Of course all emissions should be counted. It’s not just the explosions and burning oil, I’d guess that manufacturing all the steel and chemicals also uses loads of energy. Some stockpiles used now may be associated with emissions long ago, e.g. in the last decades of the soviet union emissions rose very high, even while the economy was low.
Interestingly, warfare also has the effect of:
-
causing houses to be abandoned, necessitating houses elsewhere while the abandoned ones likely get bombed
-
decreasing the number of future consumers, whose future footprint would depend on future behaviour patterns (hard to predict)
-
changing future land use patterns, either due to unexploded ordnance or straight out chemical contamination (there are places in France that are still off limits to economic activity, because World War I contaminated the soil with toxic chemicals), here in Estonia there are still forests from which you don’t want trees in your sawmill because they contain shrapnel and bullets from World War II
I have the feeling that calculating the climate impact of actual war is a difficult job.
But they could calculate the tonnage of spent fuel and energy, that would be easier.
-
It’s not really the climate concern that I first think when I think about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Same for International plane flights, international shipping etc .
It is counted, at Mauna Loa, we just like title decive ourselves…
There are several place that atmospheric pollution is counted. This article talks about how military related emissions are not taken into account due to bureaucracy:
The Kyoto Protocol originally intended to account for military emissions. But the U.S. successfully pushed to exempt them. The U.S. later failed to formally ratify the treaty.
The 2015 Paris Agreement technically removed the exemption for military emissions. But it didn’t require countries to report them, either — making it voluntary instead.
