Can war be net-zero? NATO pledges massive revamp of energy-guzzling equipment

A naval exercise led by U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, and executed by the NATO Naval Striking and Support Forces, in the Baltic Sea on June 6, 2022. Russia’s onslaught in Ukraine is almost certain to eclipse other security concerns at NATO’s Madrid summit this week.

NATO pledged to recognize the climate emergency as a defining challenge of our time after announcing its first emissions reduction targets.

NATO will reduce emissions by at least 45% by the year 2030. and reach net-zero emissions by the year 2050, according to NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg.

It is going to be difficult. It can be done.

Military effectiveness cannot be compromised. NATO is about maintaining peace. He said nothing is more important.

Climate change and preserving peace are both failures if we fail to do so. We have a duty to reduce emissions.

Fossil fuel-guzzling armies and air forces contribute to carbon emissions. The world's largest armed forces emit more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country.

The world's militaries and the industries that provide their equipment account for as much as 6 percent of global emissions according to research by Scientists for Global Responsibility.

Military activities quietly enjoy a sense of exceptionalism from environmental standards that other areas of society are expected to follow.

It’s an empty pledge. I would actually call it — albeit encouraging that they are speaking about it — somewhat disingenuous.

Military activities are usually excluded from emissions inventories and emissions targets.

It is an empty promise. Ben Neimark, senior lecturer at Lancaster University, told CNBC that it was a bit disingenuous. A group of social scientists called for improved government transparency over the scale of carbon emissions from their armed forces.

If some of the largest polluters in the history of mankind is going to somehow tell us that they are going to go net-zero without providing us the data plane which they are based on, and/or the meaningful cuts that are based on non-existing data, then that's a Yes, right? It's disingenuous.

NATO leaders are in Madrid this week to discuss their vision for the west's security agenda.

NATO considers the Strategic Concept to be its most important document. The alliance will act as a guide to the group's political and military development.

NATO leaders are convening in Madrid this week to outline their vision for the West’s security agenda.

The updated Strategic Concept will likely refer to Russia as the most significant and direct threat to security in the wake of President Putin's onslaught in Ukraine, and the challenges posed by China will be addressed for the first time, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Climate change is a defining challenge of our time, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. This means something for NATO. He said to increase our understanding, adapt our alliance and reduce our own emissions.

On Monday, NATO announced plans to increase the number of its high-readiness forces to over 300,000.

NATO members will need to invest more in the military in response to Russia's war in Ukraine.

Stuart Parkinson, executive director at Scientists for Global Responsibility, told CNBC that all existing plans have been thrown out.

Parkinson said that increases in military spending would be accompanied by increases in military carbon emissions. They were already headed in the wrong direction, and they're going to be headed in the wrong direction even more so.

NATO agreed in June last year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from military activities and to assess the feasibility of reaching net-zero emissions by the year 2020.

The Paris climate accord requires allies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Net-zero means that greenhouse gas emissions must be slashed to as close to zero as possible.

The climate crisis is putting immense pressure on governments and corporations to reduce their environmental impact.

NATO has developed a method for measuring greenhouse gas emissions, according to the alliance's former U.N. special envoy.

What to count and how to count it are set out by it. All Allies will be able to use it to reduce their own military emissions. The only thing that can be cut is what is measured.

He had previously stated that net-zero would not be possible without military emissions.

The alliance needed to produce a comprehensive and publicly available methodology of their emissions data for it to be credible, according to campaigners.

At a time when the world's leading climate scientists are sounding the alarm over the fight to keep global heating under 1.5 degrees Celsius, there isn't much reliable data on military emissions.

The world’s armed forces are among the biggest polluters on the planet.

Jamie Shea, secretary-general of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change, told CNBC that the methodology was the key thing.

The community of climate science can say if this is a proper methodology and if NATO is really moving in that direction.

The director of the Conflict and Environment Observatory, a non-profit based in the U.K., said transparency over the full scope of NATO's military emissions is needed if the alliance is to meaningfully identify cuts.

We don't know how much the military sector contributes to climate change each year. It is important to be able to do that.

This stuff is going to take a long time and we need real urgent leadership on this. The sooner you start, the better.

The environment in which the troops operate has been badly affected by the climate crisis, due to extreme heat in Iraq, rising sea levels and hurricanes disabling airfields.

He said the list was lengthy.

NATO needs to adapt to ensure it remains effective in harsher environments.

NATO plans to reach net-zero by the middle of the century, according to the secretary-general.

There would be a pivot to renewable energy sources, climate friendly synthetic fuels and more energy efficient solutions.

The war in Ukranian shows the dangers of being too dependent on commodities. The need to quickly wean ourselves off Russian oil and gas is highlighted by Russia's use of energy as a weapon.

We can't swap one dependency for another. China has a lot of rare earth minerals they need. He said that we need to change our energy sources.

Parkinson identified a number of "easy wins" when asked what the military could do to reduce emissions.

There are improvements to energy efficiency at military bases and the installation of solar and wind energy generation.

It should be part and parcel of what they are doing. You have the operational and equipment. The bigger picture is that we need less confrontation between governments and the military.

He said there was an urgent need for arms control agreements because of some of the most destructive weapons.

A woman with a painted white dove on her face, symbol of peace, shouting slogans during a demonstration against NATO.

Parkinson said, "We have to find some common ground and that means a messy, unpleasant compromise that no one is going to like to bring some sort of peace soon."

The integrity of the Madrid summit is dependent on whether NATO can demonstrate a global perspective in dealing with security threats in addition to Russia's war in Ukraine.

Lyndon B. Johnson once joked that he had to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Terrorists in Africa, climate change, and the militarization of space are some of the other problems. All of these things are not put on hold because of Russia.

The test in Madrid is to see if NATO is serious about taking a broader view of the world.