Demilitarization for Deep Decarbonization

 

 

[Webpage editor's note: Too often the issues of climate change and war are separated. This important report  makes some of the connections.]

 

Executive Summary

We are on a path toward dangerous climate change without a radical restructuring of our economy and

energy systems. That is the stark scenario presented in the latest working group reports of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Over the past decade, almost ten gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent has been released into the atmosphere. In 2000, anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) were estimated at 40 GtCO2-eq and by 2010 they rose to 49 GtCO2-eq, which is a 25% increase over the period.1 Carbon dioxide is produced from the burning of fossil fuels for industry, transportation and buildings and is directly linked to the rise in global mean surface temperature. Since the pre-industrial age, the temperature has increased 0.8°C. Last year for the first time, CO2 was recorded at over 400 parts per million in volume in the atmosphere. In its latest statement on the status of the global climate, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) explained that thirteen of the fourteen warmest years have all occurred in the 21st century since recordkeeping began in 1850. The WMO also observed that natural disasters have increased fivefold since the 1970s, with more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts, hurricanes and flooding. The WMO added, “Each of the past three decades has been warmer than the last, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record.”2

 

Not only have carbon emissions increased for the past ten years, so too have military expenditures to a

record high. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that global military spending

was $839 billion in 2001 and rose to $1.6 trillion in 2011 – a 92% increase.3 The United States and its allies have spent trillions of dollars financing their deadly and destructive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars have had terrible social, economic and environmental costs and have made global warming much worse. Expensive weapons systems such as fighter jets, destroyers, and tanks are extremely energy inefficient and emit highly toxic, carbon-intense emissions. Oil Change International estimated that the U.S. military emitted 100 million metric tonnes of CO2 in fuelling its war in Iraq in five years.4 The U.S.

Department of Defense is the largest industrial consumer of fossil fuels in the world.5 It is also the top arms exporter and military spender at $640 billion, which accounts for 37% of the total. Other western countries that are top military spenders like the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, have high carbon emissions per capita.

 

Military expenditures are depriving the international community of the funds desperately needed to

mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Over the past two decades, the developed countries have provided a paltry $12.5 billion for the Global Environmental Facility, one of the first funding mechanisms under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC). In ten years, the Adaptation Fund has only disbursed $150 million to help developing countries, which are the most vulnerable and least responsible for climate change. In 2009 at the UNFCCC 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Copenhagen, developed countries made a commitment to raise $100 billion annually by 2020 for the Green Climate Fund to finance the national adaptation plans for developing countries. This is less than 1% of global annual military expenditures. Yet, wealthy, industrialized countries have failed to make adequate pledges to pay their climate debt.

 

At COP15, the developed countries also committed to limit the increase of the global mean temperature to

less than 2°C to prevent unabated, catastrophic climate change. Despite the Copenhagen accord, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Based on its latest observations and modelling, the IPCC determined that GHG emissions need to decrease to net zero by 2050 and that we must stay within a global carbon budget of approximately 825 GtCO2, to keep the temperature increase within the 2°C limit. To limit greenhouse gas emissions and stay within a carbon budget, a rapid decarbonization of the energy system is required.

 

To help countries chart a path to low-carbon energy systems and economies, the UN launched the Deep

Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP). The DDPP recently released its interim report with assessments for fifteen countries accounting for 70% of the GHG emissions.6 The report shows the different pathways that countries can take to reach net zero emissions with a mixed renewable energy system. However, the IPCC and the DDPP failed to include the fuel consumption and carbon emissions for the military in their calculations and analysis. According to the UNFCCC reporting guidelines, most of the military sector’s fuel consumption and emissions are excluded from national greenhouse gas inventories. While the military’s domestic fuel use is reported, international marine and aviation bunker fuels used on naval vessels and fighter aircraft outside national borders are not included in a country’s fuel and GHG total. The exemption of the military sector in calculations and reporting is because of the intense lobbying by the United States during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in the mid-1990s. Since then, the military’s carbon “bootprint” has been ignored. There is no mention of the military sector’s emissions in the fifth and latest IPCC assessment report. Without complete and transparent information about the emissions and impacts in the military sector, it will not be possible to develop and implement the mitigation and adaptation strategies needed to stabilize the climate. Though, the IPCC and DDPP have argued for decarbonization that supports sustainable development, they overlook one of the most carbon-intensive and environmentally-destructive sectors.

 

The problem of military expenditures and emissions must be confronted not only by the IPCC and the

DDPP, but the entire international community. We need to answer some basic questions: Why is spending for the military prioritized over spending on the climate and the environment? How much of the global carbon budget, if any amount, should be allocated to the military? And should the limited supply of fossil fuels be burned to build new weapons, drop bigger bombs, and fight more wars? In our new report,

Demilitarization for Deep Decarbonization, the International Peace Bureau argues that war must stop for global warming to slow down. Military expenditures must be reduced and re-directed for climate finance to create low carbon economies and climate-resilient communities. Disarmament must take place alongside mitigation and adaptation. The military is the problem, not the solution to the climate crisis.

 

This report provides an environmental perspective to the IPB’s dedicated work on disarmament for

development. It also builds on the analysis in our previous publications including Warfare or Welfare?

Disarmament for Development in the 21st Century released in 2005 and Opportunity Costs: Military

Spending and the UN’s Development Agenda published in 2012. The IPB argued that military spending

should be decreased for human security and meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

In this report, we begin with the latest findings of the IPCC and the emerging environmental issues in the

new yearbook of the UN Environment Programme. Part 2 reveals the many ways our fossil-fuel based

economy is destabilizing the climate and degrading the natural environment. In Part 3, we examine some of the impacts on the environment and the climate by the military. In Part 4, we compare climate financing

and military expenditures. We also look at how exemptions for the military were negotiated at the time of

the Kyoto Protocol and how military emissions are measured. Part 5 presents steps taken by civil society to raise awareness about the impacts of the military on the environment and climate and their calls for a

reduction of military expenditures including The Earth Charter in 2000, the People’s Agreement on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in 2010 and the new Peace Appeal: Stop the Wars, Stop the Warming launched this year. In Part 6, we propose six peace and disarmament pathways to decarbonize the planet and achieve sustainable development.

 

1. Disarm and demilitarize for climate justice and sustainable development.

In 2004, a UN Group of Governmental Experts released a report, The Relationship between Disarmament

and Development in the Current International Context, and advocated for the mainstreaming of the

disarmament-development relationship. Thus, an integrated parallel process of disarmament and

demilitarization must be pursued alongside climate mitigation and adaptation and the post-2015

development agenda.

 

2. Reduce and re-direct military spending to climate finance and research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D).

The International Energy Agency (IEA) calculated that the total additional investment needs for mitigation for the period 2010-2050 are US $45 trillion. The IEA also estimated that funding for climate RDD&D requires a two to five fold increase to $40-90 billion annually. Combined, this is approximately $1 trillion a year for mitigation and research for the next forty years and roughly equivalent to annual military expenditures.

 

3. Mitigate and adapt to prevent the drastic impacts of climate change in the Arctic, stop its

industrialization and militarization.

Countries, such as Russia, the United States, and Canada have plans for increased natural resource development and shipping in the Arctic. These countries are also modernizing their navies for the Arctic environment. Yet to protect this fragile ecosystem and stay within the carbon budget, oil and gas should stay under the ice. The region should be demilitarized, declared a nuclearweapons free zone and a zone of peace.

 

4. Convert defence industries into civilian, green industries to create a low-carbon economy.

The UN Group of Governmental Experts’ 2004 report, recommended that conversion should be encouraged for disarmament and development. To tackle the climate crisis, a conversion plan would help lay the foundation for building a green economy. A University of Massachusetts report found that more jobs could be created with $1 billion in government expenditures in health care, education, and construction than in the military.

 

5. Abolish nuclear weapons and avoid nuclear energy.

Due to the inherent link with nuclear weapons, nuclear power as a pathway to a low-carbon future should be avoided by the DDPP. Nuclear power risks cost-overruns and accidents. In its report, Nuclear Weapons Cost Study, Global Zero estimated that world spending to date on nuclear weapons exceeded one trillion dollars per decade and predicted that another trillion dollars will be spent over the next decade as countries modernize their arsenals.

 

6. Integrate cooperation, peacebuilding and nonviolence for climate-resilient communities.

Cooperation is necessary to stay within the carbon budget in an equitable and just way. The UNFCCC has established the cooperative architecture of diplomacy and the rule of law to peacefully resolve climate conflict. At the local level, peacebuilding and nonviolent conflict resolution help to ensure climate resiliency in communities. Climate change must not be securitized as a threat multiplier that requires a robust military response.

 

We conclude our report by urging civil society to join our global day of action and campaign on military

spending and to challenge the greenwash by weapons manufacturers and green warfighting by the military. We also offer several specific steps that UN agencies, international organizations and national governments can take to untangle this Gordian knot of militarism and the climate crisis. This year is the UN Year for Climate Action and the start of the UN Decade of Sustainable Energy for All to 2024. Next year, the 21st COP will be held in Paris, France and it is the crucial meeting to decide a new, legally binding mitigation agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol and to finance the GCF. There must be a groundswell of concerned citizens and international civil society to demand a reduction of militarism and military emissions and expenditures to stabilize the climate and ensure sustainable development. In their article, Paying for the Climate Change Pivot, authors Emily Schwartz Greco and John Feffer wrote, “Unless every nation ramps down military spending, we'll all lose the next big war over the fate of the Earth without even firing a shot.”

 

Endnotes:

 

1 IPCC (2013) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.[Online] Available at: http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

2 World Meteorological Organization (2014) WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2013 , [Online] Available at: http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15957#.VAC9G...

3 See the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbooks from 1994-2013 here:http://www.sipri.org/

4 Oil Change International (2008) A Climate of War: Behind the Numbers . Advance Edition report, [Online] Available at: http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2008/03/A%20Climate%20of%20War%20F...(March

%2017%202008).pdf

5 Schwartz, M. et al. (2012) Department of Defense Energy Initiatives: Background and Issues for Congress . Congressional Research Service, [Online] Available  at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42558.pdf

6 Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (2014) Pathways to Deep Decarbonization Interim 2014 Report , [Online] Available at:http://unsdsn.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2014/07/DDPP_interim_2014_report.pdf

7 Schwartz Greco, E. and Feffer, J. (2014) “Paying for the Climate Pivot,” Truthout, [Online] Available at:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/23322-paying-for-the-climate-change-pivot

 

[See the remainder of this 77 page report at:  http://ipb.org/uploads/documents/other_docs/Green_Booklet_working_paper_... ]