Climate Chaos due to NATO's Arms Race
- By: Christine Leitner
- Reading Time: ~5 Minutes
**NATO's remilitarization Leads to Environmental Degradation** - Military hardware and operations of NATO contributing to planetary damage
Military conflicts have long been overlooked in the grand scheme of climate change, but they're as much a culprit as any industrial pollutant. The Paris Climate Agreement aimed to decrease emissions, with countries pledging to become carbon-neutral by 2050. Yet, the meticulous record-keeping of carbon emissions seems pointless if we ignore the significant greenhouse gas emissions caused by wars.
The number of wars worldwide has been on the rise, with Putin's invasion of Ukraine preceding conflicts in the Gaza Strip and Iran. Conflicts like these release millions of tons of carbon dioxide and fuel an arms race that further escalates emissions. However, accurately measuring the damage is challenging due to the secrecy surrounding military data. Yet, estimates suggest that the collective emissions of the world's armed forces account for around 5-6% of global emissions. For instance, the CO2 emissions from NATO alone would place it among the top-rankingcountries in the global emissions ranking, calculated by a coalition of non-governmental organizations.
With the tensions escalating in the Middle East and the impending COP30 climate summit in Brazil, researchers have reevaluated the impact of global military competition on our planet. Der Spiegel has been exclusively provided with their research ahead of its publication.
Soaring Military Spending, Soaring Emissions
According to the findings, NATO increased its military spending by 25% in recent years, aiming to meet the 2% target. Consequently, its carbon footprint has also expanded - by a whopping 40%. If NATO member states persist in adhering to the 2% target, emissions could surge by at least fourfold in the coming years. These estimates are optimistic, as other studies suggest much higher emissions figures. Regardless, NATO has unofficially abandoned the 2% target.
Irrespective of the actual emissions figures, NATO's objectives pose a substantial threat to the EU's climate goals. The EU needs to reduce emissions by 134 million tonnes of CO2 annually to reduce emissions by half compared to 1990. "We cannot continue to rearm without jeopardizing our climate objectives," says Laura Wunder, an expert in climate justice and global health at IPPNW, a peace organization.
Yet, the determination is there: in 2021, NATO pledged to stronger document and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. However, with growing international tensions and conflicts, achieving this goal seems challenging. The upcoming meeting in June will decide on the next armament target, with member states expected to spend 3.5% of their GDP on the military.
Countries aren't shying away from making significant investments to meet these goals. Germany plans on borrowing money for its military spending, and discussions revolve around allocating over 70 billion euros this year. The governments of the United Kingdom and Spain have also agreed to boost their spending. While these measures may protect Europe from potential military adversaries, they will undoubtedly intensify our enemy, climate change, depending on the scenario.
Money for Modernization, Less for Climate Action
Researchers forecast that around $13.4 trillion will be spent on NATO modernization over the next five years. This colossal sum would be enough to convert the entire global power generation to a climate-neutral state or finance climate protection measures in developing countries for three years. However, countries have yet to publicly declare that they will divert funds from climate initiatives and aid programs into military spending.
war-related emissions are not exclusively limited to the production and supply chains of equipment. With Putin's assault on Ukraine, he has released approximately 230 million metric tons of CO2, the equivalent of Spain's annual emissions. The emissions from the Gaza war in the first two months alone were around 281,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Israel's campaign against Iran has not yet been quantified, and there's also the indirect carbon emissions due to rerouted air traffic and the rebuilding of destroyed areas.
With these findings in mind, the study authors and IPPNW appeal for immediate NATO disarmament. However, with growing tensions and increasing conflicts, this demand appears unrealistic. Dictators like Putin or Netanyahu are unlikely to be swayed by such appeals. The researchers fear that ambitious NATO goals could encourage other nations, such as China, to engage in an arms race - one that could potentially redirect climate and social investments towards military spending.
Despite the seemingly bleak outlook, peace researchers can take credit for increasing public discourse on wars as drivers of climate change. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has played a significant role in this movement, launching a platform for citizens to document damages as evidence of "Russian eco-genocide." This meticulous documentation is unprecedented in terms of war-related environmental damage. At the COP27 climate summit in Egypt, Zelenskyy raised awareness about the environmental devastation caused by the Russian attack and emphasized the world's inability to withstand "a single shot."
At the subsequent conference in Dubai, participants adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience, highlighting the connection 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, stressing the importance of disarmament and peace efforts in relation to climate change.
Laura Wunder of IPPNW remains hopeful, stating, "We hope the Brazilian presidency this year will build on this momentum." Nonetheless, she acknowledges the challenges in achieving disarmament during times of tension, urging, "I understand that disarmament may seem daunting, but we should not increase our military spending by 3.5%."
- NATO
- Climate Change
- Conflict
- Emissions
- Greenhouse Gases
- Military Spending
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms Race
- Gaza Strip
- Climate Disruption
- Armed Conflict
- Environmental Damage
- Developing Countries
- COP (Conference of the Parties)
- Climate Finance
- Foreign Aid
- Conflict and Climate Crisis
- The increase in military spending by NATO countries, such as Germany and the UK, poses a significant challenge to their environmental policies, as substantial funds diverted towards modernization may hinder investments in climate action and environmental protection.
- In light of the association between conflicts and climate change, environmental policies of communities should consider the impact of wars, including those triggered by an arms race like NATO's, on greenhouse gas emissions and environmental damage, necessitating efforts towards international disarmament and peace.
