Militarism and Climate: How NATO Fueling a Crisis
Catchy Introduction
Rearmament by NATO Detrimentally Impacts the Earth - The Impact of NATO Weapons on the Environment: A Concern for Sustainability
You'd think the world is headed in the right direction with countries committed to cutting carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement. But wait, here comes the kicker: Wars, particularly those driven by NATO, have been largely left out of the climate calculation.
The Climate Horror Show:
Wars, sadly, have only escalated in recent years. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, conflicts in the Gaza Strip, and tensions between Israel and Iran are prime examples. The carbon emissions triggered by these conflicts are crushing our hard-fought climate victories.
The Unseen Polluters:
Estimates suggest that global military forces collectively contribute up to six percent of all emissions. NATO's emissions alone are so high that if they were a country, they'd rank in the top third worldwide (as calculated by a group of non-governmental organizations).
Boom, Bust, and Boom Again:
Despite the Paris Agreement, NATO has boosted its military spending by an astounding 25 percent, with an aim to meet the two percent target. This rearmament has led to a jump of 40 percent in their ecological footprint. If NATO members stick to the two percent target, emissions could skyrocket at least fourfold in the near future—but that's a conservative estimate. Other studies hint at much higher numbers.
Dancing with Disaster:
NATO's reckless pursuit of war and emissions negates the EU's climate goals from decades ago. The EU needs to cut 134 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030 to halve emissions compared to 1990. "We can't continue to rearm without endangering our climate goals," warns Laura Wunder, a climate justice and global health expert at the peace organization IPPNW.
Open Overdraft:
Europe faces a battlefield financed by a ticking climate debt—over the next five years, around $13.4 trillion is expected to flow into NATO reinforcement. This amount could finance the global shift to climate neutrality or climate protection measures in developing countries for three continuous years.
Slashing Aid, Fueling Conflict:
Given NATO's relentless expansion, aid and development funds face a slow death. Despite Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez suggesting using military forces to combat climate change, the real impact remains questionable when military investments escalate while aid and development funding declines.
Disarm Now:
As peace researchers point out, NATO's emission values are but a fraction of the real damage military and wars inflict on the planet. The total emissions are far greater, considering the use and aftermath of weapons. They demand the immediate disarmament of NATO to halt the climate crisis—but in today's uncertain geopolitical landscape, this seems like a dream.
The Next Time the World Talks Climate:
There's one silver lining: The concept of wars as climate threats has finally entered public discourse. The Ukrainian government introduced a platform for citizens to document damages to prove "Russian eco-cide," shedding light on the environmental damage of wars like never before. This paves the way for greater accountability at upcoming climate conferences, starting with COP27 in Egypt, where leaders were urged to focus on the connection between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis.
Ultimately, the onus is on us to hold policymakers responsible for prioritizing the planet in their decisions, no matter the geopolitical turmoil. Let's dismantle the weapons, defend our Earth, and work to establish a brighter, greener future for all.
Keywords:
- NATO
- Climate
- Carbon emissions
- Wars
- Environment
- Military expenditure
- Conflicts
- Gaza Strip
- Ukraine
- Climate change
- Political corruption
- Green transition
- The environmental policy of NATO, with its continuous military expenditure, has been contributing significantly to carbon emissions, thereby negating the EU's climate goals and the global efforts towards a green transition.
- The intersection between war and climate is increasingly becoming a concern, as the carbon emissions triggered by conflicts, such as those in the Gaza Strip, Ukraine, and potential conflicts driven by NATO, are escalating and thwarting our hard-won climate victories.
- In the realm of environmental-science, it is evident that global military forces, including NATO, are substantial contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, rivaling the emissions of many countries. This undermines the effectiveness of policies and agreements aimed at mitigating climate-change.
