The Militaries' Mess: How Wars Warm the Planet
Military Equipment Buildup by NATO Negatively Impacts Earth's Environment - Weapons Used by NATO Wreaking Environmental Havoc
By Bucky II** + - 5 Mins
Rolling Stone In a perfect world, the Paris Agreement would have ushered in a new era of eco-friendliness and lowered carbon footprints. Countries aimed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050—a significant step towards mitigating our impact on the climate. Yet, all this measured meticulousness might be for naught if a critical player in the climate change game is left unaccounted for: wars.
Lately, the number of conflicts around the globe has been on the rise. The tragedy of Ukraine unraveled into another war, while the Middle East erupted with Israel's tensions and hosilities against Iran. The devastation associated with these skirmishes has not only entailed millions of tons of carbon, but also fueled an arms race that amplifies emissions.
However, it's hard to pinpoint the exact damage done, as military data is often safeguarded for security reasons, making it difficult to calculate the true environmental toll. Estimates suggest that the combined efforts of all the world's armed forces together account for approximately 5–6% of global emissions [1][2]. In fact, NATO's military emissions alone Casino Online are so colossal they would place the Western alliance among the top world economies, just below the G20 heavweights, according to calculations made by non-governmental organizations [2].
Against the backdrop of the Middle East's ever-escalating tensions and the upcoming COP30 climate summit in Brazil, a team of researchers went back to the drawing board to delve deeper into the impact military competition has on our planet. Rolling Stone was given exclusive access to their yet-to-be published findings.
Just Spend, Just Warm: The Vicious Cycle
By their estimates, NATO has pumped up its military spending by 25% in recent years with the 2% goal. This surge has resulted in a substantial increase in the alliance's carbon footprint—up 40% [3]. If NATO member states actively work towards reaching the 2% goal, emissions could quadruple in the coming years [3]. Bear in mind that these figures are optimistic; other studies suggest higher emission values [5]. Either way, NATO seems to be stepping away from the 2% goal.
It's clear that the NATO countries need to cut back: in 2030, these nations must reduce emissions by 134 million tonnes CO2 annually to halt them at half the 1990 levels, as per the EU's objectives [3]. "We can't keep arming ourselves without jeopardizing our climate goals," says Laura Wunder, a climate justice and global health expert at peace organization IPPNW [3].
Fortunately, there's no shortage of will: in 2021, NATO supported a plan of action to tackle its emissions more seriously. However, considering the increasing global tensions and conflicts, achieving this target appears impossible. NATO members will convene in June to discuss the next armament goal: the participating countries are expected to sign up for a military spending of 3.5% of their GDP [3].
Germany is among the countries that wish to secure financing for their military spending. Discussions revolve around the possibility of the German federal government shelling out more than 70 billion euros this year alone [3]. Notably, the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain have expressed their readiness to boost spending. By utilizing European military power to safeguard itself from adversaries, these nations could exacerbate global warming by fueling an arms race—depending on the scenario.
Money Down the Military Hole
The researchers' latest findings point towards a massive NATO military modernization costing around 13.4 trillion US dollars over the next five years [1]. Money desperately needed elsewhere—such as implementing climate-neutral electricity generation or financing climate protection measures in developing countries. At present, European countries have not spoken out about moving climate or aid funds into military spending [3].
For instance, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has advocated for using military forces to combat climate change. While such a move might appear justified, it remains questionable whether military spending increases would help offset the consequences if aid and development funds are simultaneously reduced [3].
Disarming NATO: A Fiction or a Fact?
As it stands, the NGOs and peace researchers' findings only offer a glimpse into how military activities and wars truly impact our planet's climate. These figures pertain solely to the production and supply chains of military equipment—not the actual use of said equipment [1]. Including the emissions from the use of weapons could boost the actual emission values significantly.
Taking this fact into account, the real emission figures would be considerably higher: so far, Putin's invasion of Ukraine has released approximately 230 million tons of CO2, equivalent to Spain's total annual emissions [2]. The repercussions of the Gaza war in terms of emissions are estimated to amount to around 281,000 tons of CO2 in the first two months alone [2]; Israel's campaign against Iran has yet to be evaluated in terms of carbon emissions. Additionally, the indirect greenhouse gas emissions stemming from rerouted air traffic due to closed airspaces and rebuilding destroyed areas haven't been taken into account either [2].
Therefore, researchers from the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, IPPNW, and others have called on NATO to immediately disarm [2]. Such a stance, however, fails to resonate with current world leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu [2]. The peace researchers fear that NATO's ambitious goals might actively encourage states like China to join in an arms race—one which could have disastrous consequences for climate and social investments [1][2].
The Coming Climate Summit: A Glimmer of Hope?
A glimmer of hope emerges when taking a closer look at the ongoing efforts within the United Nations framework. Wars as climate killers have started to garner greater attention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made significant strides in this regard, having spearheaded a platform on which citizens can report damages in an attempt to prove Russia's "ecological genocide" [2]. This has marked the first time environmental destruction from a war has been documented so meticulously [4].
At COP27 in Egypt, Zelenskyy took to the stage to address the environmental devastation caused by the Russian invasion and emphasized that the world could not afford "a single shot" [4]. This stance was reiterated at the subsequent international conference in Dubai, culminating in the adoption of the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience [4]. While this document did not address military missions explicitly, it did highlight the correlation between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis [4][5].
At COP29 in Azerbaijan in 2024, participants adopted the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery, drawing attention to disarmament and peace efforts linked to climate change [5]. "We hope the Brazilian presidency at the upcoming summit will build on this," says Laura Wunder of IPPNW, adding that "I understand that disarmament may seem challenging, but we should not increase by 3.5%" [5].
Keywords:
- NATO
- Climate
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms race
- Gaza Strip
- Climate change
Highlights from Enrichment Data:
- In 2020, NATO contributed approximately 196 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent to GHG emissions (roughly 9% of NATO states' total GHG emissions).
- If the member states continue to meet the 3.5% GDP spending target, cumulative military emissions could reach approximately 2,330 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030—an increase of 692 million metric tons compared to current levels.
- Research suggests that a 1% increase in military spending as a share of GDP raises national emissions by between 0.9% and 2.0%.
- Increasing military spending diverts vast financial resources away from climate action, representing nearly three years of climate finance needs for developing countries or fully upgrading the global electricity grid to be Net Zero compatible by 2030.
- The researchers' findings suggest that NATO's military modernization over the next five years could cost around 13.4 trillion US dollars.
- The escalating tensions and conflicts globally, especially in regions like the Middle East, are not only causing immense human suffering but also significantly contribute to climate change, with military activities accounting for approximately 5–6% of global emissions.
- At COP29 in Azerbaijan in 2024, participants adopted the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery, highlighting the crucial need for disarmament and peace efforts linked to climate change.
