Military greenhouse gas emissions reporting: How reliable is it?

The report finds that international reporting of military greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is generally poor, with significant under-reporting in data submitted to the UNFCCC. A comparison of five top military spenders showed that defence ministry reports for direct emissions were, on average, 95% higher than UNFCCC figures. The report highlights a critical lack of Scope 3 (supply-chain) reporting, noting that less than 10% of military carbon footprints typically appear in UNFCCC data. It identifies systemic loopholes in reporting guidelines and instances of 'greenwashing,' specifically by the UK military, and recommends mandatory, explicit military emissions reporting within National Inventory Reports.

• Direct military GHG emissions reported to the UNFCCC are significantly lower than those published by national defence ministries. For the USA, UK, Germany, Australia, and Canada, the data in defence ministry reports was, on average, 95% higher than the figures submitted to the UNFCCC.
• Reporting of indirect military GHG emissions is severely limited. Among five nations with world-leading reporting practices—Australia, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK—only Norway has a well-developed system for reporting Scope 3 emissions, including supply-chains.
• There is a massive gap between UNFCCC data and actual military carbon footprints. Extrapolating from Norwegian data suggests that UNFCCC figures must be multiplied by a factor of 10 to 14 to approximate a national military carbon footprint, meaning less than 10% of these footprints are routinely captured in UN data.
• The report identifies systemic reporting failures among major military spenders. In 2023, only 37 of 70 leading nations reported any military data to the UN. Major spenders including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Israel currently do not report military emissions, and the USA ended its practice of reporting them in 2025.
• The UK military has engaged in 'greenwashing' by misrepresenting its emissions data. It claimed the military was responsible for 50% of central government Scope 1 and 2 emissions when the actual figure was 75%, and it uses the term 'Defence Carbon Footprint' despite including only a small fraction of necessary Scope 3 emissions.
• No nation currently reports 'Scope 3+' or conflict-related emissions, although the Ukrainian government has contributed to research on the Russia-Ukraine war. Estimates for that conflict suggest approximately 173 million tCO2e over the first three years, with an additional 64 million tCO2e for post-war reconstruction.

APA

Parkinson, D. S. (2025). Military greenhouse gas emissions reporting: How reliable is it? Scientists for Global Responsibility. https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-11/SGR_Military_GHG_reporting_WEB.pdf

Chicago

Parkinson, Dr Stuart. Military greenhouse gas emissions reporting: How reliable is it? Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2025. https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-11/SGR_Military_GHG_reporting_WEB.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Parkinson |first1=Dr Stuart |title=Military greenhouse gas emissions reporting: How reliable is it? |publisher=Scientists for Global Responsibility |date=November 2025 |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-11/SGR_Military_GHG_reporting_WEB.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{parkinson2025military, author = {Parkinson, Dr Stuart}, title = {{Military greenhouse gas emissions reporting: How reliable is it?}}, institution = {Scientists for Global Responsibility}, year = {2025}, month = nov, url = {https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-11/SGR_Military_GHG_reporting_WEB.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }