Doubtful. Firstly because it’s very difficult to keep track in war, and it’s also difficult (morally too) to count the emission reductions from destruction and death.
And, secondly, because modern wars are integrated into economy and society. Well, Putin may try to change that and turn the whole economy into a war-oriented one (top down control and nationalization), which would be a huge blunder now.
Oh, thirdly, you’re mostly referring to the US, so be specific.
Emissions of GHG can be measured at many different layers, you have to decide what analysis, what perspective, you are using; otherwise, you risk counting emissions multiple times. It’s all accounting.
Doubtful. Firstly because it’s very difficult to keep track in war, and it’s also difficult (morally too) to count the emission reductions from destruction and death.
And, secondly, because modern wars are integrated into economy and society. Well, Putin may try to change that and turn the whole economy into a war-oriented one (top down control and nationalization), which would be a huge blunder now.
Oh, thirdly, you’re mostly referring to the US, so be specific.
Emissions of GHG can be measured at many different layers, you have to decide what analysis, what perspective, you are using; otherwise, you risk counting emissions multiple times. It’s all accounting.
This is one conventional way: https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/scope-1-2-and-3-emissions
It is not easy, especially since a lot of data is missing.
I know that you want to say that the US is bad, and that is valid regardless of emissions.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pclm.0000569