The United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) obliges some states to report on their greenhouse gas emissions every year. But, because reporting military emissions is voluntary, many governments have chosen not to. We call this lack of transparency the ‘military emissions gap’.
We know that militaries are significant emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, whether in peacetime or during operations. We also know that improving transparency over their emissions reporting is a key first step towards making the urgent cuts that are needed.
Working with researchers from Lancaster and Durham universities ‘Concrete Impacts’ project, we have created militaryemissions.org – a website dedicated to making the data that states report to the UNFCCC more transparent and accessible. The site was launched during COP26.
The website is part of a package of activities that CEOBS is working on around how militarism, conflicts and peace influence greenhouse gas emissions. With growing military engagement on the issue, it is vital that we scrutinise the pledges and claims being made, as well as articulate our expectations for how militaries should address their outsize impact on the environment.
For more information please contact Doug Weir (doug at ceobs.org) or Linsey Cottrell (linsey at ceobs.org).
It’s been an extraordinary year for the campaign to hold militaries accountable for their contribution to the climate emergency, in this post Doug Weir takes stock of where we are, and how we can build on the achievements of COP26.
Linsey Cottrell introduces the key findings from our analysis of the military emissions data that governments report to the UNFCCC. We found that the standard and scope of reporting is unacceptable, underscoring the need for greater transparency and tougher standards.
With interest growing in reducing military emissions, Linsey Cottrell and Eoghan Darbyshire explore why they emit so much and what it will take to reduce their contribution to climate change.
Doug Weir untangles what it actually was that NATO and its member states committed to at June’s summit. While there were some positive signs, the pledges fell short of what is needed to address military contributions to the climate crisis, in line with the Paris Agreement.
With so much focus on how climate change can influence security, have we neglected the question of how conflicts influence emissions? As Eoghan Darbyshire and Doug Weir explain, environmental and social changes in conflict-affected and post-conflict areas can mean significant changes in emissions.
In a new report, CEOBS and SGR reveal for the first time the level of carbon emissions from the largest EU militaries and the EU military sector. This blog summaries our findings.
Join CEOBS and Concrete Impacts live from Glasgow for the media launch of www.militaryemissions.org a new website dedicated to tracking the dire state of military emissions reporting to the UNFCCC.
COP26 panel discussion to mark the launch of militaryemissions.org that will explore the flaws in military emissions reporting, and why the scope of reporting needs to be expanded to cover emissions created across the cycle of conflicts, and across militaries’ massive supply chains.
There are signs that some countries may pledge to reduce military greenhouse gas emissions at COP26 in November. This call sets out the scope of what these pledges should include and is open for signature by organisations before and during the COP.
This CEOBS/SGR study set out to estimate the carbon footprint of the EU’s military sectors. The report also provides a broad overview of the policies and measures currently being pursued to reduce military GHG emissions in the EU, and their likely effectiveness.
