News

May 21, 2023

Decarbonizing Defense:  The Harsh Reality of Military Emissions

Published on By As countries push to minimize their carbon footprints, efforts

Published

on

By

As countries push to minimize their carbon footprints, efforts to reduce emissions within their defense sectors will play a central role in achieving sustainability targets. According to recent data published by Scientists for Global Responsibility, the total combined military emissions worldwide account for 5.5% of all global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, not including emissions from active warzones. For sake of comparison, if world militaries were counted as one country, they would represent the fourth largest carbon footprint worldwide. In the United Kingdom alone, the military, including its supply chain accounts for 50% of all government emissions. In the United States, the figure jumps to 80%. Simply put, net-zero ambitions are futile unless a holistic, all-of-government approach is taken to drastically cut GHG emissions.

However, military emission reporting has been inconsistent and unreliable from the start. Military GHG emissions are often undeclared or lumped together with civilian emission reporting. This is not an action undertaken inconspicuously, rather quite the opposite. In 1997 during the Kyoto Climate Negotiations, the Pentagon demanded exemptions for specific military operations from emission requirements. While countries are obliged under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to detail inventory of their GHG emissions – including military reporting, the signatories of the 2015 Paris Accords agreed that miliary emission reporting was to be voluntary – ultimately creating gaps and inaccurate data overall.

The challenge to reduce emissions has long remained a peripheral issue for most defense ministers as mission-critical capabilities such as safety, reliability, and performance have long remained the priority. Military emissions run inherently high compared to other sectors due to several factors. Heavy industry defense-related systems such missiles and weapons remain challenging to de-carbonize as their direct emissions are a result of necessary chemical reactions required to make them highly-functional, both in terms of speed and precision.

Considering all varieties of military transport are intrinsically reliant on fossil fuels only further complicates a clean energy transition. From army combat vehicles to fighter jets, ships and submarines -all such essential defense equipment requires some form of fuel that is derived from petroleum. For instance, on any given day a sizable U.S. Army division can consume up to nearly 6,000 gallons of gasoline – not to mention the fuel needed to ship such large quantities to military installations and active theatres of war worldwide.

Furthermore, investments in militarized heavy-duty systems typically have longer life-cycles, meaning fossil fuel reliant machinery in use today, such as tanks and jet-fuelled aircraft will remain operational for decades to come. In addition to the environmental damage brought on by an over-reliance on fossil fuels for the world's top militaries, this dependency also serves to undermine national security. The risk of inflated oil prices or a snap decision from oil CEO's to cut production can take hostage of military operations and foreign policy decision making.

Currently the US Department of Defense (DoD) is studying how to leverage its buying power as the government's largest energy consumer to optimize a transition to 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2030. The DoD has become increasingly reliant on lithium batteries to power both electric vehicles and unmanned systems. Which such technology drastically cuts the CO2 emitted from traditional internal combustion engines, three-quarters of the world's lithium batteries are manufactured in China where coal-fired power plants serve as the primary source of energy, undermining lithium's environmental purpose.

As a result of the complex challenges global defense ministries face in realistically cutting emissions without affecting defense-related capabilities that are critical for mission success, the UK, among others are adopting pragmatic, long-term goals to lessen their environmental impacts. Efforts include establishing supply chain decarbonization requirements for their suppliers, testing bio-fuels for efficiency in ships and aircraft, further optimizing areo- and hydro-dynamic designs to increase equipment performance, and studying the installation of carbon-capture systems which seize CO2 emissions from a polluting source and store the concentrate underground in reservoirs or geological formations.

In addition to minimizing military-related emission, defense ministries are prioritizing their readiness to respond to the physical impact climate change has on the natural environment which can compromise military effectiveness, posing serious risks to national security. For its part, the DoD has spent millions of dollars funding wargames to simulate climate-related weaknesses within the military's supply chains and analyse climate vulnerabilities for military bases at home and abroad.

For instance, U.S. coastal military installations which serve as critical logistical or training hubs will be subject to the impact of rising sea levels and remain vulnerable to flooding and extreme weather patterns which are expected to increase in pace and intensity. Rising temperatures amplifies the chances of heat-related health risks for soldiers, challenging troop readiness. Climate change has also impacted the severity and frequency of sandstorms which complicate visibility during reconnaissance missions.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently labelled climate change as a ‘crisis multiplier’ due to its ability to disrupt defense preparedness, jeopardize lives and livelihoods, and fuel geopolitical tensions over land and natural resources – including the availability of food and water resources, only to spur conflict and unrest. Active warzones serve as concentrated pollutant's, resulting in contaminated air, water, and soil, causing widespread devastation to surrounding biodiversity and wildlife.

In 2022 alone, global defense expenditures increased 3.7 percent – an all time high, reaching over $2.24 trillion. It is an inescapable fact that an increase in military spending will result in defense-related emissions to rise in unison. During the upcoming 28th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) which is scheduled to be held in Dubai this November, world governments will participate in the first "Global Stocktake" to asses if collective progress has been made in meeting the goals outlined of the Paris Agreement from 2015. If governments are genuinely aiming to limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius as agreed upon in the Paris Accords, there is no better opportunity that COP28 to re-address laps in military emission reporting.

While the obvious approach to reducing military emissions does not solely involve innovations in climate-tech or a transition to biofuels, but rather the immediate method towards decarbonizing defense is the simplest, albeit naïve option – banking on international cooperation and diplomacy to foster lasting stability. The question remains, do world leaders have the political will to invest in a sustainable, peaceful future – and more importantly, to divest in the methods that brought our environment to this dire, unattainable reality.

Finland's accession to NATO: What it means and why it matters?

Weather Warfare a Future Challenge for Pakistan

Gina Bou Serhal is a researcher at the Strategic Studies Department at Trends Research & Advisory, Dubai.

New offensive on Republika Srpska is coming

Shangri-La Dialogue: Li Shangfu accuses US of double standards in veiled attack

Russia, a country of perpetual war

U.S. seeks to add India in NATO plus

U.S. Must Be Cautious of Exploitative Motives behind AUKUS

Sweden's NATO Predicament and the Nations whose Destinies Connected

Published

on

By

For a long time, the Asia-Pacific region has been the epicentre of rising economic growth and strategic influence, gradually changing the dynamics of world power. Because of the rapid rise of China and India, the increasing influence of ASEAN, and the steady comebacks of Japan and South Korea, its significance has only increased in the twenty-first century. Given the ongoing challenges to the traditional dominance of Western powers, this shifting environment raises intriguing questions about the future of global stability.

The rise of China stands out as the most significant factor in this dynamic. China's phenomenal economic growth, along with its more assertive foreign policy and military modernization, have propelled it to the forefront of the global stage since the economic reform policies of the late 1970s. The Belt and Road Initiative, companies like Alibaba, and military actions in the South China Sea are just a few of the ways it is increasingly challenging the US-led international order. Due to its second-largest economy, China's actions and policies have a significant impact on the stability of the world.

Despite lagging behind China, India is another growing Asian power that has started on a path of significant economic expansion. It has the potential to play a significant role in the region due to its distinct demographic dividend, IT industry, and geostrategic location. However, it problems a insufficiency in infrastructure, social inequality, and enduring poverty hinder its potential and raise the level of complexity in the power dynamics of the area.

In the midst of this power shift, Japan and South Korea, two countries that are already major global players, have been rearranging their positions. The balance of power in the region is greatly influenced by their advanced economies, sizable military capabilities, and strategic alliances with the US. A crucial role in the region is also played by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). A seat at the table for shaping the future of the region has been secured for ASEAN despite its diversity and disparities thanks to its prominence in regional diplomatic structures like the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum.

Additionally crucial to this shifting dynamic are the Pacific powers, particularly the US and Australia. While the US remains the most powerful country on the planet, it must deal with these new regional forces, necessitating a reevaluation of its Asia-Pacific strategy. Australia's position has changed as well as a result of its efforts to strike a balance between its regional economic interests and its long-standing alliances. The effects of these changing power dynamics on world stability are significant. First, there is a chance that a power vacuum in the area could cause unrest and possible conflict. This is amply demonstrated by the South China Sea dispute, in which numerous nations are asserting territorial claims and frequently supporting them with military showdowns.

Second, the spread of power might also create more significant opportunities for cooperation and multilateralism. However, much of this depends on these countries’ ability to manage disagreements and rivalries as well as build inclusive and effective regional institutions. Thirdly, these changes might result in new economic structures that reshape international economic relationships and structures. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a free trade agreement involving 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific, is a good illustration of this. Last but not least, the changes in power may significantly affect international institutions and norms. As Asia-Pacific nations gain power, they may try to change international institutions so that they better represent their interests.

The main worry, however, is that these changes could result in more tensions and conflicts as countries with various political ideologies and systems compete for influence. For instance, the rivalry between the US and China goes beyond merely a contest of political and economic power. Several things are essential to preserving global stability in the midst of these shifting power dynamics. First and foremost, it is essential to promote a cooperative regional order based on mutual respect and gain. Second, preventing the escalation of regional disputes into conflict requires ensuring that they are settled peacefully in accordance with international law. Third, safeguarding and bolstering regional and international institutions will be essential for preserving stability and offering forums for communication and cooperation.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that the power dynamics in the Asia-Pacific are shifting. For the stability of the world, this evolution poses both danger and promise. How well we navigate this shifting landscape, handle potential conflicts, and seize opportunities for cooperation will determine whether the world can continue to be peaceful and stable.

Published

on

By

Since the beginning of time, wars and conflicts have been an inextricable part of human history. As such, they have developed in lockstep with the complex interactions between social, political, and technological changes that have shaped our world. Warfare's methods and goals have undergone a significant metamorphosis, moving from crude and simple engagements to ones that are sophisticated and complex. Armed conflicts have expanded to take on global proportions with the advent of destructive world wars, and are no longer restricted to simple tribal or regional skirmishes. In addition to transcending their religious roots, these conflicts are now driven by nationalistic imperatives, giving rise to wars with geopolitical goals.

However, in the fierce race to reach the pinnacle of technological achievement with the introduction of a revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered search engine, issues of veracity and the widespread dissemination of false information are the most crucial issues of our time. These worries are well-founded because the consequences of a poorly functioning search engine could distort reality, worsen the already virulent spread of false information, and cause irreparable harm to the fabric of truth.

Additionally, warfare has changed from being characterized by linear battles to being characterized by maneuver warfare, placing greater emphasis on flexibility, agility, and strategic maneuvering. Armed engagements have evolved from primitive first-generation manifestations to the complex dynamics of fourth-generation warfare. They now involve a variety of unconventional tactics such as asymmetric tactics, psychological operations, and information warfare. Thus, in order to successfully navigate the complexity of the modern battlefield, this evolution calls for both a thorough understanding of the many facets of modern warfare and the adoption of adaptive strategies.

Simultaneously, the concept of fifth-generation warfare, also known as hybrid warfare, denotes a paradigm shift in contemporary military tactics, where the importance of cultural warfare, information warfare, and unconventional methods surpasses the conventional use of brute force on the battlefield, as seen in third- and fourth-generation warfare. India is said to be using 5th-generation warfare strategies against Pakistan to sow seeds of enmity and spread false information in an effort to block Pakistan's progress. Moreover, India is using all of its resources to undermine Pakistani society in a number of different domains. Pakistan to modernize its weaponry and armed forces given the strategic landscape of South Asia, which is becoming more complex and volatile, especially given India's use of fifth-generation warfare against Pakistan.

Relatedly, information warfare has undeniably grown significantly important in the effort to effectively project Pakistan's narrative both domestically and internationally. A well-calibrated national response reinforced by a clearly defined foreign policy is required in light of the double-edged nature of fifth-generation warfare. Modern times see a rapid spread of irregular wars across the spectrum of conflict, amid intensifying great power competition, as the nature of warfare changes continuously.

Modern warfare has undergone a sea change as a result of the advancement of information technology, which makes it easier for nontraditional actors like violent extremist groups to communicate. We find ourselves ensconced in a world permeated by high tension, accompanied by a flood of tweets, ranging from the tumultuous battlefields in Ukraine to a pernicious terrorist attack on mass transit inside the borders of the United States. Our insatiable appetite for knowledge is driven by a desire to protect our safety, show compassion for those who are suffering, or see wrongdoers brought to justice. Despite our desire for knowledge, we must maintain an appropriate level of skepticism toward the sources that provide it. After all, we are living in a time that is frequently referred to as the "golden age of fake news."

Today's conflicts are largely not fought between nation-states and their armies; instead, they are increasingly fought with the mighty arsenal of words rather than with traditional weapons. In recent years, policy discussions, popular discourse, and academic analyses have given priority to a particular breed of weaponry: "fake news" and viral disinformation. In reality, disinformation used in warfare in the digital age may not differ much from other forms of warfare; after all, wars are fought to establish power, with some reaping financial rewards while the most vulnerable suffer the most.

The problem of fake news has gotten worse since the Internet and social networks were invented. The conventional news model, which involved a small number of media outlets run by experienced journalists who interviewed reliable sources and meticulously verified the information before it was published, has been overturned by the current media environment. Today, there are numerous channels, a never-ending stream of messages, and an environment where contradictory information is frequently overlooked that all contribute to the relative ease with which conspiracy theories and rumors can spread. The temptation to cling to a simpler fiction rather than taking on the laborious task of dissecting a more complex reality grows as we are frequently presented with contradictory messages.

Published

on

By

Official reports here said the United States through its diplomatic office in Mogadishu has presented $9 million in weapons, vehicles, medical supplies and other equipment to the Somali National Army (SNA). The ceremony was attended by Minister of Defense Abdulkadir Mohamed Nur Jama and U.S. Ambassador Larry André.

Aside from heavy weapons, equipment included support and construction vehicles, explosive ordinance disposal kits, medical supplies, and maintenance equipment for vehicles and weapons. Most of the supplies are already on their way to Hishabelle and Galmudug States to support SNA troops.

"We cheer the success achieved by Somali security forces in their historic fight to liberate Somali communities suffering under al-Shabaab," said Ambassador André. "This is a Somali-led and Somali-fought campaign. The United States reaffirms commitment to support country's efforts."

Minister of Defense Abdulkadir Mohamed Nur Jama thanked the United States, saying, "Allow me to convey the appreciation of the Federal Government of Somalia to the Government of the United States of America for the continued support to Somalia's peacebuilding process and the support for the fight against terrorism. This support comes at a critical time for our forces as we boost their capabilities to combat al-Shabaab."

The Minister was joined by Chief of Defense Forces Brigadier General Odowaa Yusuf Rageh for the ceremony.

The weapons, including light and heavy machine guns were purchased with U.S. Department of Defense funding. They are marked and registered pursuant to the Federal Government of Somalia's Weapons and Ammunition Management policy, designed to account for and control weapons within the Somali security forces and weapons captured on the battlefield.

Notification to the UN Security Council is conducted by the Federal Government of Somalia in close coordination with the Office of Security Cooperation of U.S. Embassy Mogadishu in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.

The weapons will support SNA-Danab battalions, including battalions currently participating in operations in Hirshabelle and Galmudug. The weapons will provide a significant increase in the lethality and mobility of the SNA-Danab units participating in these operations. Somalia and its neighbouring States have come under frequent heightened militant attacks in the Horn of Africa.

If there is a country in Europe that is in constant crisis, it is Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is precisely...

In the recent past, the Indian state of Manipur, located in the northeastern part of the country, has been grappling...

The handbook says Kanyaka is in Maputo, Southern Mozambique. it further says that Kanyaka is situated nearby to Tóbia and...

Growth hormones, or somatotropin, are vital hormones produced by the pituitary gland that regulate growth and development in the body....

On 31 May 2023, Ama Ata Aidoo, Ghanaian feminist, poet, playwright, novelist, and author of works including Our Sister Killjoy...

Chinese Defence Minister General Li Shangfu delivered a thinly veiled criticism of the United States on Sunday, saying "some country"...

All around the world, a backlash is brewing against the hegemony of the US dollar, Bloomberg comments. Brazil and China...

Will Egypt Join and Adapt BRICS Currency?

Ukraine war: A new multipolar world is emerging

The Strategic Partnership between Eritrea and Russia

U.S. Must Be Cautious of Exploitative Motives behind AUKUS

U.S. seeks to add India in NATO plus

Rashmi Mishra on the UK- India relationship and the role women are playing to strengthen international ties

BRICS FM Meeting in South Africa: Readiness for Expansion

Pakistan-Belarus Ties Set to Boost and Strengthen