I have to thank the Guardian for bringing to my attention a story that might otherwise have passed me by:
The Guardian’s report is so bizarre (though, for once, it seems to be an accurate report of ludicrous conclusions arrived at by someone else, rather than ludicrous exaggeration by the Guardian), that it justifies a closer look at the report itself. The Report in question is the eighth report of the House of Commons Defence Committee of the 2022-23 session, and bears the title “Defence and Climate Change”. Apparently the Government has two months in which to respond. If I were the Government, my response would be, shall we say, robust, but I hold out no hopes for the nature of the actual response.
The Report is divided into four main sections:
Context of the Inquiry
This sets the scene, and the tone is worrying from the very start. First of all it cites the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2023, which ranks what the WEF considers to be the top 32 most severe risks to the planet over the next ten years. One might have hoped that an independent committee of MPs would make its own assessment of such risks, but apparently not. Instead we are told, unquestioningly, that the WEF view forms the backdrop to the committee’s report. And how does the WEF view global risks over the two time frames set out?
Well, over two years, the cost-of living crisis is top of the list, but hard on its heels come natural disasters and extreme weather events; geoeconomic confrontation; failure to mitigate climate change; erosion of social cohesion and societal polarisation; large-scale environmental damage incidents; failure of climate change adaptation; widespread cybercrime and cyber insecurity; natural resource crises; and large-scale involuntary migration.
Over ten years the obeisance to “the climate crisis” intensifies. Starting with the most significant risk, the top ten reads as follows: failure to mitigate climate change; failure of climate-change adaptation; natural disasters and extreme weather events; biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse; large-scale involuntary migration; natural resource crises; erosion of social cohesion and societal polarisation; widespread cybercrime and cyber insecurity; geoeconomic confrontation; and large-scale environmental damage incidents.
It can be seen that the top ten threats remain the same, but the order has been shuffled, so that the “climate crisis” and all its ramifications are now front and centre. Needless to say the House of Commons Defence Committee seems to accept this analysis without demur.
Next we are reminded that in 2019 Parliament legislated (albeit by statutory instrument) for the 2050 net zero requirement. And, with particular reference to a foreign policy and defence perspective, the 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy identified tackling climate change and biodiversity loss as the Government’s number one international priority (yes, really). Someone in a position of authority seems to have woken up, as the Defence Committee report grudgingly concedes that this may be revised following the invasion of Ukraine.
The Committee examines the impact of climate change on the UK’s armed forces, and assesses the contribution of the defence sector in achieving the government’s legally binding obligation to achieve net zero by 2050. One might have thought that our armed forces – and the House of Commons Defence Committee – would have other priorities, but apparently not. We are even referred at this stage to Annex One of the Report. Annex One is pretty revealing. It talks about Greening Government Commitments 2021-2025, and from it we learn that the Government is investing a further £1.425 billion in the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme, with the aim of reducing direct emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037. That is an obligation that extends to the Ministry of Defence.
Still setting the scene, we next learn that the Ministry of Defence sets out its approach to combating climate change (sic) in its 2021 Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach. Yes, there really is such a thing. It identifies the MoD’s “strategic ambition” for 2050 across three strands: adaptation to be able to fight and win in ever more hostile and unforgiving physical environments; to act and be recognised as a global leader in response to the emerging geopolitical and conflict-related threats that are exacerbated by climate change (yes, really); and to have reduced its emissions and increased its sustainability activity and as a department is contributing to the achievement of the UK legal commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
It’s really only when reads this sort of thing, and appreciates the deep extent to which net zero is embedded in every aspect of government, that one understands the full extent of the damage it is causing. We will consider below, as we peruse the later sections of the report, to what extent the MoD has been forced to take its eye off the ball, and we will learn that the House of Commons Defence Committee is happy about this, in principle. Its report basically follows, with approval, the three strands of the MoD’s 2021 Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach.
The Committee launced its inquiry on 12th May 2022. Its terms of reference are revealing. It asked four questions:
What needs to be done to achieve the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy’s number one international priority of meeting climate change and biodiversity loss commitments over the next decade?
What will be the impacts of climate change on future conflict and how are UK Armed Forces adapting to them?
Are UK Armed Forces prepared for the probable increase in requests for Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) tasks as a result of more extreme weather conditions in the UK, and the increased risk of flooding and rising sea levels?
With defence alone accounting for half of central government’s greenhouse gas emissions, what should be the MOD’s contribution towards achieving the UK’s net zero target by 2050?
Issue could easily be taken with the first three, but it’s the fourth that made me sit up and take notice. I had no idea that UK defence accounts for half of central government’s greenhouse gas emissions. If the government is serious about net zero, it’s not enough for it to cajole the rest of us, but it needs to be seen to be reducing its own emissions to net zero. And it plainly can’t do that unless the Ministry of Defence achieves this too. Hence, presumably, what strikes me as a ridiculous Defence Committee inquiry into “Defence and Climate Change”
I understand why quite a few of the witnesses appeared before the inquiry – various military types and people associated with the Ministry of Defence, most obviously. I am less clear why the Committee felt it necessary to hear from John Kerry and from David Beasley, Executive Director of the United Nations’ World Food Programme.
The climate change threat to global security and Defence’s response
I suppose it was inevitable that this section would commence with reference to the Paris Agreement, to the IPCC and to some fairly extreme predictions relating to climate change. Then John Kerry is quoted:
If we don’t respond adequately, I think we will see an undermining of the common principles around which we have organised our defence and security communities. They will be undermined in ways that will challenge why it is that we have not implemented the precautionary principle of governance, which is that when you see a threat coming and know that there are things that are existential, responsible people are supposed to respond. In much of the world today, there is not an adequate response to the cause …
Whatever that means. Who “we” are and what “our” response should be aren’t explained. The fact that the Committee felt it necessary to reproduce Mr Kerry’s banal and imprecise words is more than a little worrying. None of the MPs apparently thought to question what is meant by “we” in that quote, for instance. None of them seemingly thought to ask whether “we” can make any difference if China, Russia, India, and most of the developing world fail to act as Mr Kerry requires.
Then we get a section on maintaining effectiveness of the armed forces in the face of a changing climate. A couple of examples are given:
For example, military vehicles usually designed for temperatures up to 45°C have had to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan at well over 50°C. Lieutenant-General Nugee (retd), non-executive director for climate change and sustainability in the Ministry of Defence, explained that warships, which have traditionally used the cooling effect of the seas to ensure engines operate effectively are finding that the thermal blanketing effect of rising sea temperatures in the Persian Gulf is eroding the efficiency of existing naval engines.
At least the Committee had the sense with regard to the latter observation to comment wryly that “[i]t is surprising this was not factored into the engine specification issued by the Royal Navy or raised by the engine designers and manufacturers.”
Then we are treated to a Met Office prediction that rising temperatures will by 2040 make Cyprus a no-go area for troop training for a few months every year.
The Committee notes that the armed forces are already training in extreme environments:
…the Royal Marines specialise in providing mountain and cold-weather warfare training to the Commandos and other forces for deployment in Norway and the High North region. Similarly, the British Army Training Unit Kenya (BATUK) and the Jungle Warfare Division in Brunei deliver training to allow UK forces to operate in more inhospitable climatic conditions.
But despite that great level of training in extreme conditions, extremes might become yet more extreme, apparently.
And we have to be very worried about melting icecaps. For example, scientists predict that the Arctic will be open water in the summer within 15-20 years. It will be used as a route for international trade and also may be a vital source of critical minerals needed for “clean” [sic] energy technologies. However, the Russians may seek to restrict access. And between the winter ice and the summer ice-free Arctic, there is a period when ice-breakers aren’t needed, but the hulls of warships will be too thin to cope with the less thin ice. We need a fleet that can cope with these problems and also with the increasingly hot waters near the equator.
Adaptation extends beyond this to exploiting new technologies – modular nuclear reactors and electric and hybrid-drive vehicles are mentioned. Perhaps I am naïve, perhaps it’s the Committee members who are naïve, but I found this paragraph to be simply bizarre:
Defence could exploit these technologies, particularly on deployed operations and within overseas bases. For example, it has been estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 US personnel were killed or injured protecting resupply missions in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003–2007—convoys that could be dramatically reduced if deployed forces were able to use a range of solar, electric-drive and micro-nuclear technologies to generate and/or reduce their own hydrocarbon-fuelled power requirements.
That strikes me as close to fantasy-land for the foreseeable future, and far from saving the lives of military personnel, potentially endangers them.
We next learn of the MoD’s proposal to electrify its 15,000 non-military vehicles by 2027, i.e. in just over three years. Why the rush? Surely it makes sense to replace vehicles as and when they expire and require to be replaced, rather than proceed at great expense and without first undertaking satisfactory trials simply to meet an artificial target date?
Similarly, we learn that the RAF is looking at alternative fuels for its ‘yellow fleet’ refuelling vehicles. By 2025, the Army expects to complete hybrid electric drive experiments with technology retrofitted to a Support Vehicle truck, Foxhound and Jackal vehicles following a £9 million investment. At least these are only experiments, and I can accept that there might be something in the purported military benefit – silent surveillance capabilities without a noisy engine running. I am a little more sceptical about the other purported benefit – “increased on-board power for more complex electrical systems and to support dismounted operations.”
The above all seems a little surreal in the face of the next paragraphs of the report, which note that over the next few years the army is due to take delivery of more than 1,000 armoured vehicles with conventional diesel engines, many of which are expected to remain in service after the 2050 net zero date. Interestingly at this point the Committee report describes 2050 net zero as a target rather than as a legal obligation. In addition, it notes that the Royal Navy is in the final design stages for diesel-fuelled ships that will be built in the 2030s and remain in service until the 2080s.
MPs never seem to tire of issuing instructions to meet mutually incompatible targets. Just as Ofgem is told to decarbonise electricity generation while enhancing energy security and reducing costs to consumers, so the MoD is enjoined to “push hard to reduce carbon emissions from its equipment, without eroding military capability.”
It seems the MoD is happy to follow the instructions from its political masters (but see later in this article for a possible alternative view), for we are next told that:
James Clare, Director, Levelling Up, The Union, Climate Change and Sustainability at the Ministry of Defence, set out Defence’s underlying principle in terms of climate change and reducing carbon emissions, which is to:
contribute fully to the UK’s net zero commitment, while preserving our (military) capabilities.
It seems scarcely credible that someone should hold such a curious job title. This is how far down the net zero rabbit hole the MoD has fallen. At least the House of Commons Defence Committee seems to find such a job title to be less than appropriate – see later in this article.
Apparently, with regard to the MoD’s substantial estate, it has a plan (“Epochs”) involving an incremental approach to achieving net zero, over three time periods: 2021-2025; 2026-2035; and 2036-2050. In the first of those three periods the plan is to catalogue emissions and identify reduction targets, with a particular focus on the defence estate. Rather frighteningly (to those of us who care about the wild places) the MoD has access to around 1.8% of the UK land mass, it owns or controls 225,800 hectares, and has access rights to a further 206,700 hectares. In this respect the army (i.e. the UK taxpayer) has already “invested” (i.e. spent) £200 million in “Project Prometheus” with a view to trying to save 2,000 tCO2e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) annually across four sites. This is the sort of thinking that now permeates the Ministry of Defence:
Lieutenant-General Wardlaw, Chief of Defence Logistics and Support, Ministry of Defence, stated that if 650 hectares—the size of Hyde Park—of solar farms were built it would represent something like 0.2% of the defence estate and service 15% of the Army’s energy needs through the summer. By that logic the equivalent of 100% of the Army’s energy needs during the summer could be met by putting solar panels on 1.3% of the defence estate.
No mention is made of what happens during the winter, or even during the summer on dull days.
The MoD spends around 12% of its budget on its estate, but as pressures on its budget have increased (one assumes that net zero projects like Prometheus have increased those pressures), funding allocated to the estate has reduced, to the point where much of its built estate is “… old, poor quality and expensive to run. Around 40% of its estate assets are more than 50 years old.” The built estate consists of around 96,000 buildings, providing around 100,000 bed spaces and 49,500 homes for personnel and their families. Unsurprisingly, satisfaction with the accommodation has fallen significantly over the past decade. The most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey found that Service Family Accommodation satisfaction with the ‘responses to request for repairs’ fell from 46% in 2014 to 19% in 2023, and satisfaction with the ‘quality of that work’ fell from 40% to 19%. Levels of satisfaction with responses to, and quality of repair work, for Single Living Accommodation were 27% and 29%, in the most recent survey, respectively.
It’s something of a shambles, in other words. How do they propose to respond to those levels of dissatisfaction? By going for “carbon-saving” measures of course. They haven’t done anything about it yet, though – they propose looking at it later this year.
Another dubious conclusion has been arrived at too, namely that the war in Ukraine has brought to light in stark terms the vulnerability of infrastructure to physical and/or cyber-attack. They have thus decided that they would be less vulnerable and more resilient if they fit more low-carbon energy generating capacity across the MoD’s estate. Quite why that infrastructure would be less vulnerable than any other isn’t explained. Never mind, we are also told that the RAF already has a commitment to make its bases net zero by 2030. We aren’t told what this will cost or how it will be achieved.
This section next deals with the provision of military aid to civilian authorities (MACA). Extraordinarily, it asserts that “[f]looding is expected to be the most prominent climate change risk in the UK over the next five years.” This claim is made despite figures supplied by the MoD for MACA requests (figures which were accepted by the Committee) are said not to indicate any trend, though if anything they indicate a downward trend (194 in 2019; 606 in 2020; 320 in 2021; and 101in 2022). We are also told (without explanation – and one is needed, since at first blush the assertion makes no sense) that “the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic impacted considerably on the statistics.” The Committee expresses its concern that reducing numbers of personnel will be less able to cope with MACA tasks, with the result that the Government needs to be aware of this and should possibly increase non-forces capacity to respond to civil emergencies. All of which is common sense, but what is not common sense is the assertion that flooding incidents are likely to be the most prominent climate change risk in the next five years – especially given that the only evidence cited suggests declining numbers of MACA requests in recent years.
Defence as a global leader for tackling climate change
This is where the Report takes on a particularly surreal aspect. Lieutenant-General Nugee (retd), non-executive director for climate change and sustainability in the Ministry of Defence noted that “… perhaps the one that I feel most strongly about, is that Defence’s ambition is to be the global leader in understanding the security implications of climate change.” He went on to say:
The UK is often looked to as the thought leader in this area, and we need to ensure that we remain the thought leader. When the Pentagon—President Biden and the Defence Secretary—published their strategy at the beginning of last year, it quoted only four documents, one of which was ours. They have looked to us for some thought leadership, and other countries are looking to us for thought leadership … We need to be a global leader, and to lead the world in understanding what we can do about it.
Why it is important for the UK (as ever) to be a “global leader” in this area isn’t really explained at all, and certainly not to my satisfaction. It also sits a little uneasily with this paragraph from the Committee’s report:
The Ministry of Defence has a mixed picture regarding milestones and targets. The RAF has set itself a stretching target of a ‘Carbon Net Balanced Service by 2040’ — a decade ahead of the Government’s net zero target. Moreover, it has interim milestones — a net zero airbase by 2025 and a net zero estate by 2030, however it is unclear as to how they propose to achieve this without impacting on military capability. There is a mixed picture among other Top-Level Budget holders (TLBs) across Defence. Linsey Cottrell, Environmental Policy Officer, Conflict and Environment Observatory, told us that the Ministry of Defence as a whole did not have a 2050 net zero target and was not aware the Army had a net zero target either.
Not does the Royal Navy appear to have publicly disclosed a 2050 net zero target. Further, “Defence Equipment & Support have a net zero target across their operations and infrastructure by 2040, but for ‘capabilities’ (i.e. building military equipment) it is only committed to ‘ … reduc(ing) the carbon footprint of the capabilities we deliver and support by 2050.’
NATO (who we apparently seek to influence as part of our “global leadership” role) has recently announced a cut in headquarters emissions of at least 45% by 2030, and net zero by 2050, but has not set out the methodology by which this will be achieved. Similarly, the IPCC has yet to publish any estimates of military greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise, the National Inventory Reports compiled through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change do not report emissions arising from military fuel use and other military activities in a transparent, consistent and robust format.
At this point, the Report seems to lose all semblance of understanding regarding the need for confidentiality and secrecy regarding the activities of the UK’s armed forces (albeit it seems that other countries understand the importance of this with regard to their own armed forces all too well). The MoD is publishing more information than most other countries, such as, for example, information on military fuel use (yes, really). China, Russia, North Korea et al must be laughing their socks off.
In para 61 the Committee recommends:
The Ministry of Defence should work with other UK government partners to encourage the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to update their reporting framework so emissions from military fuel use and other activities are set out in National Inventory Reports. The Ministry of Defence should also urge NATO to increase its transparency and publish its methodology for accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.
Words fail me.
The report next moves from being barking mad to hilarious. The Committee laments the loss of MoD annual reports on climate change and sustainability. The MoD receives credit (from the Committee – not from me) for appearing to produce more climate change information than other nations’ armed forces (it appears that other nations’ armed forces are more focussed on the day job and more aware of the dangers of supplying useful information to potential enemies). However, the Committee is disappointed that the MoD has stopped providing the annual stand-alone progress report that it produced between 2010 and 2018. It has been replaced by the MoD’s higher-annual profile annual report and accounts, which contain only six pages of environmental information, compared to the 64-page Sustainable MOD Annual Report in 2018.
Consequently the underpinning detail has been lost (thank goodness – perhaps it dawned on someone at the MoD that providing such information to one’s potential enemies isn’t the best of strategies), and the Committee is upset that this makes external validation of the Ministry of Defence’s evidence (about progress towards net zero) more difficult. An example given is that in the report & accounts published in July 2022 the MoD’s reported overall emissions from the defence estate are more than 40% higher than quoted in earlier reports, but neither explanation nor underlying data are provided to explain this “apparent discrepancy”. So much for being global leaders!
Reading on, one feels as though one has entered a parallel universe:
The inclusion of the ‘Defence Carbon Footprint’ in the Annual Report & Accounts 2021–22 was a welcome development. This revealed total measured emissions for defence at around three-and-a-half times the level of those emissions reported as part of central government’s Greening Government Commitments (GGC) targets — 0.96 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) compared to 3.34M tCO2e. However, even this figure for total measured emissions fails to come close to an estimated total for overall UK defence emissions. In 2020 Dr Stuart Parkinson used the methodology of Professor Mike Berners-Lee of Lancaster University to estimate total emissions (referred to as the ‘carbon footprint’) from UK defence at around 13 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e).
This broader figure is more challenging to calculate accurately, but the Ministry of Defence could commission work to estimate it better, and ensure it is independently verified.
Seriously? Apparently so. The Committee concludes:
Measuring and reporting against the total defence carbon emission figure would support both the Government’s agenda of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050, but also provide a gold standard of military emissions reporting for other countries to emulate. Good practice would be to ensure these figures are independently verified.
Net zero continues to trump all else, including the need for military secrecy.
Defence’s contribution to ‘net zero’
This section starts with a statement of the blindingly obvious:
One of the challenges faced by Defence is to contribute to the UK’s goal of becoming net zero by 2050 without eroding military capability.
Or as I prefer to express it, the incompatibility of net zero by 2050 with maintaining military capability. Even Lieutenant-General Nugee (retd), non-executive director for climate change and sustainability in the Ministry of Defence recognised that simple truth when he told the Committee that:
…we are not going to get to zero. We will not have electric tanks, with current technology, and we still need tanks, as has been proved in Ukraine. There is only so far that we can go…
Well, thank goodness for that counter-blast of common sense. The Epochs targets (mentioned above) currently relate only to reducing emissions from the MoD estate and civilian operations, and not to any emissions that might have an impact on military operations. Even so, the “global leaders” at the MoD might be said to be paying little more than lip service to the net zero fiasco:
However, compared to other central government departments, the Ministry of Defence has the least demanding ‘direct emissions’ target of 10% (compared to an average of 25% for all departments) and the second-least demanding ‘overall emissions reduction target’ of 30% (compared to the average of 49%) (Figure 7). This, despite the Ministry of Defence admitting that it produces half of all central government’s carbon emissions, based on the GGC criteria.
If – as I hope – the MoD is simply playing the game of pretending to be signed up to this nonsense, and stringing the politicians along, then paragraph 77 of the report is hilariously revealing:
In fact, according to Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility, the target for reducing carbon emissions “… has been set so lax that it would be met even if the MOD took no action to reduce emissions before 2025.” This is because the two principal GGC targets focus on emissions across the defence estate, much of which emanate from energy supplied by the National Grid. The Grid has been decarbonising and expanding its use of low-carbon energy sources — especially wind power — thereby reducing the emissions of any users of that energy. Consequently, Dr Stuart Parkinson’s analysis suggests that, against Defence’s GGC ‘overall emissions’ (i.e. the defence estate and civilian operations) target of 30% by 2025, emissions will reduce by 32% purely through the work of the National Grid, without the Department having to take any action whatsoever (see Annex 3 for a detailed calculation).
The Defence Committee is having none of it:
For the next round of Greening Government Commitments from 2025–2030, Defence should ensure its targets are more demanding and accompanied by plans to achieve them.
It’s rather worrying that this section of the report is so lengthy and detailed. Time and again the Committee examines the plans (or lack of them) of the various services within the MoD, and asks for greater detail, more planning, more public reporting, and better understanding of targets and how to achieve them. Personally I regard this as a massive distraction from the MoD’s day job. Regrettably, the Committee doesn’t see things that way – greenhouse gas emissions and net zero seem to be an overriding obsession.
Earlier in this article, I mentioned that the Climate Change Director within the MoD actually has the job title of Director, Levelling Up, The Union, Climate Change and Sustainability. At this point the Committee expresses its doubts as to the ongoing sense of combining such roles. Worryingly, their doubts aren’t regarding the strangeness of dumping such diverse jobs on one individual, but rather because of “the pressing need for reductions in carbon emissions.” So pressing, indeed, that the Committee wheels out another quote from John Kerry at this point. The conclusion at paragraph 93 is as follows:
Given increasing scientific concerns around failing to hold to the 1.5° limit on warming and the need for Defence to transition from establishing a comprehensive baseline of carbon emissions in Epoch 1 to significantly reducing emissions in Epoch 2, having the climate change director also responsible for the Union and Levelling-Up in the Ministry of Defence may be too distracting for the important work that needs to be achieved at pace.
And that’s it. There are sixteen conclusions in total, many of which I have covered above. If I haven’t mentioned them, I don’t believe they are worth mentioning. All relate to climate change and net zero, as might be expected from a report with the title that this one has. One can’t help feeling that the Defence Committee’s focus is concentrated on the wrong area.
Conclusions
The report is singularly lacking in logic and common sense. It commences very solemnly by setting the scene, including (at paragraph 2) a reference to “legislation requiring the Government to reduce the UK’s net emissions of greenhouse gases by 100% relative to 1990 levels by 2050.” By paragraph 31 that is being referred to as “the Government’s challenge to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.” By paragraph 32, the report refers to “the 2050 net zero goal” and by paragraph 34, it talks of “the Government’s 2050 net zero target.” So a legal requirement becomes by stages a challenge, then a goal, then a target. Do these people have the faintest understanding of what they have legislated for and what it truly means?
Next we learn that the activities of the MoD account for around half of the Government’s greenhouse gas emissions, but that ships in the late design stages for the Royal Navy and 1,000 armoured vehicles that are to be supplied to the army in the next few years will run on diesel and many will remain operational beyond the crucial 2050 date. Nevertheless, the MoD is told that it has to pursue oxymoronic aims by ““push[ing] hard to reduce carbon emissions from its equipment, without eroding military capability.”
And in order to “save the planet” the Committee thinks that the MoD should report transparently (thus facilitating independent verification) on its greenhouse gas emissions in a way that will “provide a gold standard of military emissions reporting for other countries to emulate.” If the members of the Committee seriously think that the armies of the world’s greatest greenhouse gas emitters (many of whom, regrettably, are potential enemies, who must welcome such transparency from the MoD) would emulate such foolhardiness, then I respectfully suggest that they’re in the wrong job.
Postscript
The House of Commons Defence Committee has eleven members, of whom five are Conservatives, one SNP, four Labour and one DUP. The agenda is shared by MPs of all parties. I have no doubt that the sole Green MP and few Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru members in the House of Commons would be happy to sign up to the report.
Footnote – for non-UK readers, It Ain’t Half Hot Mum was a 1970s BBC comedy series about an army troupe entertaining soldiers in India during World War Two. Regrettably, as that comedy show demonstrated to a degree, the UK’s armed forces for several centuries have been well used to operating in countries with all extreme temperatures imaginable, from tropical jungles and arid deserts to Arctic Norway (at the start of the Second World War) and the Falklands.
Climate Scepticism 
It seems our Navy is ahead of the game. Earlier this year, @RAF_Luton reported:
The RAF is doing its bit to reduce emissions by deploying environmentally friendly semi-nuclear bombs:
Meanwhile, the Army’s enviable efforts should not go unrecognised:
LikeLiked by 3 people
If you want to defeat your enemy, the best way to do it is not to engage in fighting at all, but to demoralize your enemy so thoroughly that they become incapable of fighting. I can’t think of a better way of demoralising the British people and armed services personnel in particular than to impose upon them this ridiculous decarbonisation of the RAF, Navy and Army. That is what is really happening here. Total War is being waged upon the British nation and its military forces, before even a rifle is raised or a bomb dropped. As regards this demoralisation process: Cui bono?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very thorough and very depressing. I’ll have something sensible to say later. In the meantime, in the section ‘Context of the Inquiry’ you have put ‘withut demur’. Shouldn’t that be ‘withut demour’?
LikeLike
Okay, I’ve thought of something sensible to say now.
The best way of not losing as many wars is to not have so many in the first place. For that reason, I am reminded of what prominent climate scientist Michael Mann has said on this very subject:
“The only way to prevent wars from becoming more frequent and more intense is to prevent the continued warming of the planet. And the only way to do that is to decarbonize our armed forces as rapidly as possible.”
You know it makes sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, don’t forget Costa Rica stopped their pattern of civil unrest and revolutions by disbanding their military.
LikeLike
Whoops, I was responding to John.
LikeLike
Joe Public,
Thanks for the laugh. There is indeed something ludicrous about an organisation in possession of massive bombs (including nuclear ones) being urged to do its bit to “save the planet”.
I wonder what GHGs were emitted during, say, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I wonder what emissions are resulting from Putin’s war in Ukraine? I’m pretty confident he doesn’t care two hoots about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Thanks for spotting the typo, which I have now corrected. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I proof-read an article, an error always slips through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And here’s your decarbonized military
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had the chance to visit Hendon last year. What should I see in the stairwell?
Alas – or perhaps thankfully – that exhibit was closed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Okay, I’ve finally come up with something sensible to say.
It strikes me that the real problem here is that all this woke attention to climate change is distracting the armed forces from what is actually their primary mission – which is to promote diversity and inclusivity within its workforce:
https://news.sky.com/story/royal-air-force-unlawfully-discriminated-against-white-male-recruits-in-bid-to-boost-diversity-inquiry-finds-12911888
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jit,
That picture naturally set me to searching the internet:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/a-net-zero-raf-by-2040/
Extraordinary. I know that the RAF does a lot of positive work – e.g. RAF Sea King helicopters involved in rescues. However, its job also involves killing people, and bombing places. The touchy feely stuff does seem more than a little strange in that context.:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear…
Talk about cloud cuckoo land!
LikeLike
Did you look upwards in the main display hall to see the gas-fired radiant tubes? Of the gas-fired warm air heaters in the Grahame-White hanger? 🤣
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding the imaginary climate crisis, the western world is in a fatal downward spiral
burdened with unsustainable debt.
Heres Mises org article on ant-prosperity Government schemes and US debt.
vhttps://mises.org/wire/coming-collapse-global-ponzi-scheme
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://mises.org/wire/coming-collapse-global-ponzi-scheme
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cat,
I was tempted to call this one “Cloud Cuckoo Land – Part Three”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Having tried, and thus far failed, to come up with anything sensible, I’ll give the Guardian’s Will Duguid the next go:
“Can war be sustainable and eco-friendly?”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/31/ethicalliving.carbonemissions
Will wrote a series of similarly ‘humorous’ Guardian sketches satirising eco-concerns but seemed to give up some 15 years ago. I wonder what he is doing now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also worth noting that Spiked magazine gave this subject a passing nod last year:
“Is it time for an eco-friendly war?”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/30/is-it-time-for-an-eco-friendly-war/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, I’ll stop mucking about now and say what I feel I need to say.
That there are ethical and unethical ways of conducting war is an idea that goes all the way back to the days of the Knights of the Templar and medieval chivalry. It was still going strong at the start of the First World War, particularly in the air, but took a severe blow after the use of mustard gas. Nevertheless, we still seem to think we can whitewash the atrocity of war through the judicious application of various conventions. To that we now add greenwashing. For the sake of our national security, let us hope that that is all that the UK government is up to here. However, for the broader sake of humanity, let us drop these sorts of delusions. They make no more ethical sense than the idea of safe nuclear bombs:
LikeLiked by 2 people
John,
That’s a good find. Here’s another one by the same author:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/sep/30/comment.mainsection1
It’s far more amusing than what passes for comedy/parody these days. Back then the Guardian was able to laugh at itself, and was generally a nicer place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Twenty or so years ago I recall the US boasted it had spent a considerable number of billions of dollars refitting its nuclear tipped ICBM fleet with environmentally friendly rocket motors…
LikeLike
It seems it’s not just UK politicians who are at it:
“ADF’s fighting ability could be ‘degraded’ by burden of responding to natural disasters, inquiry says
Parliamentary committee warns ‘over-reliance’ on personnel could be exploited amid climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/14/adf-australian-defence-force-natural-disasters-response-could-degrade-fighting-ability
LikeLike
“Is the West ready for World War 3?
Even as geopolitical tensions rise, Western elites are still sabotaging our industries and energy security.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/05/is-the-west-ready-for-world-war-3/
LikeLike
“US and UK militaries owe combined $111bn in climate reparations – study
Exclusive: study finds militaries have generated about 430m metric tonnes of CO2 emissions since 2015 Paris accords”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/06/study-us-and-uk-militaries-owe-combined-111bn-in-climate-reparations
LikeLike
“Solar panels used by British Army linked to claims of forced labour in China”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67550551
LikeLike
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/18/tobias-ellwood-mp-claims-british-warships-are-immobilised-by-climate-change/
LikeLike
That would be the same Ellwood who is a lieutenant colonel in the 77th brigade which spied on, deliberately discredited and actively censored members of the public during Covid.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/77th-brigade-and-the-parliamentary-conflict-of-interest
LikeLike
It would not surprise me in the least if the 77th brigade are currently spying on climate sceptic sites and attempting to police open media platforms like X in order to try and keep the climate crisis/Net Zero narrative going.
LikeLike
From NALOPKT ”They found in certain parts of Scotland, temperatures have risen by 2.5C in February – with an average of 16.9C in the period of 1960-1989 increasing to 19.4C during the three decades of 1990-2019.” I wonder if they The SUN are confused with degrees F.
LikeLike
Although what I wrote in the article at the head of this thread was taking the mickey out of any idea that the UK military should be worrying about net zero, I have long thought that the emissions generated by war and conflict do seem to be ignored, by and large. Perhaps that is changing. I found this to be interesting:
“The climate costs of war and militaries can no longer be ignored
Doug Weir
More than 5% of global emissions are linked to conflict or militaries but countries continue to hide the true scale”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/09/emission-from-war-military-gaza-ukraine-climate-change
LikeLike
“Net Zero threatens national security”
From Net Zero Watch:
“Professor Prins, formerly head of the Mackinder Programme at the London School of Economics, and an adviser to NATO and the Ministry of Defence, warns that our lack of secure energy supplies risks leaving us dangerously exposed.
All offshore energy supplies are vulnerable, and we have insufficient naval power to protect them. Reliance on piped gas from Norway, LNG shipments from America or the Middle East, or the output of rigs and windfarms on our own continental shelf is therefore irresponsible.”
Professor Prins notes that Germany, usually seen as an environmental leader, has already taken the first steps down this road, building super-efficient ‘ultrasupercritical’ coal-fired power stations in response to the deepening energy security crisis and the disaster of their green energy transition.”
LikeLike
“Germany, usually seen as an environmental leader, has already taken the first steps down this road, building super-efficient ‘ultrasupercritical’ coal-fired power stations in response to the deepening energy security crisis and the disaster of their green energy transition.”
Yet not a Peep from our usual MSM on Germany Energiewende project going pear shaped & real world reality kicking in.
LikeLike
“In the Land of Net Zero, The Man in the Diesel Tank is King”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/02/in-the-land-of-net-zero-the-man-in-the-diesel-tank-is-king/
LikeLike
How about the Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons? Surely this counts and I cannot conceive of Putin invading if this had not been done.
LikeLike
Alan, Ukraine’s giving up of nuclear weapons was most unusual, and happened in strange circumstances; the break-up of the USSR, and Ukraine’s desire for independence from Russia – arguably the giving up of nuclear weapons was the price to be paid for that. And time has proved it to be a high price, for the very reason you mention.
For the UK to set about deliberately, as a matter of policy, rendering its armed forces less effective (for no reason other than to comply with net zero targets) is an act of staggering folly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Robin Guenier has alluded to this on another thread, but I think it’s worth mentioning here:
“Net Zero is a National Security Threat and Must Be Abandoned, Former Security Minister Warns”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/01/net-zero-is-a-national-security-threat-and-must-be-abandoned-former-security-minister-warns/
LikeLike
“Ministers call for ‘much greater pace’ of UK defence investment
Frontbenchers use social media to put pressure on PM after Commons report criticises military funding plans”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/09/ministers-call-for-much-greater-pace-of-uk-defence-investment
“Two serving ministers have called for a “much greater pace” of investment in defence spending, putting pressure on Rishi Sunak a day after the Commons’ spending watchdog warned that the Ministry of Defence had no credible plan to fund the military capabilities the government wants.
The Foreign Office minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Home Office minister Tom Tugendhat said in a post on LinkedIn that the UK needed to “lead the way” by increasing defence and security spending to at least 2.5% of gross domestic product, a measure of the size of the economy.
The chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has said “our spending will rise to 2.5% as soon as economic conditions allow” – surpassing the Nato-wide target of 2% – but provided no details of how that would happen.
“The sad truth is that the world is no longer benign,” Trevelyan and Tugendhat wrote. “Protecting ourselves requires investment. And effective investment means that our industrial complex must grow and strengthen at much greater pace than at present.”…
…In their article, Trevelyan, the Indo-Pacific minister, and security minister Tugendhat said they were concerned about the level of defence spending needed to respond to China, which announced this week that it was increasing its defence spending by another 7.2%, and Russia, which has committed to spending 40% of its expenditure on defence – much of that in Ukraine…
…They called for an investment in defence and security industry, a strengthening of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and a growing of the country’s munitions lines, in part to help bolster the efforts in Ukraine.
“We cannot turn on the complex platforms and weapons which ensure military advantage overnight,” they wrote. “We must start that growth now, invest at pace to support our allies and stay ahead of our adversaries.”
Haven’t they read the Report? It’s climate change that the MoD should be worrying about.
LikeLike
I just got given this (one quarter shown) the other side of the road from a noisy demo outside the main Bristol University building. There was also stuff on Ecocide on the leaflet. I managed to say something substantial to the guy giving out the flyer. But I’m struggling with the WP comment tech. More later.
LikeLike
“Military Push for Net Zero Combat Vehicles Faces Backlash From Top Brass”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/12/08/military-push-for-net-zero-combat-vehicles-faces-backlash-from-top-brass/
…The Government has pledged to put its wider Net Zero goals at the heart of its defence industrial strategy, which was launched alongside a speech by Sir Keir Starmer this week on a major reset of government policy.
It said the strategy would “support Net Zero, regional growth and economic security and resilience”.
A Government source added: “New and emerging technologies can support decarbonisation efforts and improve battlefield capability, reducing the supply chain vulnerability of liquid fuel and also reducing the heat signature and noise of vehicles on the battlefield.”
Asked about the possibility of an electric tank, they added: “Never say never.”However, military grandees on Saturday called for the Government to think again before pressing ahead with the “crazy endeavour”, warning that a rush to Net Zero on the battlefield could put British troops at a disadvantage.
LikeLike
“Hundreds of solar panels to be fitted at barracks”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8k4yy22w4o
….Royal Engineer Lt Col Jamie Walkworth, from the Army’s sustainability, efficiency and exploitation team, said: “We are delighted to see work getting under way to deliver a new solar installation at Weeton Barracks.
“By increasing the supply and availability of renewable energy on Army sites, we are building a more sustainable estate that will enhance our energy resilience.”...
But not in the winter….Let’s hope our enemies don’t have a plan that revolves around the seasons.
LikeLike
“Clean energy superpower – and now defence superpower. Can the UK really be both?
The government’s plan to ramp up defence spending means relying on carbon-intensive industries – and those won’t be the only policy compromises they have to make”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2025/mar/27/clean-energy-superpower-and-now-defence-superpower-can-the-uk-really-be-both
The UK will become a “defence industrial superpower”, said the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, in Wednesday’s spring statement, an ambition that will involve using much more steel, one assumes.
Now comes news that the Chinese owner of the UK’s second largest steel plant may close its two blast furnaces as early as June, which would further erode the UK’s already-thin steel-making capabilities. Indeed, closure of Scunthorpe would also mean an end to domestic steel-making from scratch using traditional carbon-intensive blast furnaces – the other two, at Tata’s Port Talbot site, closed last year.
To make the timing worse, the crisis at Scunthorpe has arrived while the government is still pondering its strategy for steel. A consultation, including an expert review of alternative technologies to make primary steel, closes next Monday. “The central mission of this government is growth. Steel can, and will, have an enormous role to play in driving that growth,” wrote Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, in his introduction. Fine, but what are you going to do about Scunthorpe?…
...The stakes are even higher when you take a step back and ask whether spending more on defence is compatible with another of the government’s big ambitions – the one to be a “clean energy superpower”. Sir Dieter Helm, leading energy economist and former adviser to previous Labour and Conservative governments, asked the question in a lively paper (and accompanying podcast) last week and its title – Defence and the Retreat from Net Zero – gives away his conclusion.
Spending more on defence inevitably involves investing in heavy stuff that explodes, uses chemicals or is made in carbon-intensive ways. “Think steel, shells, fighter planes and support ships,” said Helm.
One of his examples of the strategic challenges is worth quoting at length.
“To defend Britain, we need a lot of kit that relies on primary steel (not the weaker recycled form). Imagine, then, that, as a defence policy, we close Port Talbot and the rest of the primary steel production in the UK. We still need the steel. Where will we get it from? Step forward China.
“Now remember that the PM wants to keep very close to the US. Now imagine China invades Taiwan, and the US calls on Britain to support it – as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the PM will follow Harold Wilson’s brave rejection of participation in Vietnam. Perhaps not. If the PM does want to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the US over Taiwan, it is hardly a safe assumption that the supply chain for defence, including the steel from China, is going to stand up.”
His point is that a serious defence policy needs secure supply chains and energy- and carbon-intensive industries that don’t pass the green test. The Scunthorpe plant itself may be destined for a cleaner furnace eventually, but the mix of steel, defence and net zero ambitions raises deep questions. Setting aside £2.5bn to revive steelmaking in the UK may be easy bit. If Helm is right, there will also be policy compromises.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some lessons here for the UK government?
“US Military Exits Climate Change After Wasteful Decade”
https://www.masterresource.org/goreham-steve/us-military-exits-climate-change/
…Under President Joe Biden, the US government adopted a goal of net-zero emissions for both the US economy and the federal government by 2050. At the direction of the administration, all branches of the US military developed plans to try to get to Net Zero, the elimination of all hydrocarbon-based energy…
…The Great Green Fleet program attempted to use a drop-in blend of biofuels to replace diesel fuel in ships. In 2016, the navy deployed a carrier task force using a fuel mixture of 90% diesel and 10% biofuels. But the biofuel portion cost about $14 per gallon, seven times as much as the diesel portion. The navy also proposed to install hybrid electric-drive engines in 34 “green destroyers” to allow them to run on either fuel or electricity generated from fuel.
But the Great Green Fleet was a dismal failure. Biofuels were high cost and not available around the world, requiring the use of traditional diesel fuel in overseas ports. The hybrid electric-drive destroyers could not keep up with nuclear-powered carriers when using electric engines.
By the end of 2017, the Navy had spent $57 billion on green fuel programs. The electric-drive destroyer program was cancelled in 2018. By 2022, except for nuclear-powered ships, more than 99 percent of the US Navy’s fuel still came from petroleum.
But the Biden Administration urged the navy to double down on climate change objectives. The Navy issued its Climate Action 2030 plan in May of 2022, pursing a “department-wide pathway to net-zero by 2050.” The written plan lauds recent climate change “achievements,” including the “Mekong Delta Climate Research Collaboration” with the government of Vietnam, the “California Organic Recycling and Composting” project, and a partnership with the armed forces of Ghana to “combat vector-borne diseases that are exacerbated by climate change.” It’s not clear that these programs improve navy military readiness in any way….
And much more in similar vein.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Revealed: Nato rearmament could increase emissions by 200m tonnes a year
Exclusive: researchers say defence spending boosts across world will worsen climate crisis which in turn will cause more conflict”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/29/nato-military-spending-could-increase-emissions-study-finds
A global military buildup poses an existential threat to climate goals, according to researchers who say the rearmament planned by Nato alone could increase greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200m tonnes a year.
With the world embroiled in the highest number of armed conflicts since the second world war, countries have embarked on military spending sprees, collectively totalling a record $2.46tn in 2023.
For every dollar invested in new hardware, there is not only a corresponding carbon cost but also an opportunity cost to potential climate action, critics say. This is on top of the huge death toll resulting from armed conflicts.
“There is a real concern around the way that we are prioritising short-term security and sacrificing long-term security,” said Ellie Kinney, a researcher with the Conflict and Environment Observatory and a co-author of the study, shared exclusively with the Guardian.
“Because of this kind of lack-of-informed approach that we’re taking, you’re investing in hard military security now, increasing global emissions for that reason, and worsening the climate crisis further down the line.”...
I suppose we should just allow Putin to do whatever he wants, then. After all, he’s really concerned about climate change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A global military buildup poses an existential threat to climate goals, according to researchers“
By that I take they mean “Swords to ploughshares” –
“The phrase originates from the Book of Isaiah chapter 2:
Many peoples shall come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
Seems the message has fallen on deaf ears.
LikeLike
https://ceobs.org/about/
A trivial bunch of people who have never been in a conflict, whose comfortable Western lifestyle would not have been possible absent the deterrence provided by NATO (we don’t capitalise it any more?), and for whom the Potemkin military that NATO has become is quite enough, thank you. If the first word in your name is “conflict”, maybe you should consider employing someone who has been in a conflict? An ex-military person, perhaps. Someone who might recognise that conflict is not engaged in for fun.
What value do they put on a strong military preventing attacks by those countries that do not have a high Guardian readership?
Quite pathetic.
According to the IEA, “In 2024, CO2 emissions from fuel combustion grew by around 1% or 357 Mt CO2“
In other words (I’m not clear what metric the think-tankers are referring to), the NATO rearmament would itself be a minor contribution to emissions, even though we may be suspicious that a few thumbs, and maybe a big toe or two, were placed on the scales.
[The same IEA page has this:
They may want to believe that, but it isn’t true. Decoupling is not when there is no longer a 1:1 relationship; it is when there is no relationship. Disinformation.]
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Only two European states have net zero military emissions target, data shows
Austria and Slovenia are exceptions in continent where just a third of militaries even know their carbon footprint”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/31/only-two-european-states-have-net-zero-military-emissions-target-data-shows
…The analysis of military climate plans from the 27 EU member states and the UK, Norway and Switzerland – all of whom have committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050 – found nearly all their defence ministries lacked short-term targets to sharply cut emissions and long-term goals to bring their net climate impact to zero.…
…The British Royal Air Force has set itself an ambitious net zero target of 2040 – a decade earlier than the country’s national climate pledge – but other parts of the armed forces have not. A UK government spokesperson said the defence ministry would contribute to the country’s national climate goal “while maintaining or enhancing operational advantage”.…
…While the military’s carbon intensity is likely to fall as the global economy grows cleaner, experts say the heavy fossil fuel consumption of vehicles such as planes, ships and tanks will require serious effort to clean up. Military sources say many actions that are being taken today – such as investing in solar panels, heat pumps and fuel-efficient vehicles – are driven by a desire to save money, though factors such as cutting pollution, reducing emissions and increasing energy independence also play a role.…
...The challenge is ensuring that these defence investments do not further weaken climate commitments, said Krampe.
“The defence sector can no longer be a blind spot in climate action,” he said. “Rising military spending should drive green innovation, not lock in carbon dependence.”
Insane.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The British Royal Air Force has set itself an ambitious net zero target of 2040”
I thought this had to be a misquote, seems not – A Net Zero RAF by 2040 | Royal Air Force
Quote – “Why go green?
We are dependent on the ecosystem to succeed but the world is gradually becoming more damaged by human activity We need to use our power to maintain the environment, improve its condition, and enhance the ecosystem before it is too late.
The Net Zero strategy will ensure the Next Generation of RAF are prepared and can continue achieving its primary mission to deliver operations and protect our people. The RAF must see how climate change impacts our people and equipment; working to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, as resources become scarcer and cause environmental damage.”
Had a quick look at RAF “green” nuke capabilities out of curiosity –
Nuclear Strike Mission Could Return to the RAF After 27-Year Gap – The Aviationist
Mushroom clouds sounds nice & ECO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Green rules ‘stop Europe preparing for Russian invasion’
Leaked letter from defence ministers says rules stop expansion of military bases and prevent fighter jet pilots from training”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/06/05/eu-green-rules-blocking-military-expansion-nine-countries/
…In a leaked letter obtained by the Telegraph, the nations’ defence ministers argued that the rules had stopped the expansion of military bases and prevented fighter jet pilots from training.…
...In 2023, the European commission published its ‘Greening the Armies’ report, highlighting ways in which militaries present a challenge to tackling climate change.
It pushed for European armed forces to consider more virtual training exercises, rather than real-world sessions, in order to cut down on emissions….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It pushed for European armed forces to consider more virtual training exercises“
Well I can vouch for that, I play Call of Duty PC game & am ready for for the real thing.
PS – as long as it’s “easy” level.
LikeLike
Oh dear, this doesn’t sit well with the UK military’s net zero targets.
“Military drills spark hundreds of wildfires in UK”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy08j04je2jo
Live-fire military training has sparked hundreds of wildfires across the UK countryside since 2023, with unexploded shells often making it too dangerous to tackle them.
Fire crews battling a vast moorland blaze in North Yorkshire this month have been hampered by exploding bombs and tank shells dating back to training on the moors during the Second World War.
Figures obtained by the BBC show that of the 439 wildfires on Ministry of Defence (MoD) land between January 2023 and last month, 385 were caused by present-day army manoeuvres themselves...
LikeLike
“National security threatened by climate crisis, UK intelligence chiefs due to warn
Report by joint intelligence committee delayed, with concerns expressed that it may not be published”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/08/national-security-threatened-climate-crisis-uk-defence-chiefs-warn
The UK’s national security is under severe threat from the climate crisis and the looming collapse of vital natural ecosystems, with food shortages and economic disaster potentially just years away, a powerful report by the UK’s intelligence chiefs is due to warn.
However, the report, which was supposed to launch on Thursday at a landmark event in London, has been delayed, and concerns have been expressed to the Guardian that it may have been blocked by number 10.
The destabilising impact of the climate and nature crises on national security is one of the biggest risks facing Britain, the joint intelligence committee report is understood to say....
I’m not an intelligence chief, so what do I know? But if they really are going to make those claims, then I think they’re looking in the wrong places.
LikeLike
Wonder what they advised back in the 70s when a new ice age was mooted. My guess, the same.
LikeLike
The Guardian’s reporting ridiculed by Jo Nova.
LikeLike
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/13/why-britains-climate-and-defence-strategies-need-to-be-better-integrated
I read this letter from Lt Gen (retd) Richard Nugee with growing disbelief, until I reminded myself of this:
Richard was appointed as Non-Executive Director for Climate Change and Sustainability in March 2021. Before this appointment he spent a year leading on the Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach at the Ministry of Defence.
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/richard-nugee
LikeLike
Meanwhile in the USA, this article is “ from Floodlight, a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action., so take with a large pinch of salt:
“Pentagon retreats from climate fight even as heat and storms slam US troops
For decades, the military treated the climate crisis as a threat. Now it’s backing away from plans to protect people and bases from extreme weather”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/14/pentagon-military-climate-crisis-trump
…Hegseth has made it clear that the Pentagon’s priorities have shifted.
“The @DeptofDefense does not do climate change crap,” he wrote in a March post on X. “We do training and warfighting.”
On 17 March, Hegseth banned Pentagon agencies from spending money on climate planning, ordering leaders to “remove all references to climate change and related subjects from mission statements”. In his 30 September address to hundreds of military leaders at Quantico, Hegseth declared there would be “no more climate change worship” in the military….
LikeLiked by 1 person
It gets worse . Putin must be quaking in his boots [sarc]:
“Renewable energy investment should come from defence budgets, say retired military leaders”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/23/renewable-energy-investment-should-come-from-defence-budgets-say-retired-military-leaders
LikeLike
Mark – as it happens I am reading “Devil Dogs” by Saul David & watching “The Pacific” drama about the US marines/army fighting the Japanese after Pearl Harbour.
From the 1st hand accounts from the troops, the weather was very hot & It pissed down making advance in mud/mangrove swampy terrain a nightmare.
ps – think we forget the war against Japan, It was nasty to but it mildly.
LikeLike
dfh, while accepting that the US bore the brunt of the war in the Pacific, don’t forget the UK, Aussie, NZ, Indian and other troops who did their bit there too. My family never forgets the war against the Japanese. My mother had two cousins fighting in Burma, and one died there, aged just 18 (he lied about his age in order to join up, and had his 18th birthday on the ship out there).
It all makes the idea that defence budgets should be deployed to “fight” climate change utterly bizarre.
LikeLike
Meanwhile….
“Ministry of Defence forecast to exceed budget by £2bn in summer estimate”
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/national/25567901.ministry-defence-forecast-exceed-budget-2bn-summer-estimate/
I wonder how much of the over-spend is linked to the MoD’s efforts with regard to net zero?
LikeLike
My father was in Burma with the Royal Corp of Signals attached to the Indian Army, his unit was captured and marched down to Singapore and then shipped to Japan. His POW camp was near Hiroshima and saw the mushroom cloud from the bomb. At the end of the war they were shipped to San Francisco to be “observed” and recuperate for nearly a year before getting home. Like so many other men from Japanese POW camps he died in his early 50’s from heart failure.
LikeLike
My father-in-law (an infantry 2nd Lt) was wounded on the fall of Singapore, captured and shipped to Japan, and en route torpedoed by the Allies. He got ashore where he was recaptured and returned to Singapore. Thereafter he worked as a slave on the Burma railway, returning to Britain at the end of the war: 6 ft tall, he weighed about 7 stone. He returned to work almost immediately. He died aged 79 – having fathered three more children (he already had two). He rarely spoke about it. Extraordinary.
LikeLike
I can’t match those extraordinary and appalling stories. In my youth I played in a band which had two elderly policemen among its number. They were best friends until one suddenly stopped speaking to the other. Perplexed, I asked other band members what was going on. It turned out one had bought a Datsun car. The other one, who had been a POW on the Burma railway (which he never spoke about) simply couldn’t forgive anyone helping the Japanese economy, even 40 years later. It was a long time before they were reconciled.
LikeLike
My father-in-law (who BTW weighed seven stone on his release) for many years wouldn’t buy a Japanese product. But he relented after about 30 years. As I said, he rarely said anything about his experiences. Except to me occasionally over a pint. I remember he once said that, by their own standards, the Japanese treated him and his colleagues quite well. For them, it was an utter disgrace that an officer should allow himself to be captured: he should have committed suicide. Therefore the fact that they were treated the same way as they treated their private soldiers was an act of genuine courtesy. Of course they treated their private soldiers appallingly.
LikeLike
Mark & others – I by no means meant to neglect the “UK, Aussie, NZ, Indian and other troops” that fought & died in the Pacific. My uncle in law was in Burma, but never talked about it other than that.
Only reason I quote US operations is because they are the central characters in the book & drama.
PS – only other thing I would add, the Japanese soldier would rather die in futile fighting than surrender (I think).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Cut green spending to make UK ready for war, Tories say”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kprwgzlm0o
…the National Wealth Fund, which was launched by the government last year, would become the National Defence and Resilience Bank.
The fund was set up to invest in projects which support economic growth and the push for clean energy but in March its remit was expanded to also consider investments in sectors which support the UK’s defence and security.
The Conservatives said £11bn from the fund allocated to “costly eco-projects” would be redistributed to defence, with the remainder used for national resilience like water and transport.
Badenoch said: “The next Conservative government will move funding from [Energy Secretary] Ed Miliband’s vanity Net Zero projects and use it to back our military to accelerate their war readiness.
“We must ensure our armed forces are equipped and ready to defend our country.”…
LikeLike