{"id":85104,"date":"2024-02-07T14:30:17","date_gmt":"2024-02-07T03:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=85104"},"modified":"2024-02-07T14:27:45","modified_gmt":"2024-02-07T03:27:45","slug":"green-barracks-decarbonising-the-defence-estate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/green-barracks-decarbonising-the-defence-estate\/","title":{"rendered":"Green barracks: decarbonising the defence estate"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

Climate change\u2019s threat to national security<\/a> has been widely examined by security agencies, researchers and thought leaders across the world. Much of this analysis has focused on adaption and operational considerations associated with the destabilisation of societies, the impact of climate change on military assets or the potential for conflict over resources. By contrast, the Defence Establishment\u2019s role in climate mitigation has historically been overlooked. It notably received almost no coverage during the recent COP28 in Dubai\u2014although the conference took place in the context of major conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.<\/p>\n

Given climate change is a well understood national security issue, it stands to reason that Defence has a role in mitigating climate change by reducing its own emissions. Globally, there is increasing awareness of the contributions of national defence to global greenhouse emissions. One widely cited estimate suggests militaries are responsible for around 5% of global emissions<\/a> and the International Military Council on Climate and Security<\/a> has acknowledged that defence forces are the \u2018largest single institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world\u2019.<\/p>\n

As a founding member of the global Net-Zero Government Initiative<\/a> (NZGI), Australia has made global commitments to achieve net zero in government operations by 2030. Yet security agencies such as Defence do not explicitly form part of the commitment or other climate commitments such as the 2015 Paris Agreement. This is notable given defence is typically a major contributor to governments\u2019 greenhouse gas emissions. The Ministry of Defence<\/a> accounts for 50% of UK Government emissions, the Department of Defense<\/a> (DoD) accounts for 76% of total US Government emissions (equivalent to around 1% of total US emissions) and Australia\u2019s Department of Defence accounts for around 73% of public sector emissions according to the most recent Net Zero in Government Operations annual progress report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For this reason, governments across the world are setting emissions reduction targets for their militaries such as the US Army\u2019s<\/a> aim of achieving a 50% reduction by 2030 and net-zero army emissions by 2050. Britain\u2019s Royal Air Force<\/a> aims to become the first net zero air force by 2040.<\/p>\n

In 2009,\u00a0the US Navy modified a carrier strike group to use advanced biofuels to demonstrate energy-saving technologies. This \u2018Great Green Fleet\u2019 completed its year-long deployment in 2010 and demonstrated the feasibility of alternative fuels and energy efficiency measures. The lessons learned have since been integrated into Navy operations.<\/p>\n

We have previously reported<\/a> that Australia\u2019s Department of Defence is matching the government\u2019s overall 43% target by 2030 and committed to a net-zero position a decade ahead of the government\u2019s overall national target.<\/p>\n

We welcome this ambition but we also recognise the operational complexities associated with reducing defence emissions. As we have explored<\/a> in a previous article, Defence operates a range of capabilities that are very difficult to decarbonise because we lack viable alternatives for things like powerful jet and marine engines. It is widely acknowledged that emissions reduction should not<\/u> comprise defence operational and capability requirements. It is therefore helpful to distinguish operational emissions from those of the defence estate (referred to as \u2018military installations\u2019 by the US DoD) and their relationship with mission-critical capabilities.<\/strong> Notably, US military installations account for 37% of DoD emissions<\/a> which are primarily attributed to fossil fuel used for on-site electricity and heat generation, grid-sourced electricity derived in part from fossil-fuel generation sources, and non-tactical transportation fleets that run on fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

Assuming the emissions associated with Australia\u2019s defence estate are broadly consistent with the US military installation emissions (unfortunately, Australia\u2019s emissions reporting does not currently offer the same level of detail), there are meaningful opportunities to reduce emissions across Defence\u2019s estate<\/a> of 700 owned and leased properties. These include critical infrastructure and facilities such as military bases, wharves, ports, airbases, training ranges, fuel and explosive ordnance infrastructure.<\/p>\n

The decarbonisation of the defence estate poses a significant opportunity for Australia\u2019s climate mitigation efforts as well as broader national security objectives. To drive emissions reductions in an efficient, cost effective, safe and systematic way, we believe Defence should:<\/p>\n