The US military is a bigger polluter than most countries, a new research has found, warning that the American war machine has a larger carbon footprint than a number of countries combined.

The research by the Durham University and Lancaster University in the UK found that if the US military was a country, it would have ranked 47th among all nations in greenhouse gas emissions based on its consumption of fossil fuels.

A comparison of 2014 World Bank country liquid fuel consumption with 2015 US military liquid fuel consumption shows that the US military ranks between Portugal and Peru in terms of purchasing fossil fuels.

In 2014, the US military greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were roughly equivalent to Romania’s total emissions.

In 2017, the US military bought more than 269,000 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotons of CO2 equivalent emissions by burning them.

In total, the US Air Force spent $4.9 billion on fuel that year, while the Navy spent $2.8 billion, followed by the Army at $947 million and Marines Corps at $36 million.

The report stated that US Air Force is by far the largest emitter of GHG at more than 13,000 kilotones equivalent of CO2, almost two times the US Navy’s 7,800 kilotons.

A 2017 report by MintPress revealed that the Pentagon alone produces more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined, creating a toxic trail over the world comprised of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuel, pesticides, defoliants like Agent Orange and lead.

The US military has long tried to hide its emissions data, the main reason why such a major factor is often overlooked in climate change studies.

In fact, the US insisted to get an exemption for reporting military emissions when the 1997 Kyoto Protocol came into effect to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The loophole was addressed in the Paris Accord, but US President Donald Trump has announced that America would withdraw from the accord in 2020.

“The US military has long understood it is not immune from the potential consequences of climate change — recognizing it as a threat multiplier that can exacerbate other threats — nor has it ignored its own contribution to the problem," said Patrick Bigger of the Lancaster University Environment Center.

“Yet its climate policy is fundamentally contradictory — confronting the effects of climate change while remaining the largest single institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world, a situation it is locked into for years to come because of its dependence on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations around the globe.”