Global News Podcast – Bonus: War and Climate

Host: Greg Jackson (Climate Question), presented by Oliver Conway (Global News Podcast)
Date: March 8, 2026

Overview

This BBC World Service bonus episode of the Global News Podcast shares a collaboration with "The Climate Question," focusing on the largely unseen but significant climate consequences of military conflict. As the US-Israel war with Iran intensifies, host Greg Jackson, joined by Dr. Benjamin Niemark and Professor Neta Crawford, explores the direct and indirect climate impacts of both wartime and peacetime military operations, compares major conflicts’ carbon footprints, discusses the military’s unique position as an emitter, and analyzes the prospects for decarbonizing defense sectors around the globe.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Climate Cost of War – Setting the Scene

• Visible vs. Invisible Damage
  • While wars immediately bring destruction of life and infrastructure, their environmental and climate costs are global, persistent, and rarely discussed.
    • "War leaves a visible trail of destruction... But there's another consequence... mostly invisible, yet felt everywhere on the planet." (Greg Jackson, 01:29)
• Episode Context
  • Recording occurs four days after initial US-Iran strikes, but topic was planned prior to escalation. The aim is to assess climate impact, not take sides.

2. Measuring the Carbon Footprint of Wars

Guest: Dr. Benjamin Niemark, Queen Mary University of London

• War-Time Carbon Footprints
  • Researchers actively estimate emissions during conflicts. Recent figures:
    • Gaza War: 33.2 million tons of CO₂ equivalents (03:31)
      • Includes conflict, defensive preparations (e.g., Israel's defensive fence, Hamas tunnels), and post-conflict reconstruction.
      • Quote: "It's not just the bombs, it's the stuff, the defensive stuff that came before." (Greg Jackson, 04:03)
    • Russian invasion of Ukraine: 237 million tons of CO₂ equivalents over four years (05:19)
      • Double duration of Gaza conflict, 1200 km front.
      • Forest fires contributed to ~22% of Ukraine war emissions (05:44)
• Biggest Carbon Contributors
  • Heavy munitions, jet and diesel fuel, and the vast carbon footprint of reconstruction dominate emissions.
    • Quote: "What is probably the largest emitting factor is the reconstruction... all that concrete... the steel... weapons." (Dr. Niemark, 07:09)

3. Peacetime Military Emissions & Global Impact

Guest: Prof. Neta Crawford, University of St Andrews

• US Military as a Unique Emitter
  • Over 700-800 overseas bases, multiple aircraft carrier groups, round-the-clock global presence (07:35)
    • "There is nothing like [the US Military] in the world... It can move these basically floating bases anywhere, anytime." (Neta Crawford, 07:35)
• Peacetime Emission Breakdown
  • ~30% from base operations (heating, electricity, water) and ~70% from training, exercises, and operations (10:18)
  • New weapons procurement and the bespoke, highly engineered materials involved (e.g., F-35 jets, advanced shipbuilding, specialized concrete) further amplify emissions.
    • "You’re not going to change the F-35 which uses 2.3 gallons per mile, not miles per gallon." (Neta Crawford, 10:18)
• International Comparison
  • US outpaces China and Russia. Increased military spending by other nations leads to higher emissions globally (12:12)

4. Data Gaps & Transparency Challenges

• Why Isn't There Better Data?
  • Militaries largely exempted from emissions reporting (first by the Kyoto Protocol, later by Paris voluntary arrangements) (16:05)
    • "Militaries don't report their emissions. There's a history to this... from intense lobbying from the US." (Dr. Niemark, 16:05)
• Security as Justification
  • National security cited, but experts argue inventorying emissions need not threaten operational secrecy (16:56)

5. Decarbonizing the Military: Is It Possible?

• Current Progress and Limits
  • US Military has reduced emissions via:
    • Moving away from coal-fired power at installations, switching to natural gas, using LEDs, and achieving micro-efficiencies (20:28)
    • Most savings would come from reducing operational intensity and overseas presence — a politically fraught suggestion.
      • "What would be required is a rethinking of US Military doctrine...what is actually required to deter." (Neta Crawford, 21:18)
• The Security Dilemma
  • Mutual escalation in response to perceived threats (security dilemma) traps countries in cycles of military build-up and growing emissions (22:12)
    • "What I do to protect myself may be perceived as threatening to you... If we can get on a cycle of arms control... we can ratchet down." (Neta Crawford, 22:12)
• Technological Change: Electrification
  • Militaries are electrifying equipment and bases for energy security, lower heat signatures, and battlefield advantage (23:08)
    • "Their bases, their equipment, drones... they're de-tethering from fossil fuel infrastructure, which is bloody, expensive, a security risk." (Dr. Niemark, 23:13)

6. Climate Change as a Threat Multiplier

• Climate Impacts Fuel Military Instability
  • Mass migration, resource wars (e.g., over lithium), and civil unrest could expand military roles and thus emissions
  • Militaries view climate change as a 'threat multiplier'—addressing root causes may be more efficient than militarized responses (24:54)
    • "Militaries think of climate change as a threat multiplier, but it doesn't have to be the threats that are multiplied..." (Neta Crawford, 25:45)
    • "It is better to spend money to help countries that are in places that are vulnerable and reduce the pressures rather than to defend against what you think might happen or may or may not happen." (Neta Crawford, 26:34)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Carbon Cost Comparisons
  • "The Gaza war emitted... about the annual emissions of a medium small country such as Jordan." (Dr. Niemark, 04:15)
• On Peacetime Emissions:
  • "The United states alone, at 47 million metric tons of annual emissions at peacetime, is larger than many countries." (Neta Crawford, 15:27)
• On Data Transparency:
  • "It doesn't take much to sort of get an inventory of what most militaries have...it doesn't necessarily make a country any less safe." (Dr. Niemark, 17:07)
• On the Security Dilemma:
  • "International security is kind of an action-reaction phenomenon...spending and forces ratchet up." (Neta Crawford, 22:12)
• On the Future Role of Militaries and Emissions:
  • "The challenges are multiplied...you can deal with civil unrest by helping countries respond to the hotter, wetter or drier conditions that they face." (Neta Crawford, 25:45)

Important Segment Timestamps

• [01:29] – Framing the episode: "What's the climate cost of war?"
• [03:31 – 04:31] – Gaza War emissions explained
• [05:19] – Ukraine invasion's carbon footprint
• [07:35] – US military’s unique scale and infrastructure
• [09:57 – 12:44] – Peacetime emissions; global military comparison
• [15:27] – Estimate: military sector’s share of global emissions (~5%)
• [16:05] – Why militaries don’t report emissions
• [20:28 – 23:08] – Paths to military decarbonization
• [24:54] – Climate change as a threat multiplier

Conclusion

The episode brings sobering clarity to the “invisible” climate impacts of military activity, challenging listeners to confront not only the direct destruction of war but also the global, long-term environmental legacy of armed conflict—even in “peacetime.” While some technical advances and partial decarbonization are underway, the experts underscore the central political and structural barriers to truly reducing the military’s carbon footprint. Ultimately, they argue, responding to climate-driven instability with more militarization only escalates the problem—solutions may require investing in resilience rather than perpetuating the cycle of buildup and emission.

For more questions or to share your thoughts, contact The Climate Question at theclimatequestion@bbc.com