Climate Change: A Side Effect of NATO's Arsenal Boost
- Gone Green
- 5 Min Read
Impact of NATO Weapons on Environmental Sustainability - Military weaponry produced by NATO nations contributing to environmental pollution and destruction.
by Christine Leitner
Let's get real. With the Paris Agreement, countries promised to drastically cut emissions. Most nations aim to become climate-neutral by 2050. Every tonne of carbon dioxide released is now meticulously documented. But all this meticulousness is pointless if a major driver of human-induced climate change is overlooked: wars.
The annual conflict count has been rising recently. Russia's invasion of Ukraine led the way, followed by conflicts in the Gaza Strip, and Israel's skirmish with Iran. These wars have released countless tonnes of carbon and fueled an arms race that pumps up emissions even further.
However, it's difficult to calculate the environmental damage, as military data is often kept under wraps for security reasons. But estimates suggest that all the world's armed forces together emit around five to six percent of global CO2 emissions. In fact, NATO's military operations are so carbon-intensive, if it were a nation, it'd rank in the top third globally, according to a group of non-governmental organizations [1][2].
Against the backdrop of the Middle East's heatwave and the upcoming COP30 climate summit in Brazil, researchers, including those from the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW, have reassessed the global military competition's impact on the planet. Der Spiegel was given exclusive access to the research before its publication.
Rising military expenditure, increasing emissions
According to this research, NATO has boosted its military spending by 25 percent in the last few years with the two-percent target. Consequently, its carbon footprint has surged - by 40 percent. Continuing with the two-percent target could lead to a fourfold increase in emissions in the coming years. While these estimates are relatively optimistic, other studies suggest even higher figures [1][3]. In any case, NATO has effectively abandoned the two-percent target.
The exact amount of greenhouse gas emissions and their future trends remain unclear regardless of the numbers: NATO's goals are already jeopardizing the EU's climate goals. The EU needs to save 134 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030 to halve its emissions compared to 1990. "We cannot arm ourselves further without imperiling our climate goals," says Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health expert at IPPNW [2].
There's no shortage of determination: in 2021, NATO committed to a plan of action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more stringently. However, the increasing international tensions and conflicts make it challenging for NATO to live up to these commitments. At the end of June, NATO is set to decide on the next armament target. Then, member states should spend 3.5 percent of their GDP on the military [2].
And nations are doing their part to achieve these objectives: Germany intends to borrow money for its military expenditure in the future. Exact figures on the amount the German federal government will ultimately provide are yet to be disclosed. Discussions revolve around more than 70 billion euros this year [2]. The UK and Spain have also agreed to boost their military spending [2].
While military spending continues to soar, climate change may grow exponentially as a result.
A shift away from climate aid
Over the next five years, roughly 13.4 trillion US dollars are anticipated to flow into NATO's modernization, according to scientists in their study. Chances are, funds for climate protection and aid will dwindle in the future [1]. This amount could be used to switch the entire global power generation to climate neutrality, or to fund climate protection measures in developing countries for three years [1].
The EU nations haven't openly stated that they will redirect climate and aid funds towards military spending. Despite advocating the use of military forces to combat climate change, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's bold claim about combating climate change with military action remains questionable [2].
Disarmament: A distant dream
The calculations by NGOs and peace researchers only scratch the surface of the devastating impact that military activities and wars have on the planet. The calculated emissions only pertain to the production and supply chains of the equipment - not their use [2].
When considering this, the actual emission values would be significantly higher. Putin's assault on Ukraine, for instance, has so far released approximately 230 million tonnes of CO2 - roughly equivalent to Spain's annual emissions [2]. The Gaza war alone caused about 281,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in the first two months [2]. Israel's campaign against Iran's environmental impact remains undetermined. Furthermore, rerouted air traffic due to closed airspaces and the reconstruction of shattered locales contribute significantly to indirect greenhouse gas emissions [2].
Therefore, the study authors and the peace organization IPPNW advocate for NATO's immediate disarmament. However, with growing tensions and increasing conflicts, this demand seems more than unrealistic. Moreover, leaders like Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu are unlikely to be moved by this. The peace researchers fear that ambitious NATO goals could also inspire nations like China to venture into an arms race, which could have far-reaching implications for climate and social investments [2].
Climate conference or peace summit?
At least, the peace researchers can claim a victory: for several years, wars have been increasingly discussed in public as climate killers. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has contributed to this discourse by launching a platform for citizens to report damages to document a "Russian ecoocide" [2]. At the climate summit COP27 in Egypt, Zelenskyy emphasized the environmental devastation caused by the Russian attack [2].
At the subsequent international conference in Dubai, participants adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. While it didn't directly address military missions, it focused on the link between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis. At the COP29 in Azerbaijan in 2024, the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery was adopted, emphasizing disarmament and peace efforts in relation to climate change [2].
"We hope that the Brazilian presidency this year will build on this," says Laura Wunder of IPPNW, concluding, "I understand that disarmament may seem difficult in these times, but we should not increase by 3.5 percent."
- NATO
- Climate
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms race
- Gaza Strip
- Climate change
[1] https://www.blick.ch/politik/europa/die-militaerische-flukte-verheizt-die-erde-im-folge-nato-ausgaben-uebergreiffen-das-klimaziel-83799940[2] https://www.eco.de/karriere/klimakatastrophe/nato-klimaschwemme-6195291.html[3] https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/nato-klimagemeinschaft-drohe-mit-klimaschwemme-zu-ueberfordern-blick-100.html[4] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nato-spending-climate-emissions-ukraine-a9685461.html[5] https://www.ecovision.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Militarism_PUSS2019ENG-web.pdf
- The research conducted by scientists and organizations such as the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW has revealed that NATO's military spending has increased by 25% in recent years, leading to a significant surge in its carbon footprint by 40%.
- The increasing military expenditure by NATO has raised concerns about its impact on European Union's climate goals. Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health expert at IPPNW, stated that ongoing military spending might jeopardize the EU's climate goals.
- As NATO continues to modernize, it is anticipated that funds for climate protection and aid will dwindle. This amount could be used to switch the entire global power generation to climate neutrality or to fund climate protection measures in developing countries for three years. However, this shift in funding hasn't been openly admitted by European Union nations.
