Carbon Cannonades: NATO's Climate Unraveling and the Militarization of Emissions
The Impact of NATO's Military Buildup on Earth's Environment - militarized equipment used by NATO contributing to environmental degradation globally
by Tommy Fisher** - 4.5 Min
The EconomistWith the Paris Climate Agreement, nations ostensibly vowed to significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions. The majority aspire to be carbon-neutral by 2050. Every tonne of carbon dioxide expelled is now meticulously documented. However, such diligence falters in the face of an overlooked factor exacerbating climate change: wars.
The frequency of conflicts has spiked over recent years. Putin's aggression in Ukraine instigated the war in Gaza and the Israeli standoff against Iran. These conflicts not only discharged millions of tonnes of carbon but have fueled an arms race that further escalates emissions.
While quantifying the destruction is challenging due to secrecy surrounding military data, estimates suggest global armed forces are responsible for around five to six percent of global emissions. Alone, NATO's forces emit so much CO2 that, if it were considered a country, it would find itself in the global emissions' upper echelons, calculated by a consortium of non-governmental organizations.
As tensions escalate in the Middle East and the COP30 climate summit in Brazil approaches, IPPNW, the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and other research teams have once more evaluated the impact of military spending on the planet. The Economist has been granted exclusive previews of their findings.
A dangerous alliance: climatic and ecological ramifications
According to the study, NATO has hiked its military spending by 25 percent in recent years thanks to the Two-Percent-Goal. This surge in funding has resulted in a corresponding increase of its ecological footprint - by 40 percent. If member countries continue to meet the Two-Percent-Goal, emissions could soar at least four times over in the coming years—optimistic estimates, as other studies propose much higher figures. It appears that NATO has, in essence, forsaken the Two-Percent-Goal.
The ecological repercussions of this are undeniable: the EU, which aims to save 134 million tons of CO2 annually by 2030 to halve its emissions compared to 1990, is precluded from achieving its objectives as long as NATO continues to arm itself indiscriminately. "Unless we curtail our armaments, we compromise our commitment to our climate goals," states Laura Vander, climate justice and global health expert at IPPNW.
However, a lack of determination is not the issue at hand: NATO has unveiled a plan of action to cut its GHG emissions in a stronger manner, acknowledging the need to document them more thoroughly. Yet, with growing international hostilities and conflicts looming, such ambitions seem unattainable. At the end of June, NATO will decide on the next armament goal; member states could then be obliged to spend 3.5 percent of their GDP on the military.
In response, countries are taking drastic measures to achieve these objectives: Germany contemplates borrowing money for its military budget, the German federal government's ultimate funding remains unclear. Figures as high as 70 billion euros for this year are being floated around.
The governments of the United Kingdom and Spain have also expressed a willingness to increase spending—a decision that might offer some measure of protection for Europe from military threats. However, it will also serve to expand the rival of climate change, depending on the scenario.
The empty pockets of planetary justice
Over the next five years, scientists expect upwards of $13.4 trillion to be channeled towards NATO's modernization. Funds that could plausibly be employed to make the entire global power generation climate-neutral or to finance climate protection measures in developing countries for three years, according to the study authors.
European countries have yet to disclose their commitment to shifting climate and aid funds into military spending; Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, for instance, has proposed harnessing military forces for combating climate change. Whether this strategy will prove effective remains questionable, as increased military spending invariably coincides with a reduction in development aid funds.
Disarming NATO: a desperate plea or a hopeless endeavor?
The emitted CO2 figures in this study merely denote the production and supply chain emissions of equipment—not those generated during use. Taking this into account, the actual emission values would be significantly higher: Putin's campaign against Ukraine has alone released around 230 million tons of CO2, which amounts to Spain's annual emissions.
The Gaza war is said to have run up an emissions bill of 281,000 tons of carbon dioxide within the first two months and the climate damage wrought by Israel's crusade against Iran has yet to be quantified. Moreover, there is the indirect GHG emissions generated by rerouted air traffic due to closed airspaces and the rebuilding of wrecked areas.
Consequently, the authors of the study and the peace organization IPPNW insist on the immediate disarmament of NATO. However, given the mounting tensions and escalating conflicts, their appeal appears impracticable—not to mention President Putin's or Prime Minister Netanyahu's attention to it. Nevertheless, peace researchers are concerned that NATO's aggressive goals might incentivize states like China to engage in an arms race—a development that might potentially redirect climate and social investments into military spending, as per the study's speculations.
A beacon of climate concern or a peace summit?
At least the peace researchers can claim a little success: wars have, for some years now, increasingly been seen in public as an enemy of the planet. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy played a significant role in this, launching a platform that allows citizens to report environmental damage because of a "Russian ecocide." This marks the first time the environmental devastation attributable to a war has been documented so rigorously. The COP27 climate summit in Egypt recognized this destruction, and the ensuing international conference in Dubai adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. While it did not address military missions directly, it placed the focus on the interplay between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis.
At COP29 in Azerbaijan in 2024, the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery was familed, emphasizing disarmament and peace initiatives in the face of climate change. "We hope that the Brazilian presidency this year builds upon this," says Laura Vander of IPPNW. "I appreciate that disarmament might seem daunting in the current circumstances. But we shouldn't increase our military spending by 3.5 percent."
- NATO
- Climate
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms race
- Gaza Strip
- Military spending
- Climate change
- The study by IPPNW and other research teams reveals that NATO's hiked military spending thanks to the Two-Percent-Goal has resulted in a 40% increase of its ecological footprint, and if member countries continue to meet the goal, emissions could soar four times over.
- European countries are contemplating using funds that could be employed for climate protection measures in developing countries towards military spending, which might exacerbate the rival of climate change, depending on the scenario.
- The authors of the study and the peace organization IPPNW insist on the immediate disarmament of NATO due to the significant CO2 emissions generated by wars, but their appeal appears impracticable given the mounting tensions and escalating conflicts.
- In response to the international conference in Dubai adopting the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience, which placed the focus on the interplay between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis, the COP29 in Azerbaijan in 2024 emphasized disarmament and peace initiatives in the face of climate change.
