Key Takeaways
Military and Defence industry activities are estimated to have contributed to 1%–5% of global emissions.
These emissions were mainly distributed among air forces (~20–25%), navies (~30–35%), and armies (~30–35%).
It is unavoidable to cut off operating emissions; some rather choose to maximize supportive units like efficient energy use or using artificial intelligence.
Climate change has gained attention on a global scale, including defence sector. While, the world is currently working together under the regime of the Paris Agreement to mitigate and prevent the rising of average global temperature from above, the increased use of current defence technologies leads to higher emissions, directly impacting climate change. Conversely, environmental changes can also affect the effectiveness of military operations. This article will discuss the intersection of climate change in the military and defence industries from the perspective of climate mitigation.
Amidst increasing ambitions in tackling climate change, defence sector was seen to be off the radar in adopting climate action mitigation. It is estimated that the military and defence industry account for 1% to 5% of worldwide emissions. To be specifics, approximately 65–70% stems from the operation of military platforms and ~30% from stationary assets, with the remaining share coming from the supply chain for military equipment. Part of these emissions are produced by the vast amounts of land owned by the military. The air forces accounted for around 20–25% of these emissions, followed by the navy (~30–35%) and the army (~30–35%).
The ongoing conflict has significantly increased emissions, particularly through the deployment of weapons that worsen the effects of climate change. The use of fossil fuels and chemistry has worsened soil, water, and air in the front. In Gaza, the vast majority (over 99%) of the 281,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2 equivalent) have been generated in the first 60 days following the 7 October Hamas attack and can be attributed to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion. Moving north, the two-year Russo-Ukraine war has generated at least 175m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) amid a surge in emissions from direct warfare, landscape fires, rerouted flights, forced migration and leaks caused by military attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure – as well as the future carbon cost of reconstruction.
Furthermore, previous studies suggest the true carbon footprint of a war may be five to eight times greater if emissions from the full war supply chain were considered. As a comparison, emissions generated by two months of war since October 2023 surpass the annual emissions for the Central African Republic. The number will also increase significantly if we calculate the cost of emissions during reconstruction of Gaza.
Retrospective views.
Other factors that resulted from the climate change also affect how the military and defence industries should operate. This includes the effects of drought, unusually excessive heavy rain, and global warming. For example, militaries job sometimes will be increasingly overstretched as climate change intensifies and the pace of extreme weather events increases. This will lead to the countries' increased reliance on military forces as first aid and responders in the event of disaster. Another instance is the Great Flood in Jakarta at the beginning of 2020. The military airport, which also functions partially as a commercial airport, has been flooding and hindering operations for a while as the runway is covered by the water. Other instances come from the rise of sea levels that might also affect the viability and utility of some naval ports, droughts that can disrupt logistics and food security, and deforestation that could make some military bases more difficult to operate. Those will affect readiness of the military ability to carry out operations in a timely manner. As having a stable and secure military infrastructure, including bases, supplies, and logistic is essential in order to carry out missions.
From an operations viewpoint, climate change has significant aspects on military capabilities, effectiveness, and employment. For example, antisubmarine capabilities will be suffered when sound propagation is altered by water temperature and salinity, where the impact detection range will be contracting. This is also applied to certain military operations, whether they be warfighting operations or humanitarian missions. It also have a substantial impact on the supply lines and logistical capacity of armed forces operating in "theatre". Consequently,history has shown us how climatic events affect the tide of war, like the collapse of the Roman Empire, the defeat of Napoleon at the Waterloo, and the delay of Israel's land invasion due to flooding in Gaza.
On the top-level viewpoint, climate change can impact military strategy by increasing the possibility of destabilizing conditions in strategically significant regions of the world. In the Arctic, a decreasing ice cap, combined with rising tensions between Russia and other Arctic nations, raises the possibility of confrontation. Migrating fish stocks in the South China Sea may create pressures on the fishing industry to move into contested waters, leading to increased tensions between China, its neighbours, and the United States. These risks can increase the likelihood of militaries being called on to resolve conflicts or provide post-conflict assistance. All of these factors will put demand and strain on military strategies.
How Military and Defence Industry can Contribute.
To decarbonise 1%-5% of global emission from military and defence sector are the most difficult
Decarbonizing 1%–5% of global emissions from the military and defence sectors is the most difficult compared to other sectors. With the vantage point of nation security, especially to fortify defence, the nature of humans will prioritize the shortcut ways and the most comfort threshold. It can be understandable that the focus of mitigating must not come at the expense of operational effectiveness. However, by leveraging the multiple levers at their disposal, end users and their supply chains may drive evolutionary and revolutionary change, enhancing efficiency, reorganizing operations, and adopting new technologies. Pentagon has stated that there will be no way to curtail operations but will focus on maximizing the impact of energy use, efficiency, and other intelligence measures. In line with this, France’s Armed Forces Ministry said is “take into account the specific nature of the defence mission in collective efforts to mitigate and transition to energy, with the emphasizing that they do not affect the operational performance and superiority of the forces,".
Nonetheless, a more green and sustainable defence industry has become a goal in a number of communities and regional cooperation. In the European Climate Goals, this paradigm has set a solid position for the argument that military activities are preconceived as not environmentally friendly, taking into account that the activities are classified not only as the bad but also as dirty as they incorporate a high stake in fossil fuels. In Europe, there is a design to address sustainability challenges, including implementing more eco-design concepts and transitioning the process and products. Sure, many scopes can be addressed, like replacing fighter training jets with simulation or considering changing the fuel. Some are also abating technology by implementing solar panels in naval bases, replacing fluorescent lighting with high-efficiency LEDs, and monitoring software for the ship. In Portsmouth Naval Base, the carbon emission is reduced in a Ballpark estimate from 100.000 tCO2e/year to 35.000 tCO2e/year.
Some recommendations for integrated environmental and sustainability aspects in the military and defence industries have been advocated. For example, Australia prioritized the integrated defence and deterrence strategies, including resilience levels in civilian infrastructure, especially to be restored in the event it is lost or interrupted (during severe weather occurrences). The EU, under the EU-green deal, has pushed defence industry more significant to be more green. This act includes more sustainable aviation fuels and greener energy. This was agreed by the big defence industry, say Airbus, Boeing, and GE Aerospace, among others. Think tank in the US has raised the issue and the official has said that the climate change is already disrupting military and it will get worse. EU defence industry itself has been introduced in reducing GHG emissions which follow a common approach in determining emission source using scope 1,2 and 3.
Table 1 – GHG emission scopes of the defence industry
Scope 1 | Operations 5-10% | Electricity and heat for manufacture |
Scope 2 | Upstream emission 20-30% | Transport of supplies and travel |
Scope 3 | Downstream emissions >65% | Use of products, transport and product disposal. This include the operations of jet flight, tank and other related activities |
Overall, the climate consequences of war involving defence and equipment are rarely discussed by academia, international forum, and experts focus on abating well-known sectors in energy and forestry. The Guardian wrote in the event of COP 28 in Dubai last year, the unfolding humanitarian and environmental catastrophe in Gaza and Ukraine put war, security, and the climate crisis on discussion but did not lead to any meaningful steps towards increasing transparency and accountability for armed forces or the military industry, especially pushing the military and defence industry in the line of green and sustainable corridors.
Considering the environmental effect of climate change, it can be said that it is the responsibility of all stakeholders in defence industry, including donors, procurements, and country supporters, to contribute to mitigating climate change in the sector of defence and military. This should cover the identification of threats and opportunities while also utilizing all options, especially for quick wins like promoting market and non-market mechanisms for hard-abating technologies/military equipment, the use of cutting-edge technology, sustainable aviation fuel, increasing the use of renewable energy, considering decarbonization in the process of manufacture and supply chain during procurement and the strategy as well.
***
Disclaimer
This content is part of ISI Commentaries to serve the latest comprehensive and reliable analysis on International Relations, security, politics, and social-cultural in Indo-Pacific Region. Read more how to to submit it: https://www.isi-indonesia.com/write-for-us
Under: Defence Economic Division
About the writer
Arrozaq is passionate about working in the fields of economics, energy, and sustainability. Arrozaq has been working as a government official as Senior Policy Analyst at the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs - Republic of Indonesia for 5 years. Specifically on sustainability, energy and climate change sectors. With his commitment to sustainability and the economy, Arrozaq has been certified as SDG Leader by UNDP, Australian Award and has become one of the best government officers in ministry. Arrozaq is also active on a number of international forums like G20, OECD, OIC, ASEAN and others.
In the meantime, Arrozaq is assigned as executive secretary in Indonesia JCM Secretariat, which promotes low carbon development in Indonesia. This bilateral cooperation between Japan and Indonesia with the concept of carbon offsetting, is equipped with methodology, consultations, verification and validation according to ISO 14045. There are 56 Decarbonizations projects under Arrozaq supervision of which 12 of them have issued carbon credits. Arrozaq graduated from ITB (Bachelor of Engineering), and got Master's from Mercu Buana University (Management) and Trisakti University (Economy). Arrozaq also plays roles as associates at Think Policy (Public Policy Think Tank).
Comentários