Five percent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions are a result of the activities of the military sector.
 |
| [Military and environment] |
The aggressive war that Russia has been waging against Ukraine has done significant damage to the established order of peace and security in Europe. It is the most recent incident in a string of crises and is functioning as a "accelerator" for the profound upheaval of the international order that has been developing for some time. This shift has been forming for some time.
This upheaval happens at a time when severe global issues are occurring, which are addressed together under the term of the Anthropocene. Multiple planetary limits have already been breached, and the danger that climate change poses to the safety of humans has existed for some time. In response to this, the European Commission has since 2019 been working toward the implementation of the European Green New Deal, which will include significant reductions in emission levels.
Nevertheless, Putin's criticism fundamentally shifts the policy framework regarding the environment. Since the beginning of the conflict, many countries that are a part of the European Union have imported significant amounts of fossil fuels from Russia. As a result, Russia has amassed record-breaking income in the billions of dollars. In May of 2022, the European Commission unveiled their " REPowerEU " plan with the intention of putting an end to their dependence on imports while simultaneously implementing their climate policy objectives.
At the same time, a number of governments are boosting the amount of money they spend on their military. The decision to establish a dedicated fund for the Bundeswehr was made by the Bundestag. This increase in defense spending seems necessary in combination with a reform of the procurement system in light of the glaring deficiencies in the equipment used by the German armed forces and the attack that was launched by the Russians; however, it is in conflict with efforts to combat climate change.
There is a conflict between climate change and military defense. The improvement of NATO troops' equipment might be a factor in reducing the number of belligerent nations. On the other hand, it does not provide any defense against climate change. Even when the military is called out to respond to climate-related disasters like hurricanes or pandemics, all they can do is fight the more severe symptoms of climate change.
Due to the fact that climate change presents a significant number of obstacles, many military forces, such as those in the United States of America, France, Great Britain, Australia, and other nations, are now dealing with the issue. The ability of the military to operate effectively is being hindered by shifting environmental conditions. At the same time, the armed forces are being called upon more frequently to assist in disaster relief and humanitarian efforts. In addition, the military is responsible for a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
More frequent occurrences of severe weather are a direct consequence of climate change. The effects on bases have been studied extensively, notably for the United States. The harmful consequences of extreme weather have been reported by fifty percent of US military sites. This results in very significant harm. Hurricane Michael, which struck Florida in 2018, caused significant damage to the Tyndall Air Force Base in a matter of hours. This resulted in damage that was measured in the billions. The Norfolk Naval Shipyards in Virginia, which is the biggest naval facility in the world, is often impacted by flooding. The melting of the ice underneath the runways, hangars, and roadways at U.S. and name Rican military outposts in the Arctic poses a threat to such facilities.
Alterations to the environment can make it more difficult to operate military hardware effectively. For instance, the Norwegian military has issued a warning that the performance of its fighter planes may suffer as a result of changes in the composition of the surrounding atmosphere. Extreme weather hinders the mobility and operational preparedness of troops, for example in the context of peacekeeping deployments. Soldiers and ammunition depots are both put in harm's way when heat waves occur.
More severe weather and natural catastrophes will inevitably result in an increase in the number of civil protection activities. The capacity of many armed forces to deploy heavy equipment into tough terrain where civilian infrastructure has been damaged enables them to help rescue, supply, and restoration efforts in areas where civilian infrastructure has been destroyed.
However, beyond the immediate response to catastrophic events, the capabilities of the armed services to assist in the management of climate change by the general public are quite limited. There is a lot of discussion over whether or not climate change is a factor in the escalation of violence. On the other hand, a number of studies have shown that the level of development of the local institutions has a crucial role in determining whether or not catastrophic weather catastrophes result in social unrest. In light of the fact that the military operation in Afghanistan was a complete failure, it is very questionable as to whether or not military-backed stabilization operations can play a part in the long-term resolution of conflicts that have been exacerbated by climate change.
Not only are members of the armed forces impacted by the effects of climate change, but they also substantially contribute to the problem. One estimate puts the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions from military activities at around 5 percent of total world emissions. Because of the numerous particular laws that apply to military emissions, the reported emissions do not represent the real level. This is despite the fact that the Paris Climate Agreement requires member states to give regular information on national greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, there are numbers accessible for a number of western military services. One analysis suggests that the United States of America and Canada are the most forthcoming when it comes to recording their emissions among NATO members. The United States Department of Defense's emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest of any government agency in the world. The emissions produced by the military forces of the United States account for three quarters of the total emissions produced by the government in the United States. On the other hand, the Bundeswehr only provides partial information about military emissions.
More and more often, Western military forces are stating their aim to cut the amount of carbon they produce. At the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP26, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said that achieving climate neutrality is impossible without first lowering emissions from military activities. Recently, two branches of the United States Armed Forces announced their own climate strategy. In comparison to their levels in 2005, the United States Army intends to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by fifty percent by the year 2030, and their ultimate goal is to become climate neutral by the year 2050. When compared to 2008, the United States Navy is even considering a reduction of 65 percent by the year 2032. Several other nations, including South Korea, Japan, and Canada, have also included reductions in military emissions into their respective national security objectives in recent years. On the other hand, it would seem that neither the military forces of Russia nor China have made any announcements on reductions in emission levels as of yet.
Emissions from the military may be roughly classified into two categories. The transition to renewable energy sources and the refurbishment of existing buildings are relatively simple ways to produce cost savings in the area of infrastructure. It is going to be more challenging to cut down on emissions in the domain of military mobility. The fundamental issue is that massive pieces of machinery like main battle tanks, fighter planes, and warships need a significant amount of power to operate since they are either very heavy or move very rapidly.
Even in the Bundeswehr, it is clear that there would be challenges in establishing climate neutrality in the armed forces. If they did not have any international assignments in 2019, their emissions in both regions would have been roughly the same. Savings can be made very rapidly for the infrastructure sector, and the hitherto low percentage of non-fossil vehicles in the civil fleet of BwFuhrparkService GmbH may also be expanded in a timely way. Both of these outcomes are possible thanks to the BwFuhrparkService GmbH. However, in a position paper, the Bundeswehr said that it does not expect the usefulness of battery-powered or fuel-cell-powered vehicles for emergency and combat vehicles "even in the near future." [Citation needed] As a consequence of this, it would seem that the Bundeswehr has not been able to reach the announced objective of making Germany carbon neutral by the year 2045 excluded.
It is to be feared that the emissions produced by the military will continue to climb given the rise in the amount of money spent on arms around the globe. In the short to medium term, improved clearing conditions, the technical condition and operational capability of technical equipment as well as ground and aircraft vehicles, as well as larger tank and aircraft fleets in connection with increasing patrol and exercise activities will ensure that there is an increase in emissions. The carbon footprint of recently purchased large-scale equipment is where the attention should be directed in the medium run. One example is the fighter plane known as the F-35, which was meant to have a service life of more than half a century. Either the German Air Force will have to operate these aircraft on e-fuels or find some other means to compensate for the emissions they will cause in order for them to make a contribution to the protection of the climate. It is to be hoped that the carbon footprint will be taken into consideration in future large-scale procurements such as FCAS or MGCS. At the very least, the newly enacted Federal Armed Forces Procurement Acceleration Act urges government entities responsible for procurement to take environmental considerations into account.
Due to Russian aggression, Germany's military capabilities need to be enhanced; nevertheless, due to climate change, military emissions need to be lowered at the same time. This presents a conundrum for Germany's security strategy. The German government's security strategy need to speedily cut emissions in places where doing so is straightforwardly practicable. However, there is still a long way to go before large-scale equipment can be said to be climate-neutral, and this is particularly true when considering the climate balance of the equipment in its whole. Annalena Baerbock, the German Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, recently made the announcement that climate change would play an important part in the proposed national security policy. It is anticipated that the climatic footprint of the Bundeswehr will also be taken into consideration.
The author Anselm Vogler is a researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH).