13 March 2026
As geopolitical tensions escalate and military budgets hit record highs, the hidden climate toll of warfare has become one of the greatest blind spots in the fight against global warming, and the accounting gap continues to widen each year.
When bombs fall, the immediate focus is human: lives lost, homes destroyed, and communities displaced. Yet beneath the rubble lies another casualty that receives far less attention: the climate itself. Armed conflicts around the world are releasing hundreds of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, destroying critical carbon sinks, and diverting trillions of dollars away from the green transition. All of this is happening while the true scale of the impact remains largely invisible in global climate accounting.
The numbers are staggering. The world’s militaries and their supply chains account for approximately 5.5% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. If the planet’s armed forces were a single country, they would rank as the fourth-largest emitter on Earth, surpassing Russia. The U.S. Department of Defense alone is the world’s largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels, contributing more greenhouse gas emissions than over 150 countries combined. And these figures represent peacetime estimates. During active warfare, the scale of destruction and emissions increases dramatically.
Yet despite this enormous footprint, military emissions remain effectively exempt from mandatory reporting under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At a time when military spending is reaching record levels and global conflicts are intensifying, this is not simply a data gap. It represents a serious challenge to global climate ambition. A November 2025 analysis by Scientists for Global Responsibility found that official UN data on military emissions captures, on average, less than 10% of the estimated true carbon footprint of a military.
Until militaries disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, we will fall short of our climate goals – regardless of civilian environmental efforts. — American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2025 Roundtable on Military Emissions
A World on Fire: The Climate Toll of Today’s Wars
| Eastern Europe Ukraine War 294 Mt CO₂ equivalent generated since Feb 2022 — exceeding the annual emissions of 175 countries | Middle East Gaza Conflict 31+ Mt CO₂e in the first 15 months alone — more than 100 nations emit in a full year |
| Sub-Saharan Africa Sudan Civil War 70%+ Tree cover lost in South Darfur over the past decade, dramatically accelerated by the conflict | Arabian Peninsula Yemen Crisis 10+ yrs Of compounding war and climate stress — agricultural collapse, famine, and ongoing bombardment |
Key Timeline
| 1997 —–> U.S. lobbies successfully to exempt military emissions from Kyoto Protocol reporting requirements. |
| 2015 —–> Paris Agreement technically lifts formal military exemption — but reporting remains voluntary and patchy. |
| 2022 —–> Russia invades Ukraine. First-ever real-time conflict emissions tracking begins by researchers. |
| 2025 —–> Ukraine files $44B climate reparations claim. COP30 fails to mandate military reporting. SGR finds 82% emissions reporting gap. |
| 2026 —–> NATO pursues 3.5% GDP spending target. US withdraws from UNFCCC under Trump, widening the accountability vacuum. |
Ukraine: A Continental-Scale Carbon Disaster
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has become a case study in the environmental devastation of modern warfare. Since February 2022, the conflict has generated more than 294 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, exceeding the annual emissions of 175 countries. The destruction of buildings and civil infrastructure alone accounts for 43 million tonnes of CO₂, while fires triggered by bombing have ravaged forests, wetlands and nature reserves, releasing a further 22 million tonnes and increasing forest fire emissions by 113%.
More than 30% of Ukraine’s environmentally protected areas have been affected, including UNESCO biosphere reserves. In November 2025, Ukraine made history by announcing plans to seek nearly $44 billion in climate reparations from Russia. It would mark the first time any nation has demanded compensation specifically for war-related emissions. The claim, based on the “social cost of carbon” at approximately $185 per tonne, will be filed through a Council of Europe framework, potentially setting a groundbreaking legal precedent.
War creates a devastating “double emission” cycle: carbon is emitted to destroy infrastructure, then emitted again — often at greater scale — to rebuild it.
Ukraine’s 10-year reconstruction is projected to generate 781 Mt CO₂ — 4.3× its pre-war annual emissions.
Gaza: Ecocide in the World’s Most Densely Populated Strip
The war in Gaza has inflicted environmental damage of extraordinary intensity. Research published by the Social Science Research Network found that the climate cost of military operations during the first 15 months exceeded 31 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, comparable to Croatia’s entire annual emissions. More than 99% of the immediate emissions came from aerial bombardment and ground invasion.
Satellite imagery reveals that 80% of Gaza’s trees have been eradicated, devastating wildlife habitats and disrupting global bird migration corridors. Some 61 million tonnes of rubble have been generated, a hazardous mix of unexploded ordnance, asbestos and carcinogenic cement dust. Before the war, solar energy covered roughly 25% of Gaza’s electricity needs, one of the highest rooftop solar densities in the world. The destruction of this infrastructure has forced a shift to diesel generators, producing an estimated 58,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent each year.
The reconstruction of Gaza will itself generate an estimated 29.4 million tonnes of CO₂ – nearly matching the emissions of the war that destroyed it. —- Social Science Research Network, 2025
Sudan: The Silent Environmental Collapse
While global attention has largely focused on Ukraine and Gaza, Sudan’s civil war, which erupted in April 2023, is driving an environmental catastrophe of alarming proportions. Over 70% of tree cover in South Darfur has been lost over the past decade, with the conflict dramatically accelerating the destruction. Some 73 reserved forests have been degraded or erased entirely.
Environmental experts warn that this wave of deforestation is releasing decades of stored carbon while permanently destroying the forests’ future capacity to absorb emissions. The result is a vicious cycle in which displacement drives deforestation, and deforestation, in turn, fuels further conflict.
The Reporting Crisis: What We Don’t Count, We Can’t Fix
Perhaps the most troubling dimension of the military–climate nexus is the near-total absence of accountability. Reporting military emissions to the UNFCCC has remained voluntary since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, when the U.S. Department of Defense successfully lobbied to exempt military emissions from national greenhouse gas inventories. Although the formal exemption was technically lifted under the 2015 Paris Agreement, reporting continues to be discretionary.
The result is a widening gap. According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory’s 2025 analysis, there was an 82% difference between what 23 EU–NATO countries collectively reported to the UN and a credible estimate of their true military carbon footprint.10 The three largest military spenders, the United States, China and Russia, have either not submitted data or provided figures that researchers describe as fundamentally incomplete.
| United States —–> Despite spending over $916 billion on its military in 2023, the U.S. did not submit any emissions inventory report to the UNFCCC for 2023 data. The Trump administration’s withdrawal from climate frameworks further darkens this picture. |
| China —–> The second-largest military spender at $300 billion has no formal obligation to report military emissions. Its latest voluntary submission covers only 2021, with zero military emissions declared. |
| Russia —–> Provides minimal and inconsistent data. Reported military emissions show a suspicious drop from 40 MtCO₂ in 2020 to 15 MtCO₂ in 2022 — the very year it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. |
COP30 in Brazil in late 2025 failed to mandate military emissions reporting, leaving this critical gap unresolved despite growing calls from researchers, civil society and smaller nations. Scientists now argue that mandatory reporting under the UNFCCC, independent verification mechanisms, and the inclusion of military emissions in Nationally Determined Contributions are essential steps toward credible climate governance.
The Rearmament Paradox: More Weapons, More Warming
The environmental destruction caused by active conflict is only half the equation. The unprecedented global surge in military spending is itself becoming a major driver of emissions, even before a single shot is fired.
World military expenditure reached $2.718 trillion in 2024, a real-terms increase of 9.4%. European military spending rose by 17% to $693 billion, surpassing Cold War levels. NATO members collectively spent $1.506 trillion, with 18 of the alliance’s 32 members now meeting the 2% GDP target. NATO is now pursuing a 3.5% GDP spending goal, which could push total collective spending to $13.4 trillion by 2030.
A 2025 study published in Nature delivered a particularly sobering finding. If the global ratio of military expenditure to GDP exceeds 12%, it could critically jeopardise the ability to prevent the climate system from reaching dangerous greenhouse gas concentration levels, even under the most optimistic emission scenarios.
Climate as Conflict Multiplier: The Feedback Loop
The relationship between climate change and conflict is not one-directional. The Pentagon has long described climate change as a “threat multiplier”, recognising that rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns and extreme weather events intensify poverty, resource competition and political instability. These are the very conditions that often allow violence to take hold.
A Stanford University study found that climate change contributed to between 3% and 20% of global conflicts over the past century. The Lake Chad Basin, where the lake has shrunk by approximately 90% since the 1960s, illustrates this dynamic with devastating clarity. Climate-driven resource scarcity has created a vacuum that armed groups such as Boko Haram have exploited with lethal efficiency.
War is not just a human catastrophe – it is a climate catastrophe. And climate change is not just an environmental crisis – it is a security crisis. —– The Sustainable Times Editorial Position, March 2026
In the Middle East and North Africa, limited water resources, high agricultural dependency and shared river basins create a volatile mix in which declining productivity directly fuels competition and tension. Yemen, already one of the most climate-vulnerable nations globally, has seen a decade of war, erratic rainfall and extreme weather converge into a singular humanitarian catastrophe.
Rebuilding Without Repeating: The Green Reconstruction Imperative
One of the cruellest paradoxes of war is that reconstruction itself can perpetuate the damage. A study estimated that Ukraine’s full ten-year reconstruction could generate 781 million tonnes of CO₂, approximately 4.3 times the country’s annual pre-war emissions. More than half of these emissions would come from the construction industry, with a further 13% linked to the production of concrete and steel.
In Gaza, reconstruction emissions are estimated to nearly match the emissions generated by the destruction itself. This is why “green reconstruction” has emerged as an urgent imperative. Ukraine has already signalled its intention to steer rebuilding towards energy-efficient buildings, low-emission materials and decentralised renewable energy, aligned with the European Green Deal and the goal of energy independence from Russian fossil fuels.
A Call to Action: Counting What Counts
The evidence is overwhelming. From the battlefields of Ukraine and Gaza to the forests of South Darfur, armed conflict is generating emissions that threaten to derail the goals of the Paris Agreement. At the same time, the surge in military spending is compounding the problem by diverting trillions away from climate investment while locking nations into carbon-intensive systems for decades.Mandatory Military Emissions Reporting.
Voluntary reporting has demonstrably failed. The world’s three largest military spenders provide little to no credible data to the UNFCCC. Mandatory and independently verified reporting must become a non-negotiable pillar of climate governance.
Climate Reparations for War-Related Emissions
Ukraine’s groundbreaking $44 billion claim against Russia could establish a new norm of accountability. Aggressors must bear the measurable climate cost of their actions, not only the human toll.
Green Reconstruction as the Global Standard
Post-conflict rebuilding must embed climate resilience from the outset, rather than treating it as an afterthought. Low-carbon materials, energy-efficient design and renewable-first energy systems should form the foundation of reconstruction efforts.
Ecocide as an International Crime
The proposal by Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa to classify ecocide as a fifth crime under the Rome Statute of the ICC deserves urgent international support. Environmental destruction in warfare must carry legal consequences.
Demilitarisation as Climate Strategy
The Nature study showing that escalating military expenditure beyond certain thresholds could make even optimistic climate scenarios unachievable should serve as a clear warning to policymakers. Peace, in this context, is not only a political objective but also a climate intervention.
The climate crisis and the conflict crisis are not separate challenges — they are two faces of the same emergency. Until the international community confronts this reality with the seriousness it demands, the planet’s climate goals will remain hostage to the fog of war.
Sources & References
- Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) / CEOBS — Global Military Carbon Footprint Estimate, 2022 & 2025
- U.S. Department of Defense energy consumption data; Watson School of International Public Affairs, 2019
- SGR, “Most militaries report less than 10 percent of their carbon footprint,” November 2025
- Initiative on GHG Accounting for War — Ukraine Conflict Emissions Assessment, 2022–2025
- Council of Europe — Ukraine Climate Reparations Framework, November 2025
- Social Science Research Network — Gaza Climate Cost Study, 2025
- Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), Gaza Environmental Assessment, 2025
- UN Environment Programme — Sudan Environmental Impact Report, 2024
- PRIF Blog, “COP30 Climate Deal: Signed and Sealed, but Military Emissions Left on the Dock,” December 2025
- CEOBS, “New Data Reveals the Military Emissions Gap is Growing Wider,” November 2025
- SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 2024; Nature study on NATO carbon footprint
- Sun Yat-sen University / Nature — Military Spending and Paris Agreement Feasibility, 2025
- Stanford University — Climate Change and Global Conflict Study
- JICA — Ukraine Green Reconstruction Carbon Modelling Study
