Search Climate Insights Directory

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.

The document argues that the global military carbon footprint estimates provided by Bohigas et al (ranging from 0.5% to 1.3% of global emissions) are unreliable due to implausible assumptions and incomplete data. Specifically, it notes that the lower estimate assumes non-US militaries have zero emissions, while the upper estimate relies on US emissions intensity which may not reflect the higher fossil-fuel intensity of other major military spenders like China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia. The author further highlights the omission of aviation's upper-atmosphere heating effects, 'scope 3+' war-fighting impacts, and the potential of environmentally-extended input output models (EEIOMs) to provide more accurate data.

The report evaluates the total greenhouse gas emissions of the Winter Olympics, highlighting the gap in official assessments regarding 'sponsorship emissions' from heavy polluters. It further analyzes the environmental consequences of these emissions, specifically the loss of glacier ice and snow cover essential for winter sports.

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.

The document outlines the existential risk posed by the approximately 12,000 nuclear warheads held by nine nations. It explains the physics of fission and fusion weapons and analyzes the catastrophic effects of detonations, ranging from immediate blast and radiation deaths in urban centers to global climate disruption. The guide highlights the instability of 'launch on warning' postures and the potential for 'nuclear winter' and ozone depletion, arguing that even regional conflicts would cause global famine and societal collapse.

The report finds that expanding the World Cup to 48 teams will significantly increase GHG emissions, with air transport emissions estimated to rise by 160% to 325% for the 2026, 2030, and 2034 tournaments. It estimates the 2026 World Cup in North America will produce at least 9.0 million tCO2e, while the FIFA-Aramco sponsorship deal could induce an additional 30 million tCO2e. Furthermore, a risk assessment of the 16 stadiums for the 2026 event reveals that half require immediate environmental intervention, with six facing extreme heat stress.

The report finds that the expansion of the Champions League, Europa League, and Conference League has increased greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 209,000 tCO2e. Furthermore, it estimates that sponsorship deals for the Champions League induce about 6 million tCO2e, with a single deal with Qatar Airways accounting for two-thirds of that total.

The global football sector's carbon footprint is estimated at 64-66 million tonnes of carbon equivalent, a figure comparable to the national emissions of Austria. The analysis identifies sponsorship deals with major polluting corporations as the primary driver, accounting for approximately 75% of the total emissions. Other contributing factors include energy use in stadium construction and operation, fan and team travel, and merchandise.

The document analyzes the Israeli military offensive in Gaza, highlighting an unprecedented bombing rate facilitated by AI-driven targeting. It compares the destruction to World War II carpet-bombing and argues that the use of disproportionate force violates international humanitarian law, while concluding that military solutions are counterproductive to long-term peace.

The author argues that the UK's 24 GW nuclear target by 2050 is unrealistic. Key barriers include the long lead times for nuclear projects (typically 15-20 years), the lack of mature, commercially available reactor technologies, and the difficulty of securing private investment for high-cost projects. The document highlights the failure of the EPR-1 design and the financial risks shifted to consumers under the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. It concludes that nuclear power is too slow and expensive to contribute meaningfully to the UK's electricity decarbonisation goals of 2030 or 2035.

The paper argues that the MOD is on track to meet its 2025 GGC targets primarily because they are 'weak and undemanding' and benefit from the general decarbonisation of the UK national electricity grid. It highlights that GGCs only cover estate emissions, excluding two-thirds of the MOD's total emissions from military 'capability' such as warships and aircraft. The author recommends significantly higher targets for 2030, including a 90% reduction in overall estate emissions and the inclusion of Service Family Accommodation (SFA) in future targets.

The document outlines eight reasons why the UK should not increase its military spending, asserting that the UK and NATO already possess significant force advantages over Russia and China. It highlights recent budget increases, such as a £24bn boost in 2020, and criticizes the arbitrary nature of NATO's 2% GDP spending target. The author argues that funds would be better allocated to the National Health Service, overseas aid, and carbon emission reductions, noting that military spending is more than seven times the budget for reducing national carbon emissions.

The document examines the critical safety risks at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) in Ukraine, highlighting the dangers of power failures, cooling system instability, and military attacks. It details how the loss of electricity could lead to core meltdowns similar to Fukushima and Chernobyl, and analyzes the catastrophic potential of a nuclear weapon strike on the site. The paper also notes the continued reliance of the US and France on Russian nuclear fuel despite the conflict.

The report estimates that the global military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions, which would make the global military sector the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world, exceeding that of Russia. The authors argue that military emissions are systematically under-reported due to voluntary reporting obligations under the Paris Agreement and a lack of robust data collection. Using a methodology based on personnel numbers, stationary emissions, mobile-to-stationary ratios, and supply-chain multipliers, the study estimates operational GHG emissions (scopes 1 and 2) at approximately 500 MtCO2e, or 1.0% of global GHGs. The report notes these figures are conservative as they exclude the 'global military carbon bootprint'—emissions from warfighting impacts such as infrastructure damage and ecosystem destruction.

The document analyzes the use of biased language in war communications, contrasting terms used to describe allied activities ('our' nation) versus opposing activities ('their' nation). It provides a 'translation' table to strip away nationalist rhetoric and reveal the underlying military actions, such as framing 'collateral damage' as civilian deaths or 'special military operations' as wars of aggression. The author highlights parallels between the rhetoric used by the Vladimir Putin government in Ukraine and the George W. Bush government during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically regarding justifications for illegal invasions and the use of nuclear threats.

The Carbon-OFF plan, published by Scientists for Global Responsibility, outlines a strategy for philanthropic organisations to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target. The plan focuses on three pillars: reducing operational emissions using the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Net Zero Standard, divesting financial assets and pensions from fossil fuels to increase the cost of capital for the industry, and leveraging funding power to require grant applicants to adopt net-zero standards and divest from fossil fuels.

SGR calls on the Royal Academy of Engineering to phase out financial ties to companies not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2C goal, increase transparency on corporate payments and investments, and adopt fossil-fuel-free investment indexes.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Royal Academy of Engineering's (RAEng) continued financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that RAEng lacks a blanket exclusionary investment policy, maintains corporate partnerships with BP and Shell, and accepts funding from the Shell Centenary Scholarship Fund. SGR argues these links contradict RAEng's 2025 goal of building a sustainable society and notes that several peer academic and professional bodies have already divested from fossil fuels.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) to phase out financial ties to fossil fuel companies, specifically those not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal. While acknowledging the IET's commitment to net-zero operations within ten years, SGR highlights ongoing concerns regarding the IET's investments in oil sands and thermal coal, a lack of transparency in corporate payments, and the absence of a formal environmental policy. SGR recommends that the IET adopt fossil fuel-free indexes, report the carbon footprint of its investment portfolio, and align its practices with other professional bodies that have already divested from fossil fuels and arms.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Energy Institute to end its financial ties to fossil fuel companies and formalize a policy against investing in arms. While acknowledging the Institute's adoption of a net zero pledge and climate action charter, SGR highlights ongoing concerns regarding a lack of transparency in investments and lax policies compared to other professional bodies. SGR proposes a series of actions, including disclosing corporate payments over £1,000 and investments over £5,000, phasing out ties to companies not aligned with the 2°C Paris Agreement goal, and redirecting funds toward renewable energy and energy storage.