Greenhouse gas emissions Armies are warming the climate and polluting more than many states combined

The U.S. military alone is the 47th largest consumer of fuel in the world. The armed forces and the arms industry account for up to five percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

World states at the Glasgow climate summit as a result of a two-week handshake agreement, which many participants reproached watered down.

There is another important point to offer in terms of disappointment.

Indeed, the final statement of the Glasgow meeting does not mention the paralyzed word on the climate impact of the arms industry and the armed forces, even though they are among the world’s largest emitters. They were not discussed at all at the meeting.

The statistics only give a rough idea of ​​the environmental impact of military action. States systematically conceal their purchases and consumption for strategic, domestic and foreign policy reasons, notes Conflict and Environment Observatory -organization.

It’s about is still a very large set of emissions.

Major warfare equipment such as tanks, the majority of warships, fighter and bomb vehicles, and vehicles used to transport troops, artillery, or missile batteries are, for the most part, greedy energy cancers.

A U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft flew over the USS Coronado during exercises in the Pacific in April.

They rely heavily on fossil fuels. No army yet takes the risk of having to direct an electric tank to a charging station in the middle of an attack.

Emissions from the armed forces and the arms industry account for up to five percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it counts Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) Doctor of Climate Sciences Stuart Parkinson.

He has served as an expert to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which advises the United Nations on climate change.

“Adding to this the effects of military action, military action accounts for six percent of humanity’s carbon footprint, meaning it pollutes more than all civil aviation combined,” Parkinson compares.

Of these the reporting or cutting of emissions is still, in practice, still a matter for national discretion.

Thus, one of the world’s largest emitters has been left almost free to declare its emissions and carbon footprint.

The phenomenon distorts the picture and hampers the achievement of both Glasgow and previously set climate targets.

“As the world’s arms costs continue to rise but other emissions fall, the loophole will only grow,” says Parkinson. The Guardian in the newspaper.

The transfer of troops requires a large number of vehicles. India sent more troops to Jammu and Kashmir in September 2020. Underlying tensions between India and China.

Strictly the obligation to reduce emissions from the armed forces and the arms industry, or their transparent recording, has been opposed by the United States, by far the world’s largest station.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was the first binding international climate agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result of severe US pressure, all emissions from the armed forces and the arms industry were excluded from the agreement, IPSnews agency writes.

The U.S. climate ambassador to Glasgow was John Kerry, which was already present at the Kyoto meeting. Kerry praised the United States at the time to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs submission of arms emissions from the protocol as a “great achievement”.

Helicopters watched the military patrol in the evening.

Next the step to end secrecy was only taken in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. However, it has remained a leather decision.

The parties agree The Atlantic –according to the newspaper, it is up to each state to decide and report emissions from its armies and arms industry.

As a result, many of them go unreported, concludes a researcher at the Dutch research institute Cligendael. Louise van Schaik to the British Economistto the financial magazine.

Binding emission reduction commitments by industrialized countries and the EU include an annual emissions report to be submitted to the UNFCCC.

However, the level of reporting of emissions from military activities is weak and has serious shortcomings, statement conducted by British university researchers Doug Weir, Benjamin Neimark and Oliver Belcher The Conversation in an online publication.

In France estimated to be from EU armies the largest emissions, about a third of all. However, it does not report any of them to the UNFCCC, as the information is “confidential”, according to the SGR and the Conflict and Environment Observatory. statement notes.

The carbon footprint of the British Armed Forces is, in fact, almost four times that of the country’s Department of Defense, SGRorganization counts.

States that are not required to report their emissions to the UNFCCC report their military emissions even worse, if at all, British researchers note.

Such countries with large defense budgets include China, India, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and other rich oil-producing countries in the Gulf.

Paris emissions from states’ military operations abroad were also excluded from the climate agreement.

Yet, for example, 70 percent of U.S. armed forces ’energy consumption occurs abroad. Much of it is due to the transfer and equipping of troops and military equipment, says Britain Royal Geographical Society research.

The United States has more than 750 military bases in more than 80 countries around the world and 173,000 troops in more than 150 countries. Size this network operates on the basis of continuous worldwide maintenance deliveries.

“If the U.S. military were a state, its fuel consumption alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases.”

Armies maintenance is therefore more harmful to the climate than their operation.

Emissions from the supply chains of multinational companies are more than five times higher than from their other activities, CDP-organization. It collects data on greenhouse gas emissions and the fight against climate change in cooperation with the business world.

Armies are comparable to large companies. The U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest fossil fuel organization, recalls Brown University in the United States. Costs of War research program.

Thus, the U.S. Armed Forces is also the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. It produces more emissions than the 140 smallest countries in the world combined.

“And if the U.S. military were a state, its fuel consumption alone would make it the world’s 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases,” British researchers Weir, Neimark and Belcher compare.

The effects of wars and conflicts are also not reflected in the emissions calculations.

The US occupation of Iraq, which began in 2003, emitted as much emissions between 2003 and 2007 as if 25 million new fossil fuel cars had entered the market, compare Oil Change International-organization.

The United States accounted for 39% of global defense spending of around € 1,700 billion in 2020, says the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Sipri.

While the United States is still completely wrestling in its own series, China (13 percent) is constantly closing the gap. It spent € 215 billion on military activities last year, fourteen times more than in 1989.

The Chinese Xian Y-20 transport aircraft is a giant state-owned production.

Kaukana kin the wake of the great one come India (3.7), Russia (3.1) and Britain (3.0 per cent).

Although the corona pandemic plunged the world’s GDP to 4.4 percent last year, station spending still rose 2.6 percent from a year earlier, Sipri recalls. Top 25 arms manufacturers increased their sales up to 8.5 percent in 2019.

Old replacing equipment with the latest weapons technology does not necessarily reduce emissions, Norwegian environmental organizations point out.

The F-35, chosen as the Norwegian Air Force’s new fighter jet, consumes 60 per cent more jet fuel per hour than the F-16 fighter jets they replace. Dagsavisen says.

The acquisition of a total of 52 F-35 fighters will repeal all current climate action by the Norwegian Defense Forces and increase emissions from the armed forces at least 30 percent by 2030, environmental organizations criticize.

The F-35, manufactured by the American company Lockheed Martin, is also one of Finland’s future ones fighter acquisition options.

States security objectives or requirements to maintain defense capabilities are virtually impossible to meet.

The arms industry maintains a cycle of racing equipment by offering its customers ever new products that are better than their competitors: larger warships, faster and more efficient fighter jets, more destructive missiles.

Therefore, reducing emissions from military activities should not be left to the discretion of states, SGR researchers emphasize. However, the silence on emissions from military action at the Glasgow climate summit shows how sensitive the issue is still.

Russia is celebrating the victory of the war against Germany in the spring. A lot of heavy equipment took part in the parade of the Great Patriotic War again this year.

Major military powers see tightening climate requirements as a risk complicating the operations of their armed forces.

Former CIA Director-General of the Central Intelligence Service and former Commander-in-Chief of the American Iraqi Forces David Petraeus recently described fossil fuels as “the lifeline of U.S. warfare.”

Dare to raise the issue at next year’s climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, is still a mystery, the news agency Reuters notes.

#Greenhouse #gas #emissions #Armies #warming #climate #polluting #states #combined

Related Posts

Next Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.