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).
The IPCC’s failure to mention military or conflict emissions in its recent synthesis report points to a deeper problem. Ellie Kinney explains why solving it will require a concerted effort from states, researchers and civil society.
In this blog, Linsey Cottrell summarises the key findings from our report into the state of “greening” policies across EU militaries.
Ellie Kinney landed at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh on a mission to advocate for better reporting of military greenhouse gas emissions, here’s what she found.
Ellie Kinney explores how liberal and conservative MEPs blocked an initiative that would have contributed towards improving European military emissions reporting in the run up to COP27.
As the impact of the climate crisis continues to grow, rapid emissions cuts are becoming ever more urgent. Our new report finds that militaries may be responsible for 5.5% of global emissions – a proportion so great that it can no longer be ignored.
Ellie Kinney explains why we have launched a new campaign ahead of COP27 urging NATO to come clean on its military emissions reporting.
Climate action tracking websites and reports play a vital role in driving the climate action of states and corporations but as Ellie Kinney writes, the leading climate tracking sites remain silent on military emissions.
It looks like NATO has pledged to reduce its institutional emissions but won’t publish the methodology it will use to count them. Doug Weir argues that this lack of transparency underscores the importance of military emissions instead being addressed by the UNFCCC.
What sources of greenhouse gas emissions should militaries be tracking and reporting on? Ellie Kinney introduces our new report, which examines military emissions in both peacetime and during conflicts.
The electrification of military vehicles will increase demand for batteries, yet forthcoming EU battery legislation contains a blanket military exemption. Piotr Barczak and Linsey Cottrell explain why the exemption challenges military greening claims.
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.
This paper critically examines UK Ministry of Defence claims over reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its UK military bases. It is found that the MOD is on course to exceed these targets, but that is only because the targets are very weak and undemanding.
Bonn Climate Change Conference side event on how the UNFCCC’s Global Stocktake could help close the military and conflict emissions gap.
Report mapping out EU military environmental policies and “greening” initiatives, including the extent to which environmental performance reporting is made publicly available. The review also draws on direct feedback from EU defence ministries on their environmental policies, as well as from other stakeholders with an interest in military environmental policy.
In this joint study with Scientists for Global Responsibility, we provide updated estimates for global and regional military GHG emissions, finding that the total military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions.
A concise policy brief on military and conflict greenhouse gas emissions with recommendations for states on reporting and mitigating them.
CEOBS worked with our academic partners in the Military Emissions Gap to produce a Nature commentary ahead of COP27.
Join us as we launch our annual update on the state of military greenhouse gas reporting, plus an advance look at the first ever global military emissions estimate.
RUSI invited CEOBS to collaborate on a series of podcasts looking at the steps that the UK Ministry of Defence and the industries that support it are taking to address and reduce their environmental footprint.
NATO has pledged to cut its carbon emissions but is refusing to share how it will count them. Will your organisation join us in calling for NATO to make its methodology public, and for NATO member states to commit to military emissions reductions that are consistent with the Paris Agreement?
This paper examines the need for military greenhouse gas emissions reporting, its functions and components, and sets out an initial framework for the military sources that emissions reporting should cover, including those associated with armed conflicts.
In this report, Leonie Nimmo and Hana Manjusak examine the environmental Corporate Social Responsibility reporting of some of the world’s biggest arms companies, and discover that it may be far more useful than you might think.
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.
