Climate Crisis: NATO's Hefty Military Spending Fuels the Planet's Woes
- by Christine Leitner
- 5 Min
Increased Military Arsenal by NATO Causes Environmental Degradation - Military Equipment Manufactured by NATO Contributes to Environmental Degradation
In the Name of Paris Climate Agreement, countries pledged to lessen their CO2 emissions significantly. Most nations strive for being climate-neutral by 2050. But all this diligence can be futile if a chief factor triggering human-induced climate change is overlooked: wars.
Recent years have seen a surge in conflicts. Witness Putin's attack on Ukraine, the war in Gaza, and Israel's confrontation against Iran. These wars not only emitted millions of tonnes of CO2 but have also jolted an arms race, adding to the emissions surge.
Quantifying the damage is difficult due to military data's secrecy, but estimates suggest that the world's armed forces together contribute to around five to six percent of global emissions. Alone NATO's military forces emit so much CO2 that, if the military alliance were a country, it would rank in the top third according to a group of non-governmental organizations.
Against the backdrop of escalating Middle East conflicts and the preparations for COP30 climate summit in Brazil, researchers renewed their assessment of the impact of global military competition on the planet. Collaborating with organizations like the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW, they shared their recent findings exclusively with Der Spiegel.
Rising Military Spending Equals Soaring Emissions
According to the researchers, NATO has intensified its military spending by 25 percent recently. If NATO members adhere to the 2% target, their emissions could multiply at least fourfold in the upcoming years. While such estimates may seem optimistic, other studies suggest higher values. In any case, NATO appears to have relinquished the 2% target to some extent.
Regardless of the current or projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions, NATO's objectives contradict the EU's climate goals since virtually forever. The EU must slash 134 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030 to halve its emissions compared to 1990. As Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health expert at the peace organization IPPNW remarks, "We cannot continue to arm ourselves without jeopardizing our climate goals."
Despite this awareness, governments are undeterred from escalating military expenditures, and Europe isn't an exception. NATO will deliberate on the next rearmament target at the end of June, and member states are set to spend 3.5 percent of their GDP on the military as a consequence. Even the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain have committed to increasing their military spending.
Although countries may utilize this to secure themselves against military threats, it's questionable if this approach will reverse the enemy of climate change. The scientists involved in the study expect approximately 13.4 trillion US dollars to be invested in NATO modernization over the next five years. This staggering amount could have covered the world's entire shift to carbon-neutral power generation or funded climate protection measures in developing countries for three years.
Decreasing Development Aid
EU countries have yet to declare publicly their intention to swap climate and aid funds for military spending. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, for example, has suggested employing military forces for climate protection. However, with escalating military expenses and reduced aid funds, this strategy may not be entirely effective.
Can NATO Disarm?
The researched data only shed light on a fraction of the actual damages inflicted upon the environment by wars. The calculated emissions pertain merely to the equipment production and supply chains - the actual emissions through their utilization are ignored. Including these aspects, the actual emission values would be considerably higher: For instance, Putin's attack on Ukraine released approximately 230 million tons of CO2, equivalent to Spain's annual emissions.
The study authors and the peace organization IPPNW demand an immediate dismantling of NATO's military arsenal. Yet, in the current political climate, this demand seems impractical at best. More conflicts may emerge as a result, urging more states like China to arm themselves and possibly redirect climate and social investments to military purposes.
Will the Upcoming Climate Conference Lead to a Peace Summit?
One achievement of peace researchers is their growing success in raising the issue of wars and their impact on the planet. In this regard, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made a significant contribution. Ukraine launched a platform enabling citizens to document damages to prove a "Russian ecoocide," which represents a new dimension in quantifying the environmental damages wrought by wars.
At COP27 in Egypt, Zelenskyy addressed the environmental destruction caused by the Russian attack and emphasized that the world can't afford "a single shot." At the subsequent international conference in Dubai, participants adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. Although this declaration didn't directly address military actions, it emphasized the link 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 adopted, emphasizing disarmament and peace efforts in the context of climate change. Hopefully, the Brazilian presidency will build upon this, according to Laura Wunder of IPPNW.
- NATO
- Climate
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms Race
- Gaza Strip
- Climate Change
- The environmental impact of global military competition has gained renewed attention, particularly in the context of NATO's escalating military spending.
- Researchers and organizations like the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW have assessed the impact of NATO's military activities on the environment, indicating significant contributions to global emissions.
- The findings suggest that NATO's environmental policy must align with its climate goals, and a discussion about reducing military spending in favor of climate initiatives may become necessary.
