Excluding militaries from past climate agreements continues to undermine global climate action: we can’t afford to make this mistake again.
As governments gather in Colombia for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels amid ongoing wars, fragile ceasefires, spiralling military spending and a global energy crisis, Ellie Kinney explains why militaries must be part of any future energy transition framework.
An energy system in crisis
The global energy crisis triggered by the Israeli-US war against Iran has catapulted the relationship between militarism, armed conflict and fossil fuels into the spotlight. Attacks on oil and gas infrastructure, a trend that has become worryingly normalised in recent years, have indiscriminately exposed civilians to pollution, and breached international law. Meanwhile, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz exposed the vulnerability of countries dependent on imported fossil fuels, and impacted consumers globally. The message couldn’t be clearer: there is no security in our fossil fuel dependency.
This month, governments, civil society and academia will meet in Santa Marta for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. Hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, the conference aims to accelerate the global energy transition. It was announced in November 2025 just as COP30 declared its failure to agree on the need to phase out fossil fuels. COP30’s failure reflected the weakness of climate action by consensus, where vested national interests can block progress. Those behind the conference are mindful of how earlier independent diplomatic processes have been used to reach agreements on land mines, cluster munitions and nuclear weapons, bypassing consensus bodies locked in stalemate.
The conference is structured around three key pillars: advancing international cooperation; overcoming economic dependence; and transforming fossil fuel supply and demand. Conflicts and security are a thread that should weave through all three; from the way that transition plans are already being derailed by illegal wars — Colombia’s own ambitious plans are under pressure — to the fossil fuels fuelling the world’s militaries, to any transition’s impact on the stability of fossil fuel producing economies, and to the scramble for critical mineral resources. In today’s unpredictable world, it’s vital that we ask how a new climate framework could support a peaceful and sustainable future.
Military transition?
Europe has reacted to the latest fossil energy price shock by urging its members to accelerate their transition to renewables. Yet the bloc’s governments are also pointing to the volatility of the Trump administration and Russia’s expansionism to justify massive and sustained increases in military spending. European military spending has already risen by more than 62% since 2020, a trend that looks set to continue.
This spending comes at a climate cost; estimates suggest that planned increases to NATO and EU military budgets could cause up to $298 billion of climate damage annually. And what do these investments mean for Europe’s transition hopes? The average F35 jet purchased this year will be in use for decades, deep into any transition timeline. While they may one day be powered by “sustainable” aviation fuel, right now the technologies do not exist to produce such fuels at scale, while the massive energy needs that would be required are an opportunity cost for the decarbonisation of other sectors. Europe’s nascent transition plans and its energy and climate security objectives are at odds with its military strategy, and it seems inevitable that they will sit uncomfortably with the outcome of the Santa Marta conference.
This dissonance in energy and security policies is not just a European phenomenon: military spending is rising in every region of the planet. Conference co-host Colombia grew its military budget by 14% in 2024. The same year, Algeria used its oil and gas profits to fund a 12% increase in defence spending. In Asia, Japan’s military spending jumped by 14%, the largest increase since 1952. Each context is different, and not every type of military spending has the same climate cost; for example, increases to staff wages and pensions may generate less than major procurement pushes. Yet just as with climate plans under the UNFCCC, no national transition plans will be effective without addressing the carbon and opportunity costs of spiralling military spending.
A chance to avoid past mistakes
In the 1990s, US lobbying resulted in militaries being exempted from the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol. The move was driven by Pentagon officials including the then Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security Sherri Goodman, citing concerns that the evolving emissions reduction framework would harm ‘military readiness’. The Paris Agreement later made military emissions reporting a voluntary obligation. The result? Militaries are decades behind in their will and ability to meaningfully track and report their emissions, and even further behind in their efforts to reduce them.
Militaries and their supply chains may already be responsible for 5.5% of global emissions, a proportion that will increase as the rest of society decarbonises, and while military spending continues to rise. US pressure in Kyoto has already undermined one climate framework, reflecting and strengthening a culture of military environmental exceptionalism that extends far beyond the UNFCCC. Troublingly, the US never even ratified the protocol.
If it can break from the consensus model that has dogged global climate action, any process that emerges from the Santa Marta conference will not have to defer to the lowest common denominator. It can be guided by the need to transition humanity away from its fossil fuel addiction, and define and set ambitious norms, all while being less vulnerable to economic or military interests.
What it takes to minimise military emissions
There’s nothing new or revolutionary about military climate mitigation strategies. Your government may already have one; you can even review how effective it is using our checklist. It’s likely that you’ll find a lack of commitment to reduce emissions to any specific target; a reliance on technologies that aren’t yet available at scale; and no alignment between the strategy and your government’s national climate plan, or Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
There’s also a very strong chance that the strategy won’t feature clear implementation phases linked to specific timelines, or a commitment for progress to be independently reviewed. What’s also likely is that you’ll be left with the sense that your government has yet to meaningfully grapple with the urgency and importance of transitioning away from carbon intensive security.
No one is pretending that the military energy transition will be easy, on the contrary, the military can be a desperately high emissions sector. But aspiring for business as usual while betting that technology will solve everything just won’t cut it. It’s neither achievable nor desirable, and nor can people and the planet afford it. A number of militaries are exploring what a lower carbon future might look like, and the easy gains that existing technologies can already offer; for example reducing facility and non-tactical vehicle emissions. But a habitable planet means that we need to scale up our ambition. Reducing military spending reduces emissions, just as investing in diplomacy and multilateralism can reduce the need for large militaries. Something that can also be achieved where force structure and deployment isn’t based around the need to secure fossil fuel interests.
The Santa Marta conference is the start of a conversation around weaning humanity off fossil fuels, and a huge opportunity to think differently. By ensuring that the military’s contribution to the climate crisis is on the table from the outset we can avoid the past mistakes that continue to undermine national and regional climate strategies. And by rejecting failed consensus models governments, scientists and civil society can be ambitious in their vision for the future, and in identifying solutions that are equal to the urgency of the crisis we face.
Ellie Kinney is Senior Climate Advocacy Officer at CEOBS and will be happy to connect if you are in Santa Marta. If you’ve enjoyed this post, please donate so that we can publish more like it.
