchy data – around 5.5% of global emissions –

And this 5.5% figure does not include conflict related emissions.

There has not been a year in modern history that the world has remained conflict-free and Ukraine is the first country to attempt to assess the climate impact of conflict .

But what of previous wars? Recent wars?

Professor Neta Crawford has estimated emissions by the US military during the war-intensive period 2001-2018 to be 1.3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Of that, the war-related activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria accounted for 440 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

At COP27 in Egypt, the first official side event to address military emissions was hosted by Ukraine and UK NGO CAFOD – the event was entitled Dealing with Military and conflict-related emissions under the UNFCCC’ and secured widespread media coverage.

Our calls for action on military emissions reporting drawn from our Perspectives Report launched at Bonn last year, were presented – calls that included an IPCC Special Report into the global military & climate change; and for military and conflict-related emissions to be included in the GST.

We subsequently went on and made our submission to GST on behalf of 8 organisations

Conflict and Environment Observatory, Concrete Impacts, The Costs of War Project, Norwegian People’s Aid, Scientists for Global Responsibility,  Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Zoï Environment Network and ourselves at Tipping Point North South.

The submission has 5 key messages:

  • Reporting disaggregated military fuel use data to the UNFCCC is voluntary and inconsistent across States.
  • Data gaps on military and conflict GHG emissions compromise the GST 2023 assessment and an understanding of where these contributions sit.
  • Effective reporting of military emissions through UNFCCC processes would help ensure IPCC modelling of temperature rises are more accurate.
  • With global military expenditure at around $2 trillion each year and rising, military emissions are also very likely to increase.
  • Military and conflict emissions must be better addressed within the UNFCCC framework

And it’s the 4th message I want to take a little bit of time on next.

Because many of the researchers and campaigners around the world who work on this issue – ourselves included – understand that this emissions story is inextricably linked to another.

And that is runaway military spending.

There is a positive correlation between military spending and military greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, more military spending simply leads to more emission across Scopes 1, 2 and 3. 

Between 2013 and 2021 global military spending increased 21.3%, exceeding $2 trillion a year.

That was before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine super-charged already high levels of military spending  – so now, the USA, EU and Russia are all further increasing their military spending. This, as all 31 members of NATO are being encouraged to increase their respective military spending to at least 2% of GDP.

From production to deployment, high levels of military spending are necessary to underwrite and maintain the big ticket fossil fuel intensive hardware such as jets, warships, tanks, bombs and missiles.

And so it is G20 nations that account for the bulk of global military spending at 87%.

And 7 of the top 10 historical emitters are also among the top ten global military spenders: United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Japan and Germany.

There are 2 rather depressing numbers that indicate where the big military spending -and emitting- countries put their priorities.

Rich countries are spending 6 times more on militaries than public climate finance  (Climate Policy Initiative) For year 2020 :  $321bn   vs $1981bn Military (SIPRI)

And Annex 2 countries spend 30 times more on militaries than climate finance.   The most polluting nations spent $9.45 trillion (€9.12tn) on their armed forces between 2013 and 2021. That’s compared to an estimated $243.9 billion (   €235.28bn) on climate finance for the world’s most vulnerable countries. .

As we head toward COP28 and the GST’S almost certain conclusion that we will breach 1.5 in the coming 3-4 years, it is

  • possible that the war in Ukraine will not be over – though we deeply wish it will be otherwise
  • and we can be sure that rhetoric concerning war with China will not have abated.

Are climate goals being put second to military objectives? It would seem so.

And if military spending positively correlates to military emissions, then surely current – and rising – levels of military spending – in this climate emergency –  is utterly incompatible with climate targets.

We count emissions in order to know the full challenge. We count in order to cut and hopefully, get humanity to a better place.

But that better place is not about economy alone. 

It is about PROGRESSIVE transformation of foreign and defence policy through the lens of climate emergency; it is about transforming the way we do international relations.

To conclude

At 5.5% of global emissions, the big fossil fuel reliant militaries of the world and associated defence industries have a significant part to play in reduction and mitigation. The question is how and how rapidly.

The climate emergency means we can no longer afford to permit the ‘business as usual’ omission of military and conflict-related emissions within UNFCCC processes and international climate negotiations.

By including them, the first and subsequent GSTs will be making an invaluable contribution to achieving full accountability on this issue.

****************

Side event: Bonn SB 58 panel discussion,
14:45-16:00 CEST, 7 June 2023

The event has been co-organised by CEOBS, Zoï Environment Network, Initiative on GHG Accounting of War, Tipping Point North South, Green Wave, Ecoaction and Concrete Impacts.

Topic:

Military greenhouse gas emissions are estimated at 5.5% of global emissions, and military spending is rising sharply. Because reporting military emissions to the UNFCCC is voluntary, data is often absent or incomplete – this is the military emissions gap. Join us in Bonn, or online via YouTube, as we outline what needs to change within the UNFCCC, and how the Global Stocktake is an opportunity to begin to remedy this.

Speakers:

The status of military emissions reporting | Linsey Cottrell, CEOBS
Climate Damage caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine | Lennard de Klerk, Initiative on GHG Accounting of War
Military emissions in the Global Stocktake | Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives Climate Group and University of Zurich
The role of civil society | Deborah Burton, Tipping Point North South
Moderator | Ellie Kinney, CEOBS