|
|
|
US Navy Grumman F-14A Tomcat flying over a Kuwaiti oil well set ablaze by Iraqi troops during the 1991 Gulf War. (Lt. Steve Gozzo, US Navy) |
|
|
|
|
|
How much does war, and the preparation and recovery from it, contribute to the climate crisis? Nobody knows, because there is no comprehensive accounting of global warming emissions from militaries, military industries, or war, writes Neta C. Crawford. While some military emissions are reported, those are the tip of the iceberg. The failure to quantify the emissions from this sector inhibits the ability to reduce them and keeps them largely sacrosanct.
One can make some educated guesses as to what they may be, which I’ve attempted here. This rough estimate—which is on the conservative side—shows that US and global military, military-industrial, and wartime emissions are enormous and should be factored into our understanding of global warming. |
|
|
|
|
|
The procedures and criteria for nations to make a comprehensive report of their greenhouse emissions were first worked out as part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Treaty process.
A 1997 Pentagon memo—a piece of rhetorical genius—explained the stakes very clearly: The military was the US government’s single largest fossil fuel user. Ensuring the US military remained preeminent in the world required unlimited fuel use for training and operations. Reporting emissions could lead to a push for reductions, and "limitations on tactical and strategic military systems would … adversely impact operations and readiness."
The Pentagon argued that even a 10 percent reduction in fuel use would harm military readiness and "represent a serious threat to national security." |
|
|
|
|
|
To forestall this, the Pentagon suggested draft language for the Kyoto treaty proposing that parties "shall exclude from its measurement of anthropogenic emissions by sources any emissions attributable to military tactical or strategic systems used for military operations in support of national or collective security, humanitarian activities, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or United Nations, NATO, and other multinational actions." The Pentagon also proposed excluding measurement of any "emissions attributable to military tactical or strategic systems used in training" for those operations.
The Defense Department also asserted that "to minimize fundamental conflicts between national security and global environmental protection, the Protocol itself must address military operations and readiness so that the [sic] we can pursue and enjoy the fruits of national security as well as the benefits of a healthy planet."
The White House agreed, and the United States successfully lobbied to exempt most military emissions from countries' annual National Inventory Reports of greenhouse gas emissions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neta C. Crawford
Crawford is Professor of International Relations at University of St. Andrews. Prior to that she was the Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, and Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Boston University.
Her books include The Pentagon, Climate Change and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of U.S. Military Emissions, Winner of the American Book Award, 2023 and the Grawemeyer Award, 2024. |
|
|
|
|
|
