Following up on my previous diaries.
Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe [Link to The Guardian]
The planet-warming emissions generated during the first two months of the war in Gaza were greater than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations, new research reveals.
The vast majority (99%) of the 281,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2 equivalent) estimated to have been generated in the first 60 days following the 7 October Hamas attack can be attributed to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis by researchers in the UK and US.
According to the study, which is based on only a handful of carbon-intensive activities and is therefore probably a significant underestimate, the climate cost of the first 60 days of Israel’s military response was equivalent to burning at least 150,000 tonnes of coal.
The analysis, which is yet to be peer reviewed, includes CO2 from aircraft missions, tanks and fuel from other vehicles, as well as emissions generated by making and exploding the bombs, artillery and rockets. It does not include other planet-warming gases such as methane. Almost half the total CO2 emissions were down to US cargo planes flying military supplies to Israel.
UNDER THE RADAR THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF EUROPE’S MILITARY SECTORS: A SCOPING STUDY
Military spending is also currently increasing, not
least among NATO countries, which make up more
than half of global expenditure. In addition to the
risks from increased militarisation, higher military
spending also risks an increase in GHG emissions at
a time when resources need to be directed towards
tackling the climate crisis. As a department, the
military is responsible for a high proportion of the
GHG emissions by government and, as such, critical
to a government’s contribution to achieving the
European Green Deal target of net zero by 2050.
The climate costs of war and militaries can no longer be ignored
In early 2022, journalists began to ask us how Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was affecting the climate crisis. While we could point to landscape fires, burning oil refineries and the thirst of diesel-hungry military vehicles, the emissions data they sought just wasn’t available. When it came to the reverberating consequences of Russia’s manipulation of Europe’s fossil fuel insecurity, or to the weakening of the international cooperation necessary for coordinated global climate action, our guesses were no better than theirs.
Two decades of international analysis and debate over the relationship between climate change and security has focused on how our rapidly destabilising climate could undermine the security of states. But it has largely ignored how national security choices, such as military spending or warfighting, can have an impact on the climate, and so undermine our collective security.
Another good reason to stop the killing, thereby avoiding mass migration and further wars.