The Bloody Undoing: How NATO's Re-armament Threatens the Planet
Militarizing NATO Negatively Impacts the Earth's Environment - NATO's Weapons Wreaking Havoc on the Environment
By Christine Leitner+- 5 Mins
In the recurring chaos of wars and conflicts, one fact remains - humanity's disregard for the environment. Despite the Paris Climate Agreement, countries continue to emit vast amounts of carbon, a fast-track to global warming. Yet, there exists a key player overlooked in global emission calculations - the military.
Today’s world witnesses a surge in conflicts, from Putin's attack on Ukraine to the war in Gaza and Israel’s confrontation with Iran. Amidst the smoke and rubble, these battles not only fuel tensions worldwide, but they also spew millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, further kindling an arms race that intensifies emissions.
Measuring the actual damage is challenging due to confidential military data. However, approximate estimates suggest that all the world’s armed forces collectively are responsible for around five to six percent of global emissions. In terms of rank, alone NATO's military emissions would position it among the top third of the international ranking, calculated by a group of non-governmental organizations[1].
With escalations in the Middle East and the upcoming COP30 climate summit in Brazil, a research team—consisting of members from the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW—has evaluated the environmental consequences of global military competition. Der Spiegel received an exclusive preview of the paper before its publication.
Military Spending - A Greenhouse Gas Catalyst
As proven, NATO has boosted its military spending by 25% during the past few years, aiming to meet the two-percent target[1]. Unsurprisingly, its ecological footprint has expanded correspondingly - by 40%. If NATO members continue to meet the two-percent target, emissions could quadruple in the coming years[1]. This estimation is relatively conservative; other studies suggest significantly higher values. Nonetheless, NATO appears to have abandoned the two-percent target altogether.
Given the current emissions levels, NATO's objectives are already at odds with the EU's climate goals. To achieve a 50% emission reduction compared to 1990 levels by 2030, the EU must save 134 million tons of CO2 annually[1]. "We cannot continue to arm ourselves without jeopardizing our climate goals," remarks Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health expert at the peace organization IPPNW.
Veritable Arsenals from Climate Defenses
Although NATO has committed to a plan of action to reduce and document its GHG emissions, it remains questionable whether such steps can combat the mounting international tensions and conflicts. The recital of increased military spending, in essence, fuels climate change. At the end of June, NATO is due to decide on the next armament target, prompting member states to spend 3.5% of their GDP on the military.
Even countries that maintain a commitment to sustainability are not immune to this vicious circle. Germany intends to borrow money for its military spending. The exact amount the German government will allocate remains uncertain, with discussions revolving around a billion euros or more[1]. Likewise, the UK and Spain have also agreed to enhance their military budgets[1].
With military modernization for NATO set to cost approximately 13.4 trillion US dollars over the next five years according to scientists in their study[1], this money could potentially be allocated to green initiatives elsewhere, or towards financing climate change efforts in developing countries for three years[1]. Moreover, no European government has publicly chosen to divert climate and relief funds into military spending. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, for example, has advocated involving military forces in the battle against climate change[1]. But it remains uncertain whether this strategy will alleviate the threat of climate change, particularly when military expenditures are growing while aid and development funds are being reduced.
Beyond the Veil: The Overwhelming Environmental Repercussions of Armed Conflicts
The aforementioned calculations only provide a glimpse into the true environmental toll of military activities and wars. The calculated emissions primarily refer to the production and distribution chains of military equipment. If one takes into account other key aspects, such as military equipment usage, the actual emission values would be drastically higher. For instance, Putin's attack on Ukraine has released over 230 million tons of CO2, roughly equivalent to Spain's annual emissions[1].
Similar calculations have yet to be made for the Gaza war and Israel's campaign against Iran, but their anticipated carbon footprints are expected to rival those aforementioned. Additionally, one should consider the indirect GHG emissions caused by re-routed air traffic due to closed airspaces, along with the rebuilding of devastated areas, both of which contribute to the war-induced emissions.
Given these startling figures, the research team, including IPPNW, calls for NATO's immediate disarmament. However, with growing tensions and escalating conflicts, this demand appears unrealistic. It is unlikely that autocrats like Putin or Netanyahu would responded positively to any such call. Nonetheless, the scientists fear that the ambitious goals within NATO could inspire countries like China to embark upon an arms race, diverting climate and social investments into military spending.
Can the Future COP be a Platform for Peace?
Concurrently, it is crucial to raise public awareness about the dire consequences of armed conflicts on the environment. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has joined this effort by launching a platform that enables citizens to report damages to document “Russian ecoocide”[1].
As global leaders converge in Egypt for COP27, the Ukrainian perspective highlighted the environmental damage inflicted by the Russian attack. Zelenskyy underscored the fact that the world cannot afford "even one shot." Following the COP27, participants adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. Although it did not directly address military missions, it emphasized the interconnection between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the accelerating climate crisis[1].
In Azerbaijan, during the COP29 conference in 2024, the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery was adopted. This declaration underscored the significance of disarmament and peace efforts in the context of climate change. "We hope that the Brazilian presidency this year will build upon this," comments Laura Wunder of IPPNW.
As tensions swell and conflict escalates, Wunder acknowledges the challenges in effecting change. However, she emphasizes the urgency for diplomacy over increased military spending: "I understand that disarmament may seem unattainable in these times, but we should not move in the wrong direction."
- NATO
- Climate
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms Race
- Gaza Strip
- Climate Change
- IPPNW
Enrichment Data:
From 2021 to 2024, NATO's military-related emissions have risen by nearly 40% due to increased spending, which represents 9% of global GHG emissions as of recent estimates[1]. A 1% increase in military spending as a share of GDP could swell national CO2 emissions by 0.9% to 2%[1][2]. For NATO, a 2% increase in military spending would result in additional 87-194 million tons of CO2 emissions annually[1][2]. The economic and climate costs of these emissions can be prohibitive, running into billions of dollars per year.
Increasing military spending stands as a potent driver of carbon emissions, posing a significant challenge to achieving global climate targets enshrined in the Paris Agreement.
- The notebook by Christine Leitner highlights NATO's drastic increase in military spending, which contributes to global warming due to the associated carbon emissions, making the organization a significant player in overall international emissions.
- The research paper by a team consisting of members from the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW suggests that if NATO members meet the two-percent target, emissions could quadruple in the coming years, posing a substantial threat to the EU's climate goals.
- In the face of growing tensions and escalating conflicts globally, it is crucial to prioritize diplomacy over increased military spending to combat climate change and achieve the targets set in the Paris Agreement.
