Military climate strategies: Are they just greenwash?

The report finds that military climate strategies across 26 nations are largely unambitious, with most emissions uncovered by targets and progress relying on civilian grid decarbonisation or reduced activity rather than military technological innovation. While some success was seen in stationary base emissions in neutral countries like Ireland and Switzerland, core mobile emissions and supply-chain emissions remain largely unaddressed and are likely to rise due to increased global military spending.

• Only five of the 26 nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, Slovenia, and Switzerland—have explicitly stated an intention to achieve a 'net zero military'.
• Among the top 15 military spending nations in NATO, only seven have explicit GHG emission reduction targets: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Romania, and the UK. The USA abandoned its targets in 2025.
• Most near-term targets (up to 2035) are insufficient to reach net zero by 2050. Extrapolated 'best case' dates for core emissions range from the 2060s to 2080s for Australia, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK, around 2100 for Canada and Germany, and after 2200 for France.
• NATO's net zero targets apply only to the 'NATO Enterprise' (assets directly controlled by the organisation) and not to the national militaries of its 32 member states. There has been no public reporting of emissions or clear explanation of covered activities.
• Significant progress in reducing core stationary emissions at military bases has been achieved in seven nations, with Ireland and Switzerland being the most successful. However, much of this progress in other nations relied on civilian electricity grid decarbonisation or base closure programmes.
• There is no evidence that technological efforts to decarbonise mobile military technologies (war-fighting capabilities) are significantly impacting emissions; reductions in this area are primarily attributed to changes in the level of military activity.
• Supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions are widely neglected, with only Norway conducting extensive monitoring and only Canada setting long-term targets. Data from Norway suggests these emissions can exceed 80% of a military's total carbon footprint.
• Military climate strategies focus exclusively on technological measures and explicitly state that military capability 'would not be compromised', ignoring potential reductions from changing military strategy or doctrine, such as closing overseas bases.
• Rising military spending, driven by the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and NATO's 5% GDP spending targets, is likely increasing GHG emissions across supply chains, mobile, and stationary sectors, potentially overwhelming previous gains.

APA

Parkinson, S. (2026). Military climate strategies: Are they just greenwash? Scientists for Global Responsibility. https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2026-07/SGR_Military_Climate_Strategies_final.pdf

Chicago

Parkinson, Stuart. Military climate strategies: Are they just greenwash? Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2026. https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2026-07/SGR_Military_Climate_Strategies_final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Parkinson |first1=Stuart |title=Military climate strategies: Are they just greenwash? |publisher=Scientists for Global Responsibility |date=July 2026 |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2026-07/SGR_Military_Climate_Strategies_final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{parkinson2026military, author = {Parkinson, Stuart}, title = {{Military climate strategies: Are they just greenwash?}}, institution = {Scientists for Global Responsibility}, year = {2026}, month = jul, url = {https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2026-07/SGR_Military_Climate_Strategies_final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }