When it comes to the climate crisis, national militaries continue to receive exceptional/special treatment. Unlike other institutions, they remain protected from any consequential political scrutiny and accountability regarding their contribution to the climate crisis. At the behest of the United States, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set a precedent by providing an exception to militaries for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Climate Agreement later reaffirmed the Kyoto Protocol’s position on military activity was reaffirmed in 2015. The reason given for this continued exceptional treatment is to not undermine national security.
Due to this exemption, there are no official emissions data available for militaries. The best estimate on global military greenhouse gas emissions comes from the Conflict and Environment Observatory and Scientists for Global Responsibility, the former is a nonprofit research organization focused on raising awareness of the environmental costs of military activity and conflicts, while the latter is a UK-based professional research and advocacy network promoting ethical science. In 2022, the organizations estimated that 5.5 percent of global emissions can be traced back to state militaries. To put this in perspective, if all national militaries were a single country, they would be the fourth highest global emitter ahead of Russia. The U.S. military holds the special designation of being the world’s largest institutional consumer of petroleum and, therefore, the highest institutional producer of greenhouse gas emissions.
The preservation of security — national, regional, and/or global — is a profitable narrative in the context of fossil fuel investments. In the United States, the need to preserve national security is used to maintain and perpetuate direct military fossil fuel investments, but it is also used to rationalize fossil fuel investments in other sectors. For instance, Amy Westervelt, a climate journalist, argues that the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War and the resulting energy crisis in Europe have allowed the gas industry and supportive lawmakers in the United States to push forward investments in liquified natural gas exports (LNG). In 2022, the first year of the Russia-Ukraine war, U.S. natural gas exports reached a record high of 6.9 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). This record is projected to have been topped again in 2023 with the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimating that 7.5 Tcf of LNG was exported during the year. While the Biden Administration recently announced a temporary pause on the approval of new LNG export projects, climate journalists like Emily Atkins find it difficult to view it as a major blow to the gas industry since the freeze does not extend to current operating export facilities. LNG gas exports and (as a result) emissions are expected to grow in the coming years. Vulnerable communities facing environmental damage caused by the export boom will continue to do so going forward.
The overarching climate and environmental impact of the special treatment the military receives is substantial. Doug Weir, the director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory, believes that increased public awareness of this through media coverage, social media, on the war in Ukraine and Israeli military operations in the Occupied Gaza Strip may continue to increase calls for greater accountability and an end to military exceptionalism such as during the recent COP28.
