Increased Military Armament by NATO Negatively Impacts Earth's Environment - Military Arms Produced by NATO Negatively Impacting the Earth
By Jonny Stone* Approx. 5 Min Read**
In the name of maintaining peace and global security, we've signed numerous international agreements aimed at combating climate change. Take the Paris Agreement, for example. Countries promised to drastically cut emissions and strive for climate neutrality by 2050. Yet, if we don't account for one major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, all those promises become meaningless—wars, and the military might of nations like NATO.
Der Spiegel has exposed the shocking truth: Armed conflicts and their subsequent arms races are pushing our planet to the brink. With rising tensions in the Middle East and the run-up to the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, a research team—including experts from Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW—has reevaluated the ecological consequences of international military competition. We're proud to exclusively share their findings with you.
Fueling the Fire: How NATO's Arms Race Engulfs Our Planet
Already exceeding its two-percent military spending target, NATO has led the way in budget increases. As a result, its ecological footprint has grown by an alarming 40 percent. The situation is bleak: If NATO nations keep increasing military spending to meet this target, emissions could skyrocket fourfold in the coming years. Unfortunately, these estimates are optimistic, with other studies suggesting significantly higher values.
It's no surprise that NATO's military goals are at odds with the EU's climate goals. The EU needs to save 134 million tons of CO2 annually by 2030 to meet its 55% reduction goal compared to 1990 levels. Laura Wunder, climate justice expert at IPPNW, puts it plainly: "We simply cannot afford to continue rearming if we want to save our planet."
A Race to Rearm: The Global Military Arms Race and Climate Change
According to the study, NATO is preparing to announce a new armament target of 3.5 percent of GDP for its members by the end of June 2023. Countries are going to great lengths to meet these goals: Germany is potentially considering borrowing money for military spending, with discussions revolving around providing over 70 billion euros in 2023 alone. The UK and Spain are also increasing their defense budgets.
Such a vast sum could do wonders for green initiatives and climate aid: for instance, it could be used to finance global electricity generation to reach climate neutrality or fund climate protection measures in developing countries for three years. However, with NATO countries neglecting to prioritize climate action and aid over military spending, these amounts seem increasingly unlikely to materialize.
The Not-So-Invisible Wounds of War
While the scientists' calculations provide a glimpse into the carbon footprint of NATO, they represent only a fraction of the total environmental impact of military conflicts. The calculations consider only the production and supply chains of equipment, excluding the carbon emissions from their use. When taking such impacts into account, the actual carbon emissions would be significantly higher.
For example, Putin's attack on Ukraine is estimated to have released around 230 million tons of CO2, similar to the annual emissions of Spain. The Gaza War emitted around 281,000 tons of carbon dioxide in the first two months alone, while the climate damage of Israel's campaign against Iran has yet to be quantified.
Additionally, there are indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from redirected air traffic due to closed airspaces and rebuilding destroyed areas. All these factors contribute to an immeasurable toll on our climate.
A Question of Arms: NATO's Path to Sustainability
Given the dire situation, peace researchers demand the immediate disarmament of NATO to halt further environmental devastation. However, this seems an unrealistic demand in the face of growing international tensions and conflicts. Moreover, autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu are unlikely to heed such calls.
Rather, peace researchers fear that ambitious NATO goals could provoke an arms race with other nations, such as China—possibly diverting climate and social investments to military purposes.
Can Climate Change Summits Become Peace Summits?
At least, there's a silver lining. An increasing number of people and leaders are acknowledging wars as a significant contributor to climate change. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has even launched a platform for citizens to report damages to prove a "Russian eco-genocide," marking the first time that the environmental damage of a war has been documented so meticulously. At the COP27 in Egypt, Zelenskyy addressed the environmental destruction caused by the Russian invasion and called on the world to recognize the high cost of war in terms of our climate.
In response, participants at the subsequent international conference in Dubai adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. Although military missions were not directly addressed, the declaration emphasized the interconnectedness of 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 endorsed, highlighting disarmament and peace efforts in relation to climate change.
"We hope the Brazilian presidency this year will build on this," says Laura Wunder of IPPNW, acknowledging that disarmament remains a challenging goal amid escalating tensions. "But," she adds, "we should not exceed the 3.5 percent mark." ✏️🔍🔥🥰
- NATO
- Climate Change
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms Race
- Gaza Strip
- Climate Finance
- Military Spending
- International Tensions
- Peace Summit
- Disarmament
- Climate Change Agreements
- Climate Action
- Environmental Damage
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Conflicts and Climate Crisis
- Military Enemies
- Climate Neutrality
- Government Spending
- Energy Transition
- Developing Countries
- International Treaties
- The environmental impact of international military competition, as exemplified by NATO's arms race, is alarming and could potentially nullify the promises made in climate change agreements like the Paris Agreement.
- Experts warn that the ecological consequences of such competition are substantial, with escalating military spending threatening to skyrocket carbon emissions fourfold in the near future.
- The researchers' findings reveal that if NATO nations continue to prioritize military spending over climate action, this could lead to a significant strain on global climate finance, potentially preventing the funding of crucial green initiatives.
- As climate change summits proliferate, there is an increasing recognition of the interconnectedness of conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis, with some leaders calling for a shift towards peace summits.
- In light of these developments, climate justice experts like Laura Wunder of IPPNW advocate for a halt to the arms race and urgently call for the reduction of military spending in order to combat climate change and prioritize our planet's future.
- With growing tensions among nations, the prospect of disarmament remains a challenging goal, but as leaders and citizens alike become more aware of the environmental consequences of wars, a fundamental shift in global priorities could eventually lead to a more sustainable and peaceful future.
