This emits vast quantities of GHGs during production and operation – in 2017 alone the US Air Force purchased US $4.9 billion of fuel. Just as with the gaps in military reporting by governments, there are huge disparities in reporting across the military technology sector.Ĭontemporary warfare is dominated by aviation. For example, Lockheed Martin includes the ‘use of sold products’ within its emissions data, whilst the data from many other military technology companies is far less complete. The quality and scope of these CSR reports varies considerably. Several military technology companies do however produce Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports and provide GHG emissions and environmental data. The notion of greener or socially responsible arms production will seem ironic to many. Each sale has its individual carbon cost, from the extraction of raw materials, through to production by arms companies, the use by militaries, decommissioning and end-of-life disposal. In 2019, sales by the largest 25 arms producing companies reached an estimated US $361 billion, an increase of 8.5% compared to 2018. Arms production and the military supply chain therefore plays a significant role in the carbon cost of war.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |