The Militarized Climate Crisis: How NATO's Escalation Fueling the Planet
Increased Armament by NATO Leads to Environmental Degradation - The Destructive Impact of NATO's Weapons on Earth's Environment
By Christine Leitner* Estimated Reading Time: 5 Min*
Some countries have pledged, in accord with the Paris Agreement, to significantly lessen emissions. Aiming to become climate-neutral by 2050, these nations keep a watchful eye on emissions. But the grand documentation fades into insignificance when global war’s primary catalyst is neglected: warfare.
Warfare frequency has spiked in recent years. Following Putin's invasion of Ukraine came the fight in Gaza, and Israel's attack on Iran. These conflicts have generated millions of tonnes of carbon and fueled an arms race, intensifying emissions further.
Quantifying this damage is difficult due to military information often being guarded for security reasons. Nevertheless, estimates suggest that the world's combined armed forces contribute to around 5-6% of global emissions. NATO military emissions alone are so significant they would place the alliance in the upper third of the global emission ranking, calculated by a group of non-governmental organizations.
Ahead of the escalating Middle-East conflicts and preparations for the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, a research team (including from the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South and IPPNW) has assessed the global repercussions of arms racing on the planet. Der Spiegel was granted exclusive access to the unpublished study.
A Rising Budget Spell the Rise of Emissions
With NATO increasing its military spending by 25% over the past years, aiming for a 2% target, its ecological footprint followed the trend - swelling by 40%. If NATO countries continue this trajectory, emissions could skyrocket at least fourfold over the incoming years. These estimates are relatively optimistic, as other studies propose much higher values. Regardless of the emission figures, NATO's ambitions endanger the EU's climate goals. To halve the emissions compared to 1990, the EU must avoid 134 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030. "We cannot continue to arm ourselves without endangering our climate goals," remarks Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health expert at the peace organization IPPNW.
NATO acknowledged a need to decrease and document greenhouse gas emissions in 2021. However, the reality seems impracticable in the face of growing international tensions and conflicts. At the end of June, NATO is expected to decide upon the next arms target. Then the member states should spend 3.5% of their GDP on the military, a significant boost from the current percentage.
The countries push their efforts to reach these objectives: Germany, for instance, intends to borrow money for military expenditure. The final sum Germany will allocate is yet to be determined. Discussions revolve around amounts exceeding EUR 70 billion for 2022. Other nations, including the UK and Spain, have also agreed to escalate their spending.
While Europe arms itself to tackle military opponents, climate change looms larger dependent upon the scenario.
A Void Where Aid Once Flowed
Scientists anticipate a total of $13.4 trillion to modernize NATO in the next five years. Funds that could be diverted elsewhere. With these resources, for example, it would be possible to achieve entirely climate-neutral global power generation, or finance climate protection initiatives in developing countries for three years.
EU countries have not yet publicly pronounced a shift of climate and aid funds into military spending. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez advocates for employing military forces to combat climate change. However, the efficacy of military investments increasing alongside reduced aid and development funds remains uncertain.
Disarmament: A Faint Hope or the Only Alternative?
NGOS and peace researchers reveal only a small piece of the puzzle when calculating military and wars' actual effect on the planet. The calculated emissions only concern equipment production and supply chains, excluding their use.
Taking this into account, realistic emission values would be significantly higher: Putin's attack on Ukraine has thus far released approximately 230 million tons of CO2, comparable to Spain's annual emissions. The Gaza war allegedly caused around 281,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in the initial two months alone, while Israel's campaign against Iran's climate damage remains undefined. Furthermore, there are indirect greenhouse gas emissions due to redirected air traffic resulting from closed airspaces, and the rebuilding of damaged areas.
Therefore, the study authors and IPPNW demand NATO's immediate disarmament. However, amidst growing tensions and escalating conflicts, this demand seems more unrealistic than ever. Additionally, politics like that of Putin or Netanyahu are unlikely to be swayed by these demands. Researchers fear that ambitious NATO objectives may inspire other nations, such as China, to engage in an arms race - potentially leading to redirected climate and social investments towards militarization.
At least, the researchers claim a victory: Warfare's environmental devastation has been discussed increasingly in the public eye. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy contributed to this by launching a platform where citizens can document damages, proving a "Russian ecoocide." At the climate summit COP27 in Egypt, Zelenskyy discussed the environmental destruction caused by the Russian attack and said, "The world cannot afford a single shot."
At the subsequent conference in Dubai, participants adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. Although it did not directly address military missions, it emphasized the connection 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, highlighting the disarmament and peace efforts in relation to climate change.
"We hope that Brazil's presidency this year will build on this," says Laura Wunder of IPPNW, adding, "I understand that disarmament may seem challenging in these times, but we should not increase by 3.5%."
- The scientific community and environmental researchers have expressed concern over the rising emissions due to military spending increases and their impact on climate-change, as suggested by a joint study conducted by the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW.
- The environmental policy and the general news landscape have been influenced by the ongoing discussion regarding the environmental devastation caused by warfare, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy launching a platform to document damages and referring to it as "Russian ecoocide" during the COP27 climate summit in Egypt.
- The Paris Agreement, environmental policy, and climate-change are threatened by the escalating militarization, as indicated by the estimated emissions of NATO military activities, which could skyrocket in the incoming years, posing a significant challenge to the EU's climate goals and the efforts of other countries to lessen emissions in accord with the agreement.
