Border Insecurity: Canadian musicians face volatile tour life under Trump
TORONTO – Canadian country singer Robert Adam recorded their new album in Nashville, but under the political tumult of U.S. President Donald Trump, the musician doesn't plan to travel stateside to promote it.
The Calgary-based non-binary artist says they contemplated their decision for several months, weighing past negative experiences as a queer person visiting the United States against the importance of the U.S. market for emerging musicians.
But after hearing about the obstacles faced by some transgender musicians in obtaining U.S. working visas, Adam said they are confident they've made the right decision to skip the country on their upcoming tour.
'(I'm) pretty non-binary presenting, pretty femme … it's hard not to see that I kind of stick out,' they said in a phone interview.
'I don't want to spend my life stressed out over whether I feel like I have to … tone down my image, or what I have to say, just to exist and play a show.'
An order issued in January by the Trump administration declared that the United States will only recognize two sexes, male and female, and that government documents must reflect the one assigned at birth.
This would mean trans and non-binary entertainers might have to misgender themselves in hopes of getting approval.
Some Canadians also have an X gender marker on their passport, and while Adam doesn't, they said the possibility of invasive questions about their gender or being detained at the U.S. border far outweighs the upside.
And so, they will tour elsewhere.
After several Canadian dates, Adam plans to head to the United Kingdom and Japan, where they feel their brand of queer country music will be more warmly received.
'It's important to me that we go to spaces where I can do those things freely and … inspire others to do the same,' they added.
Other Canadian artists, both within the LGBTQ+ community and outside it, are asking themselves whether touring the United States is worth the ethical compromise or safety risks it may present.
Last week, the Canadian Independent Music Association held a virtual town hall to address the growing concerns about performing stateside.
More than 200 musicians, managers and other industry players attended a panel that included two U.S. immigration lawyers who specialize in visas for the arts community.
'I think everybody is right to be anxious, worried and concerned about coming into the U.S. right now,' said Will Spitz, a lawyer in the performing arts division of New York-based firm CoveyLaw.
'It seems like every day there's a new horror story of someone getting detained, hassled or deported.'
Despite heightened tension at the border, Spitz noted 'not that much has changed' for most travellers who are not trans, gender non-conforming or intersex.
Many visa rejections, which may seem like Trump-era actions, are actually due to common paperwork errors, he noted.
'Does that mean it can't change tomorrow? No,' Spitz added.
'I think there's a very real chance that they expand their focus to include anyone who's been vocal in support of Palestine and other issues the current administration doesn't like.'
Statistics Canada data suggests that many Canadians have soured on going stateside. In March, the number of those returning from the United States by car was down nearly 32 per cent compared to last year, marking the third consecutive month of year-over-year declines.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows the number of Canadian citizens turned away at the land border also fell 44 per cent in the same month. In March, 1,747 people were found inadmissible — for reasons as varied as criminal records or improper documents — compared to 3,126 a year earlier. It was the fourth consecutive month of declines.
Still, many are worried. Amid the turmoil, some musicians are choosing to stay silent over fears that any negative comments about the American administration might wind up in a Google search by a border agent.
Nearly a dozen musicians and managers declined to be interviewed for this story, with some explaining they couldn't risk losing access to the lucrative U.S. tour circuit.
'They're terrified of getting stuck at the border and being interrogated for social media posts,' said Eric Alper, a publicist representing several performers who wouldn't speak out.
'A lot of the Canadian artists are leaning towards just surviving.'
Others are thinking more about how to better prepare for their U.S. tours.
Khalid Yassein of Toronto folk act Wild Rivers said his band is upgrading the status of everyone on their team to an O1 visa, which recognizes workers in the arts. Before, some of them held O2 visas, which are for assistants to O1 workers.
The band hopes it will streamline the process and eliminate potential hurdles, he said. They also plan on crossing into the United States at the same time.
'We're having conversations with our team on how to be extra prepared,' he said.
'It's a huge, important music market for us. Granted, we're excited every time we come home because we're a little bit less stressed out.'
Indie rock newcomer Drew Tarves, who performs under the moniker Young Friend, took a different approach. In March, he announced he was cancelling plans for shows in New York and Los Angeles to promote his debut album 'Motorcycle Sound Effects.'
The Vancouver musician said he would dedicate his energy to 17 Canadian dates across six provinces instead. Tarves blamed Trump's tariff war and his aspirations to annex Canada as deciding factors in why he chose to focus on his home country.
'I didn't feel great about going down there,' the 26-year-old said in a recent interview.
'It was a hard decision,' he added. 'Playing there in the past has always felt pretty key to being a developing artist. It's like the hub for music.'
Last month, pop singer T. Thomason also announced he was backing out of U.S. shows after concluding 'it does not feel safe to attempt to cross the border' as a trans person.
His decision came shortly after fellow trans singer-songwriter Bells Larsen cancelled a U.S. tour over new policies that suggested he would likely be denied a visa based on his gender identity.
Those boycotts still seem to be rare, according to Liana White, executive director at the Canadian Federation of Musicians. She said the interest expressed by Canadian musicians in touring the United States remains 'huge,' even with the current unpredictability.
She advises travelling artists to take extra precautions when planning their U.S. dates. For instance, visa processing times have slowed in recent years, an issue that predates the current Trump administration.
Musicians should account for those delays by planning further ahead, she said, and budgeting to pay a premium that expedites approval.
Other things to consider: carry medication in prescription bottles, purchase vitamins south of the border and keep food in its original packaging.
'If it is possible to fly, I would recommend that,' White added, noting it's easier to withdraw a request to enter the United States at many airports, because the person is still on Canadian soil.
Even with the extra hurdles and turbulent political climate, some Canadian musicians say they couldn't imagine abandoning U.S. audiences.
Montreal feminist punk act Nobro, whose debut album was partly inspired by a concert they played hours after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion rights, said performing stateside isn't just about promoting their music but empowering their fans.
'We don't play big shows, we play 200-capacity gigs, and there are a lot of kids out there that can actually afford our tickets,' said bassist Kathryn McCaughey.
'It's really important to uplift those communities and for them to feel like they're being seen and heard and especially just to have fun.'
During Elections
Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election.
Toronto band the Beaches recently hit the stage at California music festival Coachella and last year played in Florida, a conservative state with several anti-LGBTQ laws.
Keyboardist Leandra Earl said the band felt it was essential to 'go down there and meet all of our fans who really need an escape from life sometimes.'
'I personally, as a queer woman, think it's really important for us to keep playing in all of those cities that are looking for representation,' she added.
'Wherever people want us, we'll go there.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 1, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
43 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Canadians favour other countries over Donald Trump's America, survey suggests
As G7 leaders gather in Kananaskis, Alta., a new poll suggests Canadians are souring on the U.S. and embracing relations with other world powers. The Pollara Strategic Insights survey found net impressions of the U.S. have plunged since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. At the same time, Canadians are feeling positive about the other G7 member nations: Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'We've kind of lost our best friend in the United States and maybe, as a country, Canada is now looking toward some of its older friends to reconnect with as a result of that,' said Dan Arnold, Pollara's chief strategy officer, referring to Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods that have led to a trade war between the neighbouring countries. Indeed, the firm polled people in Canada and the U.K. and found similar results on both sides of the Atlantic. Five out of six Canadians — 83 per cent — said the bilateral relationship with Britain was 'important' with only 17 per cent saying it wasn't. Across the pond, 76 per cent of Britons said their country's relationship with Canada was 'important' while about one in four said it was not. The British have a more positive view of Canada (+78 per cent) than any other country in the poll — ahead of Japan (+61 per cent), Germany (+60 per cent), France (+50 per cent) and Ukraine (+47 per cent). But the poll found they have a negative view toward India (-1 per cent), the U.S. (-3 per cent), China (-24 per cent) and Russia (-63 per cent). ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Among Canadians, Italy has a +66 per cent favourability rating followed by Japan at +64 per cent, the U.K. at +59 per cent, France at +57 per cent, Germany at +54 per cent and Ukraine at +41 per cent. China was at -27 per cent, India at -29 per cent, the U.S. at -47 per cent and Russia at -63 per cent. That's a 60 percentage point drop in Canadian sentiment toward the American since Pollara's survey last year when Joe Biden was U.S. president. Using online panels, Pollara surveyed 3,400 Canadians on May 16-20. While opt-in polls cannot be assigned a margin of error, for comparison purposes, a random sample of this size would have one of plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Similarly, the firm polled 2,511 Britons on May 2-16. The margin of error for comparable surveys is within 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 'If the Americans aren't going to be the number-one ally in many respects for the next three years (of Trump's presidency) … then the Canada-U.K. relationship is something that bears some noting,' said Arnold, pointing out Canada's recently elected Prime Minister Mark Carney used to be governor of the Bank of England. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Because of that, 60 per cent of Britons are familiar with him, and of those, 80 per cent had a positive view of Carney, who succeeded Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader on March 9 and was elected April 28. Just seven per cent had a negative view and the rest had no opinion. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is not as well known among Canadians. Only 26 per cent were familiar with him. Of those, 58 per cent had a positive view with 30 per cent negative and the remainder had no opinion. That's an overall +28 per cent for Starmer, who won power last summer. The most admired foreign leader among Canadians was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who will attend the G7 summit that begins Sunday. Zelenskyy, whose country was invaded by Russia in 2022, was at +53 per cent, ahead of French President Emmanuel Macron (+46 per cent), German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (+33 per cent), Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba (+31 per cent) and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (+29 per cent). On the negative side of the ledger, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who will also be at the G7, was at -17 per cent, ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping (-52 per cent), Trump (-66 per cent) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (-69 per cent). Neither Xi nor Putin was invited to Kananaskis. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Ford's new energy plan for Ontario increases reliance on nuclear, fossil fuels
The Ford government is projecting a major shift toward nuclear power to meet rising electricity demand and support Ontario's transition to net-zero emissions by mid-century. Its newly released long-term Energy for Generations plan — billed as the province's first-ever integrated energy strategy — also shows an increased reliance on fossil fuels over the next decade, with emissions expected to rise before declining after 2030. The province describes the plan as 'a comprehensive roadmap to meet future energy needs, support new housing, and power the most competitive economy in the G7.' 'As energy demand soars, our plan leverages 'Made-In-Ontario' to build affordable, clean, and always reliable power, built by and for Canadians,' Ontario's Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said in a statement. The plan will help the province meet growing electricity demand while achieving over 99 per cent zero-emissions electricity by 2050, he added. Critics say the plan misses key opportunities to scale-up renewables, puts energy affordability at risk and increases Ontario's dependence on foreign energy supplies. The plan projects total electricity production in 2050 to be just under 275 terawatt-hours (TWh), with nuclear making up the largest share at over 200 TWh. That means nuclear plants could supply more than 70 per cent of Ontario's electricity by 2050, up from about 50 per cent today. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington nuclear power stations. Currently, Ontario's nuclear fleet — Bruce, Darlington, and Pickering — provides 12,000 MW of capacity. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington stations. To support this buildout, the province says it is preparing new nuclear sites and has already begun early engagement with First Nation and local communities. A new nuclear technology panel will guide technology choices and project timelines, with input from Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, the Independent Electricity System Operator and government officials. The province says nuclear projects are complex and costly, and it plans to explore new ownership models and equity partnerships to attract private capital and help finance the expansion. It aims to attract investment from Canadian pension funds and institutional investors to 'keep more Canadian energy dollars working here at home,' the province said. 'This isn't a plan — it's a policy statement' Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative, said the plan lacks a clear decision-making framework and basic accountability mechanisms. He said there is no process in place to evaluate whether the government's chosen energy path is the most affordable or lowest-risk for the province. 'There is no oversight or review process to assess whether this represents the least-cost or lowest-risk option for Ontario,' Winfield said. By 'review,' Winfield refers to independent assessments — such as those typically conducted by regulatory bodies or outside experts — that evaluate costs, risks, and alternatives before major infrastructure decisions are finalized. Winfield also questioned the long-term focus on nuclear. 'All of the proposed reactor technologies rely on enriched fuel that comes from the United States,' he said. 'This exposes Ontario to new energy security risks.' In recent months, the Ford government has committed billions to nuclear energy, announcing new builds and refurbishments it says will create tens of thousands of jobs. Earlier this year, it unveiled plans for a massive nuclear plant near Port Hope, projected to generate 10,000 megawatts — enough to power 10 million homes — though key details like costs and timelines remain undisclosed. Last week, the province introduced legislation to expand access to Ontario's public clean energy fund for nuclear projects. Industry groups welcomed Ontario's new energy plan, with major players praising the government's commitment to both nuclear power and natural gas. Enbridge Gas called the plan a 'clear affirmation' of the essential role natural gas will continue to play, citing its importance for affordability, grid stability and economic growth. The company said investments in gas infrastructure are foundational to Ontario's prosperity. The Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries also applauded the plan, calling it a bold step toward clean energy leadership. The group highlighted Ontario's strong nuclear track record and said the proposed expansion — including large reactors and SMRs — positions the province to secure long-term clean energy supply. 'Where are the renewables?' Aliénor Rougeot, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, said Ontario's new energy plan could lead to higher household bills, more air pollution and increased reliance on the US fossil gas. While she welcomed the idea of a long-term, integrated approach, she argued that the plan should be replaced with one built on publicly shared modelling. To Rougeot, the most glaring problem is the plan's failure to prioritize wind and solar — Ontario's cheapest and cleanest energy sources. 'I kept flipping through the document, asking: Where are the renewables?' Rougeot said. The supply forecast is particularly troubling to her, as it shows Ontario having less wind and solar in 2050 than in 2030. She believes the refusal to give renewable energy a central role in the province's future grid will come at a high cost — both economically and environmentally. Wind and solar make up approximately nine per cent and two per cent of Ontario's current electricity generation, respectively. In its plan, the government says their role is expected to grow over time. Starting in 2025, nearly 3,000 megawatts of energy storage will be added to the grid. However, the plan argues that nuclear is more cost-effective and land-efficient than wind and solar. It claims that to generate the same amount of energy as a proposed 10,000 MW nuclear station at Wesleyville, Ontario would need roughly 100 times more land for solar and 500 times more land for wind. But new analysis suggests solar doesn't require large tracts of land — for example, more than half of Toronto's electricity needs could be met through rooftop and parking lot solar alone. A new report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance argues that wind and solar could meet the same energy needs as the proposed Wesleyville nuclear station much faster and at far lower cost — potentially saving the province up to $19 billion annually. It highlights Ontario's untapped potential for offshore wind in the Great Lakes and large-scale solar at the Port Hope site. Another report warns that electricity from new nuclear could cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and 1.7 times more than offshore wind. Lia Codrington, a senior analyst at the Pembina Institute, said the province's new energy plan represents a positive step toward long-term planning, noting that many jurisdictions around the world are already moving quickly toward clean energy and decarbonization. She viewed it as important for Ontario to follow that trend — and even potentially lead — by modernizing its electricity system. Codrington questioned the government's argument that land use limits renewable energy expansion. She said wind turbines allow for shared land use — such as farming — and solar panels can be installed on rooftops, parking lots, and other built environments. In her view, decisions about land use should reflect what Ontarians want in their communities when it comes to energy sources, not just technical comparisons in megawatts per square kilometre.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
How the US became the biggest military emitter and stopped everyone finding out
This story was originally published by The Guardian and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration T he climate impact of Donald Trump's geopolitical ambitions could deepen planetary catastrophe, triggering a global military buildup that accelerates greenhouse gas emissions, a leading expert has warned. The Pentagon – the US armed forces and Department of Defense (DoD) agencies – is the world's largest institutional greenhouse gas emitter, accounting for at least 1% of total US emissions annually, according to analysis by Neta Crawford, co-founder of the Costs of War project at Brown University. Over the past five decades, US military emissions have waxed and waned with its geopolitical fears and ambitions. In 2023, the Pentagon's operations and installations generated about 48 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) – more planet-warming gases than emitted by entire countries including Finland, Guatemala and Syria that year. Now, once again, the US military carbon footprint is on the cusp of rising significantly as Trump upends the old geopolitical order in his second presidency. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump threatened military action in Panama, Greenland, Mexico and Canada, dropped bombs on Yemen and increased military sales to Israel, which has intensified its military assault on Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen and Lebanon. Trump has also aligned the US with former adversaries including Russia, while hurling direct or thinly veiled threats at former allies including Ukraine and the entire Nato alliance. Relations with China have sunk amid Trump's chaotic trade war. 'If Trump follows through with his threats, US military emissions will absolutely rise, and this will cause a ripple effect,' said Crawford, author of the book The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of US Military Emissions. 'We're already seeing lots of escalatory rhetoric, with fewer off-ramps and less commitment to resolving conflicts. The allies or former allies of the US have increased their military spending, so their emissions will go up. As adversaries and potential adversaries of the United States increase their military activity, their emissions will go up. It's very bad news for the climate.' The Pentagon is the largest single fossil fuel consumer in the US, already accounting for about 80% of all government emissions. In March, the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, wrote on X: 'The @DeptofDefense does not do climate change crap. We do training and warfighting.' Trump has promised $1tn in defence spending for 2026 – which if approved by Congress would represent a 13% rise on the 2025 Pentagon budget amid unprecedented cuts to almost every other federal agency, including those that research and respond to the climate crisis. His military ambitions sit alongside orders to terminate climate research at the Pentagon and a broader assault on climate action across government, while also taking steps to boost fossil fuel extraction. 'No one spends like the US on the military and they want to spend even more. If they neglect education, health and infrastructure and their economy weakens, they will get paranoid about rivals, let's say China, and this fear will cause even more spending. It's an escalatory downward spiral, which often doesn't end well – especially for the country doing the escalating,' said Crawford. 'Of course, it depends on what they do and how they do it, and the DoD may slow-roll some of this, because it is, frankly, provocative, stupid and unnecessary, but we're going exactly the wrong way. Emissions go up in step with military spending, and this is exactly the wrong time to do this.' In 2024, worldwide military expenditure had its steepest rise since the end of the cold war, reaching $2.7tn as wars and rising tensions drove up spending, according to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. US military spending – and emissions – are both the highest in the world, by a long way. And it is thanks to the US that states are not required to account for military emissions to the UN. In the run-up to the Kyoto protocol, the 1997 international treaty that set binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions, the Pentagon lobbied the Bill Clinton White House to push for a blanket exemption for emissions generated by military fuel use. US pressure on its friends and foes worked, and Kyoto was celebrated as a win for American ambitions. 'We took special pains … to fully protect the unique position of the United States as the world's only superpower with global military responsibilities,' Stuart Eizenstat, undersecretary of the state department, told Congress. 'The Kyoto protocol did not limit the US.' Crawford's research began more than a decade ago after discovering there was no data to share with her undergraduate climate change students – despite the Pentagon having warned for decades about the threat of climate change to US national security. She found that military spending and emissions rise when the US is directly at war or preparing for war. During Ronald Reagan's anti-communism buildup in the 1980s, spending surged and with it fuel use and emissions. After the end of the cold war, spending and emissions fell throughout the 1990s, apart from a spike during the first Gulf war. After the 9/11 attacks, emissions again surged as the US launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. From 1979 to 2023, the Pentagon generated almost 4,000 MtCO 2 e – about the same as the entire 2023 emissions reported by India, a country of 1.4 billion people. Its installations and 700 bases account for about 40%, while 60% are operational emissions, resulting from fuel use in war, training and exercises with other countries, according to Crawford's analysis. In addition, the military industry – US-based companies manufacturing weapons, planes and other equipment for warfare – generates more than double the greenhouse gases emitted by the Pentagon each year. Still, the known US military climate impact is probably a significant undercount. Crawford's figures do not account for greenhouse gases generated by dropping bombs, destroying buildings and subsequent reconstruction. The additional CO 2 released into the atmosphere as a result of destroying carbon sinks such as forests, farmland and even whales killed during naval exercises are also not included, nor are those generated by burning oil fields or blowing up pipelines during conflicts. Significantly, the ripple effect of increased militarisation and operations by allies and enemies is also not counted. For instance, the emissions generated by the armed forces and death squads of Argentina, El Salvador and Chile during the US-backed dirty wars are not accounted for, nor those from China increasing its military exercises in response to US threats. Jet fuel shipped to Israel and Ukraine can be counted if transported on a military tanker, while commercial shipments of crude used for warfare are not. 'These are important but, as yet, not well understood climate consequences of military spending and war,' Crawford said. 'We've long underestimated the impact of mobilisation, war and reconstruction.' Yet the Pentagon has long warned that water scarcity, sea level rise and desertification in vulnerable regions could lead to political instability and forced migration, framing climate change as a 'threat multiplier' to US interests. In 1991, former president George HW Bush formally acknowledged climate change as a national security threat. More recently, the direct threat posed by floods, wildfires and land degradation to US military capabilities has become clear. In 2018, during the first Trump administration, flood water from Hurricane Michael destroyed an air force base in Florida, and then a few months later another storm significantly damaged the Strategic Command base in Nebraska, headquarters of the nation's nuclear arsenal. Overall, the US military has reduced its fuel use and emissions since 1975, thanks to base closures, fewer and smaller exercises, switching from coal, and increasingly efficient vehicles and operations. But according to Crawford, this is driven by improving fighter efficiency – not the environment. 'The Pentagon has framed migration from climate change as a threat in order to get more money, which shows a lack of compassion and a failure to think ahead. If they really believed their own rhetoric, they would of course work to reduce their contribution to climate change by reducing emissions. The irony is difficult to stomach,' she said. The military ripple effect is playing out. In response to Russia's ground invasion of Ukraine – and more recently, Trump's shift towards authoritarianism and anti-Ukraine, anti-Europe rhetoric – the UK, Germany and other Nato countries have increased military spending. Here lies a fundamental problem, Crawford argues. 'We can't let Ukraine fall, but that doesn't mean you have to mobilise all of Europe's militaries in this way and spend this much. Russia is not the threat that they were years ago, yet the current response is based around the same old aggressive military doctrine. It's just nonsensical and bad news for the climate. 'There's a less expensive, less greenhouse gas-intensive way of standing up to the Russians, and that would be to support Ukraine, and directly,' said Crawford, an expert in military doctrine and peace building, and the current Montague Burton professor of international relations at the University of Oxford. Another global military trend that could have significant climate and environmental costs is the expansion of nuclear forces. The US and UK are considering modernising their submarine fleets, while China's expanding nuclear force includes a growing arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The production of nuclear weapons is energy- and greenhouse gas-intensive. 'Nuclear modernisation is supposed to be making us safer, more stable, but usually leads to adversaries also increasing conventional forces as well,' said Crawford. 'It's part of a broader militarisation, all of which leads to an upward spiral in emissions. The threat inflation always leads to emissions inflation.' The total military carbon footprint is estimated at about 5.5% of global emissions – excluding greenhouse gases from conflict and war fighting. This is more than the combined contribution of civilian aviation (2%) and shipping (3%). If the world's militaries were a country, this figure would represent the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world – higher than Russia. The global military buildup could be catastrophic for global heating, at a time when scientists agree that time is running out to avoid catastrophic temperature rises. And despite growing calls for greater military accountability in climate breakdown, Crawford fears the Trump administration will no longer publish the fuel data that she relies on to calculate Pentagon emissions. In addition to withdrawing from the Paris agreement, the Trump administration has failed to report the US's annual emissions to the UN framework convention on climate change for the first time and has erased all mention of climate change from government websites. 'Getting a handle on the scale, scope and impact of the world's military emissions is extremely important, so that there is accountability and a path toward reduction … but the US is shutting things down,' said Crawford. 'It's becoming a black hole of information. It's authoritarianism.'
