Militaries Mend the Planet? The Truth About NATO's Emissions
Equipping the World with NATO Weapons: A Potential Sabotage to Global Peace - NATO's Weapons Causing Harm to the Earth
by Christine Leitner* ⏱ 5 Mins*
Hear ye, hear ye! The Paris Climate Agreement saw nations pledge to slash emissions - most aiming for climate neutrality by 2050. Every single carbon atom matters. But there's an elephant in the room that's not making it onto the emissions ledger - conflicts.
These days, tensions spark like wildfires. Putin's invasion of Ukraine led to a scuffle in Gaza and heated exchanges between Israel and Iran. These wars have not only spewed millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they're stoking the fire of an arms race, which in turn feverishly cranks up emissions.
Quantifying the damage is tricky given military data is shrouded in secrecy for security reasons. Estimates, however, reveal that the world's armed forces together account for around 5-6% of global emissions. Even the stalwarts of NATO emit enough CO2 to land them in the global top tier, if they were a country, according to a group of non-governmental organizations.
The research team, incorporating the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW, has taken another look at the colossal impact global military competition has on our fragile planet, just as tensions escalate in the Middle East and we gear up for the COP30 climate summit in Brazil. Der Spiegel has an exclusive look at the paper before it hits the stands.
More Money, More CO2
The study concludes that NATO has beefed up its military spending by a whopping 25% in recent times, with the two-percent-target as the cherry on top. Coincidentally, this has seen their ecological footprint expand by a whopping 40%. If NATO members continue on this path, emissions could balloon by at least four times in the near future. It's important to note that these estimates are on the optimistic side. Other studies suggest much higher emissions figures. No matter the case, NATO has, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the two-percent target.
In light of increasingly ambitious climate targets, it's clear NATO's military pursuits are at odds with the EU's climate goals. The EU must trim its emissions by 134 million tons of CO2 annually by 2030, just to halve its 1990 carbon output. "We cannot keep arming without endangering our climate goals," asserts Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health specialist at the peace organization IPPNW.
But enough of the pessimism! Back in 2021, NATO pledged to take action to rein in its greenhouse gas emissions and document them more diligently. The question remains: is this a drops-in-the-ocean effort when confronted with mounting international tensions and conflicts? NATO leaders will convene in June to discuss the next arms race goal, with member states expected to fork out 3.5% of their GDP on the military.
And the race is on! Despite climate chaos challenging the very foundations of civilization, countries are doubling down on their military spending. Germany, for one, is eyeing financial assistance to meet its military spending quota. The total spend for this year is said to tip the scales at over 70 billion euros. The UK and Spain are likewise hiking their military spending.
It's a Catch-22: Europe may throw up defenses against military aggressors, but in doing so, it fans the flames of climate change.
A Crunch in the Bud
A colossal 13.4 trillion dollars is slated to be poured into NATO modernization over the next five years, according to researchers. That's a veritable mountain of cash that might be otherwise spent on reigning in emissions or funding climate change interventions in developing countries. The study points out that this sum alone would be enough to convert our global power generation to climate-neutrality, or sustain climate action in developing countries for three years.
The EU nations have yet to publicly admit that they will redistribute climate and aid funds for military spending. The question remains: do military interventions genuinely combat climate change when military budgets balloon while aid and development funds take a hit?
A Tale of Two Titans
The NGOs' and peace researchers' calculations only skim the surface of the ecological devastation wrought by wars. These figures only refer to the production and supply chains of the equipment, not their usage. When the dust settles and all the smoke clears, the real emissions numbers paint a far gloomier picture.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine, for instance, has released approximately 230 million tons of CO2, matching Spain's yearly emissions. The Gaza war spewed around 281,000 tons of CO2 in just the first two months, while Israel's campaign against Iran's emissions haven't been quantified yet. Parameter in the rerouted air traffic due to closed airspaces and the reconstruction of destroyed areas also add to the carbon burden.
The authors of the study and the peace organization IPPNW advocate for an immediate disarmament of NATO. This demand seems like a pipedream against the backdrop of escalating tensions and endless conflicts. Particularly since autocrats like Putin and Netanyahu are unlikely to dwell on such meager arguments. However, the peace researchers fear that ambitious NATO goals could provoke countries like China into a rival arms race - potentially entailing shifts in climate and social investments to military purposes, the study speculates.
COP29: The Climate of Conflict Summit?
One silver lining here is that the environmental devastation caused by wars is no longer hush-hush. This is thanks, in part, to the efforts of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. His government unveiled a platform that allows citizens to record damages as proof of a "Russian eco-holocaust." For the first time ever, the environmental implications of a war are being documented in such detail. The climate summit held in Egypt, COP27, saw Zelensky sound the alarm on the environmental devastation brought about by the Russian invasion, claiming the world could not afford "a single shot."
At the subsequent conference in Dubai, the participants adopted what they deemed the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. Although it didn't explicitly address military operations, it emphasized the link between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis. The COP29 summit, scheduled for 2024 in Azerbaijan, saw the adoption of the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery, shedding light on disarmament and peace efforts in relation to climate change.
"We have hope that the Brazilian presidency this year will build on this," declares Laura Wunder of IPPNW, adding, "I understand that disarmament may seem unrealistic in these times, but we shouldn't be pushing an increase by 3.5%."
- The environmental impact of conflicts, such as the ones initiated by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, cannot be ignored as they spew millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and contribute to the escalation of an arms race, thereby increasing emissions.
- The environmental policies of NATO, which have been criticized for their contribution to global emissions, must be reconsidered in light of the EU's climate goals. The EU should prioritize reducing emissions over increasing military spending, as advocated by Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health specialist at the peace organization IPPNW.
