Guest Article: CCPI x Military Emissions Gap – How Military Emissions Impact Global Warming
Ellie Kinney is Advocacy Climate Coordinator at the Conflict and Environment Observatory. The Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) works to reduce the harm to people and ecosystems from armed conflicts and military activities. We launched the Military Emissions Gap in 2021 to track and analyse military emissions data, and advocate for accountability for the military’s contribution to the climate crisis.
Militaries are huge energy users whose greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) make a significant contribution to the climate crisis. However, countries do not systematically record and report their military missions, so the real share of this type of emissions remains unclear – this is known as the military emissions gap. The Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) and the Scientists for Global Responsibility estimate that everyday military activity could be responsible for around 5.5% of global emissions, meaning that if the world’s militaries were a country, they would be the fourth largest emitter in the world.
Furthermore, this 5.5% estimate does not take into account the significant climate impact of armed conflicts themselves. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted the first comprehensive estimate of the climate impact of an ongoing armed conflict, with researchers estimating that the first two years of the invasion caused emissions greater than the annual output of an industrialised country like the Netherlands.
To keep the Paris Agreement promises in reach and limit global warming to 1.5°C-2°C, emissions must be halved by 2030. But governments cannot manage what they do not measure, and climate action trackers like the CCPI cannot analyse what governments do not report. Currently, no government is obliged to report the emissions from their military activity to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), so many don’t. A comprehensive data basis is an important first step for measuring progress, promoting informed policy making, and holding countries responsible for their actions.
The missing emissions
It is not only the CCPI whose analysis is impacted by this lack of data: CEOBS analysis of leading climate action tracking websites found that none highlighted the military as a sector to be considered, none published figures or estimates on military emissions, and none evaluated countries’ pledges to reduce them.
The UNFCCC obliges Annex I countries to report on their emissions every year, data which provides the foundation, in part, for climate action analysis. But because reporting military fuel use emissions is only voluntary, data is often absent, incomplete or combined with other emission data. The military sector produces emissions from a wide range of activities, including the operation of military bases, training and military exercise areas, and the effect of warfare. With no standardised approach to reporting military emissions data and no internationally agreed framework for measuring emissions from armed conflicts, data is either not available or is not sufficiently reliable to be included in robust climate action tracker methodologies.
Hostage to the military reporting gap?
The availability of accurate and accessible data is key to ensuring that major emitters can be held accountable and that their decarbonisation plans can be scrutinised. Climate action tracking websites and reports play an important role in this, providing expert analysis alongside key statistics to give an overview of a country’s or company’s climate action. In turn, this analysis drives media scrutiny of climate policies, triggers debates amongst parliamentarians, and even influences financial investments.
Unfortunately, it is not surprising that data on military emissions is absent across climate tracking websites; researchers can only populate websites and reports based on the information available to them and, at present, governments are not obliged to comprehensively report on the emissions from militaries.
Switching up the world of indices
The knock on impact for climate action trackers like the CCPI is that countries can simultaneously rank highly for climate action, whilst also having large military budgets, inevitably making them responsible for significant volumes of under-reported or uncategorised military emissions. For example, India has risen up the CCPI ranks to 7th place in CCPI 2024, whilst also maintaining its position as the 4th largest military spender globally. As a Non-Annex I country, the UNFCCC requires limited reporting of India’s national emissions, meaning that we have no publicly available data on the climate impacts of its $83.6 billion military budget. Whilst the Indian Armed Forces do appear to be responding and adapting to the climate crisis, the latest National Communication for India fails to include any GHG emissions data from military fuel use or refer to any clear national military climate mitigation policy, despite referencing the use of bio-fuels for military aircraft.
The situation is not much clearer for Annex I countries. In 2021, CEOBS and Scientists for Global Responsibility examined the carbon footprint of the European Union’s militaries, including both the national armed forces, and military technology industries. From the available data, the carbon footprint of the EU military was estimated to be approximately 24.8 million tonnes of CO2e, equivalent to the annual emissions of about 14 million cars. This is a likely conservative estimate, and was carried out before the EU’s military spending has surged, which has seen the combined military spending budgets of the 27 member states rising by over 44%. Research suggests that military build-ups result in both total emissions and emission intensity increases; for a percentage point increase in military spending, total emissions are estimated to increase by 0.9-2%, and intensity emissions by 1%.
In the CCPI 2024, the EU climbed three places in the CCPI to 16th position. This was partly due to the adoption of the EU’s Fit for 55-package, aimed at reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 and to achieve net zero by 2050. This year, EDA Deputy Chief Executive André Denk noted that “The EU’s goal to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot be achieved without the engagement of the defence sector”, and yet Europe’s armed forces are not subject to any emissions reductions obligations under EU law – in fact, they remain exempt.[1]
Scrutiny and transparency
To those who argue that emissions related to militaries are a special case, it is worth noting that, although defence is rarely listed as a standalone industry on tracking websites, some of the top 10 arms companies appear on the Net Zero Tracker, Carbon Disclosure Project, and the Transition Pathway Initiative. Both the UN’s Race to Zero campaign and the Carbon Disclosure Project include industry categories which cover military aircraft, munitions, and equipment.
A review in 2021 noted that reporting within the military technology sector is ‘relatively progressive’, at least within the parameters of standard Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting at the time. It is likely that companies like BAE Systems, Raytheon Technologies, and Lockheed Martin, would not be engaged with climate action initiatives without external pressure from shareholders and investors around Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting, or without developments in legislation such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive in the EU.
Some of the world’s largest military technology companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Thales, have set ambitious net zero targets. This suggests that the pressure on companies to at least appear green, and withstand scrutiny of their CSR strategies and ESG reporting, should result in a positive impact on the sector’s approach to climate action. Legislation and climate action tracking clearly puts the heat on military technology companies – shouldn’t militaries themselves feel the same pressure?
What can change?
Firstly, this predicament points to the need for thorough and transparent reporting of military emissions to the UNFCCC. Scrutiny can help drive emission reductions, and transparency makes it possible for progress to be monitored. Without accessible reporting, this data gap will continue to contribute to an accountability gap. So far, the only place that collects the available data on military emissions is the Military Emissions Gap website, which brings together the limited data that does get reported to the UNFCCC alongside key facts such as military spending data, tied together with our independent analysis. A standardised approach to military emissions reporting across countries, which is mandatory, would allow for far more accurate analysis and comparison from a far greater range of stakeholders.
Crucially, climate action trackers do not need to wait for updated UNFCCC reporting guidelines to hold militaries accountable for their contribution to global emissions – in fact, they can be part of leading the change. At the moment, the omission of even incomplete data and the lack of commentary around the issue only serves to perpetuate the military emissions gap. Yet, as more countries release ‘in-country’ reporting of military emissions, published on government websites as opposed to being reported via the UNFCCC, as well as military climate mitigation strategies, it is vital that these are independently assessed. The CEOBS has produced checklists for assessing military emissions mitigation strategies and reporting, supporting independent actors to compare the validity of both strategies and emissions reporting against good practice and internationally recognised standards. This provides the opportunity for much needed scrutiny, to allow genuine progressive climate action to be highlighted and avoid the risk of military greenwashing.
In the spotlight
Militaries are responsible for significant emissions and yet face little to no scrutiny of their contribution to the climate crisis. In the UK alone, the Ministry of Defence is responsible for more than 50% of central government’s emissions. Similarly, the US Department of Defence’s climate footprint exceeds that of nearly 140 countries. Climate action trackers like the CCPI play a key role in providing easily accessible data and analysis, shining a spotlight on those who are leading forward and lagging behind on climate action. This analysis can be strengthened by incorporating the climate impacts of militaries and governments’ efforts to mitigate this.
The military emissions gap has meant that militaries have flown under the radar when it comes to their contribution to climate change – it is time to put military emissions in the spotlight and start holding militaries accountable for their impact.
[1] The set of legislation to deliver the ‘Fit for 55’ package covers the regulation of maritime fuel, aviation fuel, and energy efficiency which all include exemptions for the military.