Introduction
“We are all in the same boat… When the Titanic hits the iceberg, everyone sinks.”[1]
Climate change presents one of the most urgent global challenges, requiring comprehensive and accurate accounting of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, is an international treaty aimed at limiting global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. A key aspect of this framework are Nationally Determined Contributions (“NDCs”), which represent each country’s pledged action(s) to reduce GHG emissions. Countries submit their NDCs periodically, detailing their emission reduction targets and strategies, which are then subject to international review. However, one significant omission in the Paris Agreement’s current framework is the failure to explicitly account for emissions generated during armed conflicts. The framework presently focuses on emissions from traditional economic sectors, overlooking the substantial carbon footprint of military activities. This article advocates integrating wartime emissions reporting by amending the Paris Agreement’s Transparency Framework. The need for this integration is underscored by the environmental devastation caused by military operations, infrastructure destruction, and the prolonged emissions from post-conflict reconstruction.[2] To address this issue, this article explores potential implementation strategies, as well as the potential benefits and challenges associated with them.
The Need for Wartime Emissions Reporting
Armed conflicts contribute significantly to global GHG emissions, yet these emissions remain largely unaccounted for in current international climate agreements.[3][4] Military activities, such as airstrikes, ground operations, and fuel consumption, all produce substantial carbon emissions and, even with incomplete data, account for almost 5.5% of global emissions.[5] For instance, in the first 120 days of Israel’s recent war on Gaza, from October 2023 to February 2024, emissions were estimated to be between 420,265 and 652,552 tons of CO2—comparable to the annual emissions of 26 countries.[6] According to Frederick Out-Larbi, a researcher at the University of Energy and Natural Resources and Lancaster Environment Centre, these estimates were derived from open-source data on combat operations, including fuel consumption by fighter jets, cargo flights, military vehicles, and the detonation of explosives, as well as the emissions generated by humanitarian aid deliveries and disrupted energy supplies.[7] Additionally, the destruction of infrastructure and subsequent reconstruction efforts result in long-term environmental consequences, including increased carbon emissions from the production and transport of construction materials such as cement and steel, land degradation, and prolonged reliance on fossil fuel-based energy sources during rebuilding.[8] Frederick Otu-Larbi also estimates that Gaza’s post-war reconstruction alone is projected to release between 46.8 and 60 million tons of CO2, surpassing the annual emissions of Portugal and Sweden.[9] Similarly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022, has led to an estimated 77 megatons of CO2-equivalent emissions over the first 18 months, primarily due to military operations, infrastructure destruction, and fires.[10] These estimates were calculated using publicly available data, satellite observations, and expert assessments, accounting for emissions from explosives, fuel consumption by military vehicles, fires at oil depots, burning of buildings and forests, and the decomposition of war-related debris.[11]
Past conflicts further illustrate the lasting environmental impact of war. During the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq’s deliberate ignition of oil wells in Kuwait resulted in catastrophic environmental damage and unprecedented emissions, prompting calls for international legal accountability.[12] While exact emissions measurements have not been calculated, the United Nations Environmental Program stated that Iraq’s attack on the oil wells “[]will affect generations to come which have had no say in the matter.”[13] In Africa, climate-induced social unrest has been linked to environmental degradation exacerbated by conflicts, reinforcing the argument that war and climate change are intricately linked together, forming a destructive feedback loop.[14] Cullen Hendrix, an assistant professor at the College of William & Mary, found that “[w]hile armed conflict [in Africa] is more likely to break out in wetter years… other forms of conflict are strongly influenced by extreme positive and negative deviations from normal rainfall.”[15] Failing to account for wartime emissions significantly distorts the accuracy of global emissions data[16] and undermines the integrity of international climate commitments.[17] Incorporating wartime emissions, and therefore accurately accounting for each country’s emissions, aligns with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels[18] and would further promote climate justice by holding all climate change contributors accountable.[19]
Mechanisms for Implementation
One approach to addressing wartime emissions is to amend the Paris Agreement’s Transparency Framework, making it mandatory for states to include wartime emissions in their NDC submissions.[20] Established under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement, the Transparency Framework’s goal is to “provide a clear understanding of climate change action” and provide “clarity and tracking of progress towards” each country’s NDCs.[21] This would necessitate developing guidelines accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (“IPCC”) to ensure consistent and accurate reporting.[22] The Paris Agreement incorporates, by reference, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (“UNFCCC”) provisions on amendments, which require that any proposed amendments be adopted by consensus or, failing that, by a three-fourths majority of the parties present and voting.[23] General challenges to amending the Agreement include the potential difficulty of achieving the necessary level of consensus and, since the Agreement expressly disallows reservations, countries cannot opt out of specific provisions while remaining parties to the Agreement.[24]
Alternatively, these emissions could be included in the biennial transparency report system, requiring countries to account for conflict-related emissions in a separate section[25]. The Transparency Framework currently requires Parties to submit reports every two years detailing their GHG emissions, progress toward their NDCs, and climate finance provided or received, with the reports subject to an expert review and a multilateral peer process to ensure accountability and promote stronger climate action.[26] Creating a separate section addressing wartime-specific emissions would allow for flexibility by introducing timelines and certain exemptions for conflict-affected states while maintaining accountability.[27] For instance, this reporting system could allow invaded countries to allocate emissions generated during the conflict to the aggressor state while providing additional time and resources to report those emissions.[28]
Another potential strategy is establishing international support systems to assist countries in measuring and reporting wartime emissions. These systems could provide financial and technical resources, leveraging partnerships with international organizations to enhance data collection and verification while ensuring a high level of confidentiality for participating countries.[29] One example of this strategy would be employing an international team of experts approved by the UNFCCC or IPCC to evaluate conflict-related emissions.[30] Approval and maintenance by either UNFCCC or IPCC would be crucial to ensuring the legitimacy of the experts and ensuring that the data collected remains confidential and is only used for emissions reporting.
Benefits and Challenges of Integrating Wartime Emissions Reporting
Including wartime emissions in NDCs would enhance global transparency and accountability, ensuring that all major sources of emissions are reflected in climate commitments.[31] Moreover, this mechanism could incentivize adopting low-carbon military practices and encourage alternatives to emission-intensive war strategies. For example, mandating an aggressor state to report emissions generated in invaded states may further help deter certain military acts, such as the burning of oil wells in Kuwait or the destruction of large amounts of infrastructure in Gaza.[32]
Integrating wartime emissions reporting into the Paris Agreement Transparency Framework would also promote global climate justice by highlighting armed conflicts’ environmental and social consequences, especially for vulnerable populations. The disproportionate impact of war on marginalized communities, which already face heightened climate risks, underscores the moral imperative of addressing this issue.[33] For example, Israel’s Environment Ministry has predicted that sea levels will rise by as much as a meter by 2050, potentially eradicating beaches, damaging or destroying desalination plants, and affecting sewage and drainage systems of the coastal cities, any of which would have devastating impacts on Gaza’s population.[34]
However, implementing any of the above-mentioned strategies will likely face several challenges. Political resistance is a significant barrier, as many states may be unwilling to disclose emissions related to military operations due to national security concerns, with the International Energy Agency noting that “most countries consider information on military consumption as confidential and therefore either combine it with other information or do not include it at all.”[35] Practical difficulties in data collection also pose obstacles, especially in active conflict zones where infrastructure for monitoring emissions is often lacking. Furthermore, ensuring compliance with reporting obligations may require international enforcement mechanisms and incentives, such as fines or sanctions against countries found to be violating the reporting obligations.[36]
Addressing these challenges will require substantial international cooperation, capacity-building efforts such as developing institutions to assist countries in implementing climate policies, and the establishment of flexible reporting guidelines or exceptions tailored to conflict-affected regions.[37] Creating an independent body of experts to oversee wartime emissions reporting could facilitate impartial assessments and strengthen enforcement mechanisms, allowing accurate emissions reporting while providing confidentiality for countries.
Conclusion
This article has outlined the need to address wartime emissions, proposed mechanisms for their integration, and explored the potential benefits and challenges of these strategies. Comprehensive emissions reporting, including wartime activities, is essential for achieving comprehensive and effective climate action. Since most countries classify wartime activities and their associated emissions as confidential, they often omit them from reports or merge them with other data. Requiring the reporting of wartime emissions would help close significant gaps in the Paris Agreement, improve transparency, and promote more sustainable military practices. However, implementation may face political and logistical obstacles, such as national security concerns and reluctance to disclose military emissions. Despite these challenges, the environmental and moral imperatives demand that these emissions be accounted for in the global effort to combat climate change. With global temperatures continuing to rise, it is crucial to accurately track and report all sources of emissions while ensuring that Parties to the Paris Agreement can protect national security through confidential reporting. As conflicts continue to exacerbate climate change, integrating wartime emissions into international climate agreements is a crucial step in addressing the hidden, significant climate costs of war.
[1] Aryn Baker, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is Also a Looming Climate Disaster, TIME 1, 6 (Jan. 11, 2023), https://time.com/6242238/climate-change-israeli-palestinian-politics/ (quoting Nada Majdalani).
[2] Anthony Leibler, deliberate wartime environmental damage: new challenges for international law, 23 Cal. W. Int’l L.J. 67, 69 (1992).
[3] Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104, 3156 U.N.T.S. 3.
[4] Frederick Otu-Larbi et al., a multitemporal snapshot of greenhouse gas emissions from the israel-gaza conflict, Queen Mary Univ. London 1, 3 (2024).
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 11-12.
[7] Id. at 11-13.
[8] Id. at 19-21.
[9] Id. at 20.
[10] Rostyslav Bun et al., tracking unaccounted greenhouse gas emissions due to the war in ukraine since 2022, 914 Sci. Total Env’t 169879, 169887 (2024).
[11] Id. at 6-8.
[12] Leibler, supra note 2 at 67-68, 98. (“Senator Liberman said there was substantial sentiment in Congress to create some kind of treaty or convention that would make clear that vindictive assaults on the environment like this would be punished-and punished severely.”)
[13] Id. at 68.
[14] Cullen S. Hendrix & Idean Salehyan, climate change, rainfall, and social conflict in africa, J. Peace Rsch. 35, 35-36 (2012).
[15] Id. at 46.
[16] Frederick Otu-Larbi et al., supra note 4 at 3. (According to the United Nations Environmental Programme’s most recent Emission Gap report, military emissions are ‘insufficiently accounted for’ by the UNFCCC, but even with incomplete data, researchers have found that militaries still account for almost 5.5% of global emissions.)
[17] Id. (Total annual global emissions were up to 54 G tonnes CO2e, yet the method of estimating GHG emissions change did not take into consideration emissions due to military actions.)
[18] Paris Agreement, supra note 3 at art. 2, ¶1(a) (recognizing that [limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C] would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change).
[19] Id. at art. 13.
[20] Id. at art. 13.
[21] Id. at art. 13, ¶5.
[22] Id.
[23] Daniel Bodansky, The Paris Climate Agreement: A New Hope?, 110 Am. J. Int’l. L. 288, 313-14 (2016).
[24] Id. at 314.
[25] Paris Agreement, supra note 3 at art. 13.
[26] Id.
[27] Bun, supra note 10 at 10.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Paris Agreement, supra 3 at art. 13, ¶7(a) (Each Party shall regularly provide the following information: A national inventory report of anthropogenic emissions by sources…) (emphasis added).
[32] Frederick Otu-Larbi et al., supra note 4 at 2 (Estimates place 54-66% of Gaza’s buildings — homes, schools, mosques, hospitals — as destroyed or damaged).
[33] Aryn Baker, supra note 1.
[34] Id.
[35] Bun, supra note 10 at 1.
[36] Id. at 10.
[37] Paris Agreement, supra note 3 at art. 13; Bun, supra note 10 at 10.
