Militaries need to get their act together on the climate crisis

WRITTEN BY DHANASREE JAYARAM AND RADHIKA AJAYAN

21 October 2021

The United States military is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, with emissions of over 25,000 kilotons of carbon dioxide in 2017. As massive contributors to climate change, the world’s militaries must get their act together on the climate crisis. However, their road ahead is difficult, as gradual efforts to reduce their carbon footprint are marred with various challenges associated with carbon lock-in and operational effectiveness. This is bad news for the climate!

Militaries across the world — especially in the industrialised world — have begun to acknowledge the detrimental effects of climate change on their readiness, operations, and strategy. Addressing US troops in the United Kingdom in June, President Joe Biden emphasised that the greatest threat for the US was global warming. Militaries themselves have also linked the consequences of global warming such as rising seas, more frequent and intense hurricanes, droughts, and resource depletion with potential conflict, political instability, and mass movements within and between borders.

In response to the effects of climate change on military installations and defence operations, the US Department of Defense (DOD) has established a Climate Change Working Group, which is expected to coordinate the military’s climate action agenda. In the UK, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) released the Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach in March 2021. Although nationally, such efforts are being made in many countries, internationally there is a reluctance to hold militaries accountable for their enormous carbon footprint. Therefore, as the international community prepares itself for the upcoming climate summit in Glasgow (COP-26), it is not clear whether and how the world’s militaries will be held accountable in international climate policy.

World militaries and the need for climate accountability

In the US, the DOD accounts for 77-80 per cent of the Government’s energy consumption since 2001, which makes it the “largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world”. According to a study conducted by Neta C. Crawford, Boston University, “the DOD is the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world”. In the US, the total carbon footprint is reported to be about 6 per cent of the national emissions, while in the UK, it amounts to 3 per cent. In fact, the UK MoD accounts for about half of the UK Government’s GHG emissions. The emissions of major militaries in the world even exceed those of many countries.

It’s high time that militaries, especially major ones, are brought under the ambit of the Paris Agreement. Without making these massive institutions accountable, the window for preventing the worst effects of climate change will likely close.

In general, militaries and security institutions across the world have been largely exempt from environmental accountability as their work safeguarding territorial integrity and sovereignty leaves them out of public scrutiny. As a case in point, to this date, very little has been done to address the dangers posed by radioactive waste produced over decades of nuclear testing. During the Cold War, the US, France, and the UK carried out several nuclear tests in the Pacific Islands. Recently, Runit Dome in the Enewetak atoll of the Marshall Islands — a structure in which 111,000 cubic yards of radioactive waste is stored — was in the news. The US Congress demanded an investigation into the dome’s climate vulnerability since rising sea levels could threaten the stability of the structure. It could pose a risk of leakage into the ocean, thereby affecting the ecosystems, populations, and food chain of the islands. The locals have blamed “high levels of radiation in giant clams” on an alleged leak from Runit Dome. In response to this, the US Department of Energy published a report proclaiming the dome to be safe.

Military exemption and a lack of transparency

Despite long-drawn debates, negotiations, and discussions on the need to accelerate climate mitigation and reduce institutional GHG emissions, the world’s militaries have remained exempt from revealing their emissions data or implementing proactive emissions reduction strategies for a long time. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mandates all signatories to publish annual GHG emissions. While the Kyoto Protocol exempted military emissions, the Paris Agreement ended this exemption. Yet, since it is up to countries to decide how to include military GHG emissions and which part of military emissions should be included, the real picture may never be known. Furthermore, even the reduction of military emissions is voluntary under the Paris Agreement.

Although the UK publishes more data on its military’s carbon emissions than most countries, this data does not provide the complete picture as various components, including supply chain and raw materials for the arms industry, are excluded. Data regarding the GHG emissions’ of US overseas bases are also often unreliable. Many countries, especially developing ones, rarely disclose this emission data. Thus, the lack of research and transparency regarding the ecological footprint of militaries (globally) remains the biggest hindrance to enforcing climate accountability in the institution.

Furthermore, major militaries are often concerned primarily with adaptation due to climate impacts on military installations, or with Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR). For instance, the US administration’s recent announcements regarding budgetary allocation for climate preparedness will likely focus on improving risk assessments, predictive capabilities, infrastructure resilience, etc. While adaptation remains a priority, the militaries need to accelerate mitigation efforts for stronger climate action at the national and international levels. They should invest as much (or more) in mitigation initiatives that could embolden every country’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) — efforts to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement.

Green technology and the military

The military’s function as a technological innovator is also often highlighted to legitimise its role in global climate governance. For example, technologies that are created for military purposes, such as satellites and other technologies for reconnaissance, computers, Global Positioning Systems, etc. are later absorbed by civilian agencies. These technologies have facilitated climate governance too, such as in the case of monitoring deforestation and desertification. Similarly, green technology, which defence manufacturing industries design and manufacture at the military’s behest (for energy efficiency and resource optimisation), is also considered to be advantageous for civilian sectors.

Militaries have introduced many initiatives to promote climate mitigation, including switching to renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency through policy and technological interventions. Biofuels, for instance, have become a key part of the military’s decarbonising efforts that also contribute to energy security. Navies in the UK, the US, India, and a few other countries have already put in place research and development (R&D) programmes to advance efforts to induct biofuels in militaries on a larger scale than now. From the US’ Great Green Fleet to the UK’s first military base — RAF Marham (Norfolk) — to be almost entirely run on green energy, there are a few conscious efforts to reduce GHG emissions, which are also likely to help these militaries to boost energy independence, ensure the security of supply lines, and reduce costs.

However, biofuels have come under scrutiny due to their inefficiency (in comparison to fossil fuels) and implications for land, water, and food security. They are produced from mostly water-guzzling crops grown in large tracts of land diverted from other food crops, which may also involve land grabs and violation of farmer rights. Hence, militaries increasingly engage in research on advanced biofuels that may be able to overcome these challenges. Similarly, militaries are exploring other options such as hydrogen fuel. For instance, India’s pilot hydrogen fuel project in the border region of Ladakh is slated to have military applications, as it would assist the Indian military in moving troops and supplies in the border areas, thereby reducing fossil fuel dependence and costs.

Nevertheless, it is not going to be easy for militaries to usher in large-scale energy transition, as they are still locked into fossil-fuel-based weapon systems, at least for the next couple of decades. Many existing green technologies are also not considered mature enough for use in military applications as they could affect operational effectiveness. While it is possible to adapt newer equipment to the changing requirements in a cost-effective manner, retrofitting (even if technology can be applied) or replacing the existing ones is deemed too expensive. However, this is indeed possible in defence-related buildings and similar infrastructure, without affecting militaries’ operational effectiveness (much of militaries’ green rhetoric does not match action).

A future military role in global climate governance

With geoengineering emerging as a ‘promising’ climate change solution, it presents a new set of opportunities and challenges to the military establishment. If and when the technologies are deployed on a wide scale, militaries may be involved in various aspects of the process, including the protection of project sites, R&D, and potential militarisation/weaponisation (to have an upper hand in times of crises). Scenario planning and risk assessments may be carried out by militaries to anticipate and act upon the potential risks posed by the deployment of these technologies. This could indeed complicate global climate governance further.

In any case, as the most important traditional security actor, tasked to defend territorial integrity and increasingly benign roles such as HADR, militaries will weigh geopolitical and geostrategic imperatives even while acting on climate change. It’s high time that militaries, especially major ones, are brought under the ambit of the Paris Agreement. Without making these massive institutions accountable, the window for preventing the worst effects of climate change will likely close. The upcoming COP-26 can be used as a platform to highlight the above-mentioned concerns about militaries’ GHG emissions and provide guidelines for climate mainstreaming within militaries.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Dr Dhanasree Jayaram is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations and Co-coordinator, Centre for Climate Studies, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Karnataka, India. Radhika Ajayan is an alumna of the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Karnataka, India. Image credit: US Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Alexander Quiles.