Researchers warn that the increase in defense spending worldwide reaches 200 million tonnes per year and will aggravate climate crisis, which will cause more conflict
Global military reconstruction is an existential threat to climate targets, according to researchers who warn that only NATO equipment may increase greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 200 million tonnes per year.
As the world is facing the largest number of armed conflict since World War II, countries have been indulged in defense-record defense spending, which amounted to $ 2.46 trillion in 2023.
“There is a real concern about how we prioritize short -term security, sacrificing the long -term,” said researcher Eli Kinyy of the Conflict and Environment Observatory and author of the study presented by the Guardian.
Investing in military security, global emissions are increasing and the climate crisis is further exacerbated, experts note.
This, in turn, is expected to lead to a new escalation of violence, as climate change is now considered one of the challenge factors, even indirectly. In Darfur, Sudan, the conflict has been linked to the dispute over the few resources after prolonged droughts and desertification. In the Arctic, ice retreats has led to tensions over who will control the new accessible reserves of oil, gas and critical mineral resources.
While few military forces worldwide publicize the use of fossil fuels, researchers estimate that the Armed Forces are already responsible for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a percentage that is expected to increase significantly as geopolitical tensions are increasing.
The US, for decades, the country with the highest military spending, has been calling on their allies in NATO to increase defense spending. Already militarization has increased to 108 countries in 2023, according to the World Peace Index, while 92 countries are involved in armed conflict – from Ukraine and Gaza, to South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while the tensions between China and the US for Taivani are increasing.
Particularly in Europe, the increase in military spending is dramatic as from 2021 to 2024, EU countries increased funding for equipment more than 30%, according to the International Institute of Economics and Peace. In March, the European Union, amid concerns to Donald Trump’s policies regarding Ukraine, presented the “Rearm Europe” plan, proposing additional military costs of € 800 billion.
In an analysis of the UN Disarmament Office, researcher Eli Kynine and her associates warn that the increase in military spending poses immediate danger to the target of sustainable development 13, which relates to emergency action to combat climate change. As they note, the broadcasts only from NATO’s re -facing efforts are equivalent to the cost of the global carbon footprint that would cause a country to the size of Pakistan.
Of all the functions of the states, the armies are one of the most energy -efficient institutions. “First of all, due to the equipment supplied, which consists mainly of large quantities of steel and aluminum – materials with a very high carbon footprint in their production,” said Leonard de Clerk, author of the study and a member of the Initiative to record gases.
“Secondly, during operations, the armies are particularly mobile. And to move, they use fossil fuels – that is, diesel for land companies and kerosene for airlines. Naval businesses are also mainly used diesel unless the ships are nuclear. “
Given the privacy that usually surrounds their armies and their operations, it is difficult to accurately calculate how many greenhouse gases they emit. Only NATO countries report sufficient data on their broadcasts so that scientists can attempt an assessment.
“We have chosen NATO because it is the most transparent alliance in terms of spending. It is not that we specifically wanted to focus on NATO, but simply because there are more data available, “De Clerk said.
Researchers calculated how much greenhouse gas emissions would increase if NATO countries, excluding the US, as they already spend much more than others, increase the percentage of GDP by two percentage points to the armed forces.
Such an increase is already underway, with many European countries significantly increasing military spending in response to the crisis in Ukraine. Although NATO countries have publicly pledged to increase spending to 2% of GDP, researchers say the Rearm Europe plan could eventually lead to an increase of 3.5%, from about 1.5% in 2020. Researchers considered a corresponding increase in a corresponding increase in NATO members.
Calculating methodology from a recent study, according to which each percentage rise in GDP rates dedicated to military spending causes national emissions increase of 0.9% to 2%, the researchers estimated that a “spending shock” of two percentage points would increase by 19 (Co₂e) per year.
Researchers note that such a large increase in emissions would not only boost climate change, but also that rising temperatures would harm the economy. Recent estimates of the “social cost of carbon” – a financial indicator of the damage caused by the CO₂ emission – place costs of $ 1,347 per ton of Co₂e, indicating that the annual cost of NATO’s military support could reach $ 264 billion.
And this, as Kynine points out, is just a small part of the real cost of militarization. “The calculation in the article includes 31 countries, which account for only 9% of total global broadcasts. If one takes into account the real impact, there is much of the world that is not included in this calculation. “
The analysis also points out that the increase in military spending reduces the resources available for policies aimed at mitigating climate change. This seems to be the case, as Britain is financed the increase in military spending by reducing the budget of development aid, a tactic also followed by Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
“This increase in military spending undermines the confidence necessary for the multilateral dialogue,” Kiney said. “In COP29, countries in the world, such as Cuba, have pointed out hypocrisy in the room: States are willing to constantly increase their military spending, but offer unacceptably low commitments to finance climate action.”
Source: Skai
I have worked as a journalist for over 10 years, and my work has been featured on many different news websites. I am also an author, and my work has been published in several books. I specialize in opinion writing, and I often write about current events and controversial topics. I am a very well-rounded writer, and I have a lot of experience in different areas of journalism. I am a very hard worker, and I am always willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done.
