The Military Emissions the IPCC Doesn’t Count

An Essay on What the Reports Say, What They Don’t Say, and What That Choice Reveals

First: What the IPCC Is and How It Reaches You

If you have never opened one of these reports, or if you have only heard about them second-hand through the news, a few basics before the argument begins.

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was created in 1988 by two agencies of the United Nations: the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme. It does not conduct original scientific research. It reviews scientific literature produced by others and issues large summary reports. Governments then use those reports to justify what they do at home.

Every six to eight years the IPCC publishes an Assessment Report, numbered in sequence. The First Assessment Report came out in 1990. The Sixth Assessment Report, referred to as AR6, was released between 2021 and 2022. It is the current authoritative document. It will remain in force until the Seventh arrives, expected around 2028.

Each Assessment Report is divided into three parts, called Working Groups.

Working Group I covers the physical science. It describes how the climate system works, what carbon dioxide does in the atmosphere, and what temperature rises are projected under various scenarios. This is where the temperature graphs come from.

Working Group II covers impacts and adaptation. It describes what climate change does to ecosystems, coastlines, food systems, health, and communities. This is where the disaster projections come from.

Working Group III covers mitigation, meaning what should be done to reduce emissions. This is where meat taxes, gas boiler phase-outs, congestion charges, retrofit mandates, and carbon pricing schemes are named as necessary interventions. Working Group III is the report that reaches ordinary people. It is also the place where the world’s militaries are missing.

The output of these three Working Groups flows into the annual COP climate conferences, into the Paris Agreement’s national commitments, into the European Union’s climate directives, into the net-zero pledges of individual countries, and from there into your national law, your city council rules, your energy bill, and the appliances you are and are not allowed to buy.

The IPCC does not vote on your gas stove. The IPCC produces the document that says the vote is necessary. Governments reference AR6 by name when they justify what they are doing.

That is the machine this essay examines. Not by attacking the physical science of climate change, but by reading, carefully, what the machine’s own documents say and do not say about who is required to change.

Author’s Note

The question that started this essay was simple: does the IPCC count military emissions?

The answer took three separate investigations. Working Group I does not answer the question because it aggregates fossil fuel emissions from national inventories and does not break out categories. Working Group II does not answer the question because it treats militaries only as victims of climate change, not as contributors. Working Group III comes closest to answering, but only by revealing what is not there.

I expected to find a number, buried but present. What I found was a category chosen not to be built.

Every quote in what follows comes from the IPCC. Every citation is verifiable. The argument is not that the IPCC is wrong on the physical science. The argument is that the IPCC’s own mitigation framework, read carefully in its own words, produces a document that constrains ordinary people in detail and passes over the world’s largest institutional fuel consumer in silence.

That silence is the finding.

---

Footnote 2 to Table 3.4 in Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group III, reads in full: “Other non-specified fuel use, including military. Some models report this category in the buildings sector, while others report it in the ‘Other’ sector.”¹

The world’s largest institutional fuel consumer is disposed of in a footnote. The models that produce the numbers the world uses to set climate policy cannot agree on where to file its fuel. Buildings, or Other. Home heating, or residual bucket. Anyone tracing military emissions through the report arrives at that footnote and finds the category was never built. It does not exist. What exists is a place where the fuel can go, if the modeler decides to notice it.

The report the world treats as the authoritative account of climate change hides the largest institutional fuel consumer on the planet inside a category whose location its own authors do not share.

That is where this essay begins. Not with an accusation. With a document.

This work stays free because paid subscribers make it possible. They get the full book library, the Deep Dive Audio Library, and the Questions for Your Doctor, Before You Consent, and Package Insert series. No grants, no gatekeepers — your subscription is what keeps it that way.

Audio Deep Dive (for Paid Subscribers)

Two Exemptions, One Choice

The Sixth Assessment Report knows how to talk about accounting exemptions. It talks about one of them at length.

International aviation and international shipping emit large volumes of CO2 from fuel burned outside any single country’s territory. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Rulebook, those emissions do not appear in national inventories. Countries report them separately, if at all. Chapter 14 of Working Group III quotes the Paris Rulebook directly: parties “should report international aviation and marine bunker fuel emissions as two separate entries and should not include such emissions in national totals but report them distinctly, if disaggregated data are available.”² The Technical Summary states that “the UNFCCC does not specifically cover emissions from international shipping and aviation. Reporting emissions from international transport is at the discretion of each country.”³

The report describes this exemption, discusses the CORSIA carbon-offset scheme for civil aviation, references the International Maritime Organization’s carbon-intensity targets for civil shipping, and reviews academic proposals to fold international transport into the Paris Agreement.² The gap is named, examined, and recommended for closure.

There is a second exemption. It has the same origin: the 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, revised in 2006. It is written into the same reporting rules. It exempts military bunker fuels, meaning fuel used by military aircraft and naval vessels operating outside national territory. It is administratively identical to the civil version. It removes from national accounts the fuel burned by every fighter jet on a mission over foreign soil, every aircraft carrier in the Pacific, every supply ship crossing the Atlantic, every transport plane servicing an overseas base.

Search the report for it. It is not there. Not named. Not described. Not defended. Not challenged. Not recommended for closure. The mitigation report of the world’s authoritative climate body knows about civil bunker fuels, discusses them across multiple chapters, and proposes bringing them into national commitments. The specifically military version of the identical exemption is treated as though it does not exist.

The IPCC did not miss it. The IPCC chose which exemption to talk about.

What the Reports Say About Militaries

The absence is not a lack of interest in militaries. The working group reports mention armed forces frequently. They mention them as adapters, responders, budget lines, and canteens.

Working Group II, the Impacts and Adaptation report, treats militaries as climate victims. Chapter 14 discusses how “military and security communities are adapting their planning, operations and infrastructure to current impacts of climate change,” citing installations damaged by storms, bases losing utilities, readiness compromised by extreme weather.⁴ Chapter 7 reviews research on heat stroke among soldiers.⁵ Arctic militaries appear as institutions “renewing their military capacity and expanding their constabulary presence.”⁴ Armed forces appear as something climate change happens to, not as something contributing to it.

Working Group III, the Mitigation report, is where sectoral emissions accounting lives, if one exists. In three places only, and only in three, do militaries appear substantively. Chapter 4 mentions military spending as a fiscal source for the Sustainable Development Goals: “moderate reductions in military spending... could free up considerable resources for the SDG agenda.”⁶ Chapter 13 notes that governments “purchase goods and services, including for government administration and military provisioning.”⁷

The third mention is worth pausing on.

Meatless Monday

The IPCC’s Working Group III report is roughly 3,000 pages. It is the authoritative account, produced by hundreds of scientists over years, of how humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate catastrophe. When its authors considered how the world’s militaries might contribute to the effort, they identified one intervention worth highlighting by name.

The Norwegian Armed Forces stopped serving meat on Mondays.⁸

That is what the mitigation report says about the world’s armed forces on their own terms. Not the fuel their aircraft burn. Not the fleets they operate. Not the wars they conduct. What they serve for lunch, once a week, in one country’s canteens.

The three substantive mentions are the sum of the treatment. The operational fuel militaries burn, meaning the jets, the ships, the tanks, the overseas bases, the training exercises, the wars, is not a category anywhere in the sectoral tables. What is there is footnote 2 to Table 3.4.

What the Reports Say About You

Set the treatment of militaries beside the treatment of ordinary people. This is where the framework’s shape becomes clear.

On food, Working Group III lists “Tax on meat/beef in wealthier countries and/or households” as a policy instrument in Chapter 5, Table 5.6.⁹ Chapter 12 states that “a shift to diets with a higher share of plant protein, moderate intake of animal-source foods and reduced intake of added sugars, salt and saturated fats could lead to substantial decreases in GHG emissions.”⁸ Chapter 7 estimates that shifting away from animal-source foods could cut food-related emissions by 6.5 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent per year.

Working Group II endorses behavioral intervention to achieve the same shift. Chapter 5 finds that “making the vegetarian meal option the default during conference registration or on a meal plan significantly reduced meat consumption.”¹⁰ Chapter 7 estimates that dietary shifts “could reduce global mortality by 6–10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29–70% by 2050.”¹¹

Working Group III finds buildings account for 21% of global emissions and models space heating demand falling by 21–77% by 2050 across scenarios.¹² Gas boilers are modeled for phase-out. Mandatory energy performance standards, retrofit programs, appliance efficiency, embodied-carbon reduction, triple-glazing, and heat pumps are named as necessary policy. Working Group II cites Milan approvingly for its rule that from 2020, new buildings “must be carbon neutral.”¹³

For personal transport, Working Group III endorses congestion charges, low-emission zones, mandatory shifts to public transit, cycling infrastructure, and teleworking incentives. Cities can cut transport fuel use “by around 25% through combinations of more compact land use and the provision of less car-dependent transport infrastructure.”¹⁴

On carbon pricing at the household level, Working Group III acknowledges the tax is regressive, noting that “the tax induced increase in energy expenditures represents a larger share of household income for lower income households,” and recommends it anyway, with revenue recycling.¹⁵

The pattern is unbroken. What ordinary people eat, how they heat their homes, how they travel, how their buildings are built, what taxes they pay: all of it is modeled, quantified, prescribed, and targeted. Specific policy instruments are named. Percentage reductions are attributed to individual choice. Behavioral interventions like default vegetarian menus are offered as evidence-based practice.

Meanwhile: footnote 2 to Table 3.4.

The Counting Has Been Done Elsewhere

The military emissions the IPCC does not count have been counted. Not by the IPCC, and not by any body the IPCC cites.

Neta Crawford at Brown University’s Costs of War project, and Oliver Belcher with colleagues at Durham and Lancaster, have reconstructed US military emissions from the ground up. They used Freedom of Information Act requests to the Defense Logistics Agency, which purchases the military’s fuel.¹⁶ ¹⁷ Their estimates, which will be the subject of a future essay, place the US military among the largest institutional emitters on the planet. If counted as a country, its annual footprint would rank it above dozens of nations.

The data existed. The methodology existed. Independent researchers did the work. The IPCC did not use it and did not cite it.

The Stove and the Warship

Picture a household kitchen. A pot of water is boiling on a gas stove. The occupant is being told, by their local council, their national energy regulator, and the manufacturer of the appliance they will be sold next, that this stove will be phased out. New buildings in their city may already be prohibited from installing one.¹² ¹³ Their dietary choices are being nudged toward less meat.⁹ ¹⁰ Their car is being priced out of the city center.¹⁴ The carbon tax on their heating bill is regressive, and it is being applied anyway.¹⁵ Every one of these interventions is sourced to a document that names it as necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Now picture an aircraft carrier. The propulsion is nuclear; the air wing is not. Sixty or seventy aircraft. A single sortie burns fuel by the ton. The US Navy operates eleven such carriers, each at the center of a strike group of escort ships, refueling tankers, surveillance aircraft, and unmanned platforms. On land, roughly seven hundred and fifty overseas US military installations consume fuel at industrial scale. From Germany to Japan, from Diego Garcia to Djibouti, the machinery of forward deployment runs without pause.

The IPCC’s framework counts the stove. It does not count the carrier. It could count the carrier. The data exists. The researchers have shown the way. The accounting exemption is named and challenged in the neighboring case of civil aviation. Still it does not.

Someone chose. The stove is on a phase-out list. The carrier is on nobody’s list. Between them sits footnote 2 to Table 3.4.

The report is what its footnotes say it is.

---

Explaining It to a Six-Year-Old

Imagine there’s a huge report about who is making a mess of the earth.

The report says: kids, you need to eat different food. You need to turn off the heater. You need to walk instead of getting a lift. You need to live in different kinds of houses. Every kid on the block gets a list of things they must do so we do not wreck the planet.

But there’s one kid nobody talks about. He is the biggest one on the block. He drives the biggest trucks. He flies the biggest planes. He burns more fuel every day than most of the other kids put together. And he does it in every country in the world, all at once, without stopping.

Now open the report. Look for that big kid. He is not on the list.

He is not on the list because the people who wrote the report decided not to put him on it. There is one line hidden at the back, in tiny writing, that says “some fuel from somewhere might belong to him, or it might belong to a house, we cannot really tell.” That is the only line about him.

Meanwhile every other kid gets homework, chores, new rules, and a bill for cleaning up.

That is what this essay is about. The biggest kid, the missing line, and who decided.

---

References

1. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 3, Table 3.4, footnote 2.

2. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 14 (discussion of Paris Rulebook, ICAO CORSIA, IMO carbon-intensity targets, and academic proposals on international transport).

3. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Technical Summary (on UNFCCC coverage of international shipping and aviation).

4. IPCC AR6 Working Group II, Chapter 14, §14.5.10.1.2 “Security.”

5. IPCC AR6 Working Group II, Chapter 7 (on heat stress and armed forces).

6. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 4 (on military spending and the SDG agenda).

7. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 13, §13.6.5.3 (on public procurement including military provisioning).

8. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 12, §12.4 (Norwegian Armed Forces Meatless Monday; dietary shift and GHG emissions).

9. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 5, Table 5.6 (dietary policy instruments including meat/beef taxes).

10. IPCC AR6 Working Group II, Chapter 5, §5.12.6 “Changing Dietary Patterns” (default vegetarian meal nudging).

11. IPCC AR6 Working Group II, Chapter 7 (plant-rich diets and mortality/emissions reductions).

12. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 9 (buildings sector emissions and space heating demand projections).

13. IPCC AR6 Working Group II, Chapter 13 (Milan carbon-neutral building requirement).

14. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 10 (urban transport fuel use reductions).

15. IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 13 (regressive incidence of carbon pricing on households).

16. Crawford, Neta C., “Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War,” Costs of War Project, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University.

17. Belcher, Oliver, Patrick Bigger, Ben Neimark, and Cara Kennelly, “Hidden Carbon Costs of the ‘Everywhere War’: Logistics, Geopolitical Ecology, and the Carbon Boot-Print of the US Military,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

In Print

Two of my books are now available as paperbacks. The Unvaccinated: What a Forbidden Comparison Reveals About the True Cost of Vaccination is, as far as I know, the only book of its kind — the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group, laid out across twenty chapters and five appendices. Alongside it is Medicalized Motherhood: From First Pill to Permanent Patient, which follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Both are printed to order through Lulu, shipped worldwide, USD $19.99 each. A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the sceptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.