◊◊◊ Estimating the Military’s Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Dr Stuart Parkinson with Linsey Cottrell, Scientists for Global Responsibility & the Conflict and Environment Observatory, 2022
A lack of reporting and significant data gaps means it is inherently difficult to estimate the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the world’s militaries. Nevertheless, the available data indicates this contribution could be very large. In this study, we describe an innovative new methodology to provide updated estimates for global and regional military GHG emissions. In particular, we find that the total military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions. If the world’s militaries were a country, this figure would mean they have the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world – greater than that of Russia. This emphasises the urgent need for concerted action to be taken both to robustly measure military emissions and to reduce the related carbon footprint – especially as these emissions are very likely to be growing in the wake of the war in Ukraine.
https://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/estimating-military-s-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions
◊◊◊ Climate damage caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine, Initiative on GHG accounting of war, 2022
This interim assessment, which is focused on four activity areas directly affected by the war, concludes that greenhouse gas emissions for seven months of the full-scale war totals at least 100 million tCO2e. This is the equivalent of the total GHG emissions over the same period in a country like The Netherlands. As a number of impacts of this war have not yet been taken into consideration, these figures are likely to underestimate the true level of emissions. The longer Russia’s war continues, the higher final figures will be. The post-war reconstruction of civilian infrastructure accounts for half of the GHG emissions, followed by fires. Emissions from warfare account for a smaller share although limited information was available to make a comprehensive analysis. Transport emissions from refugees and IDPs are relatively low.
https://climatefocus.com/publications/climate-damage-caused-by-russias-war-in-ukraine/
◊◊◊ U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee Unveils Plan to Cut Up to $350 Billion From Pentagon, 2020
Demanding that Congress “prioritize our safety and our future, not more war,” Rep. Barbara Lee on Monday unveiled a resolution proposing up to $350 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget by closing U.S. military bases overseas, ending ongoing conflicts, scrapping weapons programs, and eliminating President Donald Trump’s Space Force.
https://truthout.org/articles/barbara-lee-unveils-plan-to-cut-up-to-350-billion-from-pentagon/
Rep Barbara Lee’s Bill [PDF]
◊◊◊ The environmental impacts of the UK military sector, Dr Stuart Parkinson, Scientists for Global Responsibility & Declassified UK, 2020
War and the preparation for war inevitably cause numerous, often severe, environmental impacts, including pollution of land, water and air. This report assesses the key environmental impacts of the UK military, arms industry and related sectors. It provides a detailed assessment of UK military greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – arguably, more in-depth than previously provided in a report in the public domain. It also gives an overview of other related environmental issues, especially those of particular concern, such as impacts resulting from weapons-use, the management of military nuclear waste, and the environmental impacts should nuclear weapons ever be used in war.
https://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/environmental-impacts-uk-military-sector
◊◊◊ Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War, Neta C. Crawford, The Costs of War Project, 2019
In Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War, Crawford examines military fuel usage for post-9/11 wars and the impact of that fuel usage on greenhouse gases emissions. She found that between 2001 and 2017, the years for which data is available since the beginning of the war on terrorism with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. military emitted 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. More than 400 million metric tons of greenhouse gases are directly due to war-related fuel consumption, with the largest portion of Pentagon fuel consumption being for military jets. As General David Petraeus said in 2011, “Energy is the lifeblood of our warfighting capabilities.”
https://watson.brown.edu/research/2019/pentagon-fuel-use-climate-change-and-costs-war
◊◊◊ US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries – shrinking this war machine is a must, Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher, Patrick Bigger, 2019
◊◊◊ Rethinking Security is a network of UK-based organisations, academics and activists. We work for a just and peaceful world, based on approaches that address the underlying causes of conflict and insecurity. We have a shared concern that the current approach to national security in the UK and beyond often hampers efforts for peace, justice and ecological sustainability. We are committed to building a much richer understanding of what security really means, and of what is required to build sustainable security.
https://rethinkingsecurity.org.uk/policy-makers/
◊◊◊ Mark Curtis’ Report for Global Justice Now (December 2017)
The UK government’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) raises all kinds of questions about the future of UK aid, the nature of the UK’s relations with states abusing human rights and the government’s openness with the public. Established in 2015, the CSSF is a £1 billion annual pot of money operating in dozens of countries which supposedly promotes the UK’s national security interests. Yet there are such fundamental problems with the CSSF that a complete overhaul is needed: It is increasingly using aid money to fund military and counter-terrorism projects which do not appear focused on what aid should be about: eradicating poverty and promoting inclusive development; It is funding ‘security’ forces in several states involved in appalling human rights abuses, thus the UK risks complicity in these violations; It is not transparent. Despite some improvements recently made to the Fund, programme details are scant and some appear to be misleading.
◊◊◊ Demilitarization for Deep Decarbonization: Reducing Militarism and Military Expenditures to Invest in the UN Green Climate Fund and to Create Low-Carbon Economies and Resilient Communities, Tamara Lorincz, International Peace Bureau, 2014
Transform defence for sustainable human safety 