Rising military spending will undermine global climate action unless we act now.
No matter which way you look at it, the rapid rises in global military spending threaten climate action, undermining our collective security. In a new joint paper we explore how everything from direct emissions to diverted climate finance are threatening SDG 13 on Climate action.
The climate cost of increasing military spending
This week, we published a joint paper: How increasing global military expenditure threatens SDG 13 on Climate action. It was written in response to a call for papers from the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs on the impact of the global increase in military expenditure on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
In its coverage of the paper, The Guardian picked up on one key statistic — that the climate cost of increasing NATO military spending could increase emissions by 200 m tonnes a year. Yet this week, the EU Commission announced that the EU on track to reach its 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55%, a stepping stone towards reaching net zero by 2050. It’s a fair question how these two statements can co-exist; the EU is analysing progress based on National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), which don’t typically include the military’s contribution to emissions: we’re still not counting the military’s contribution properly.
Beyond the direct emissions cost of dramatically rising military spending across NATO members, it is also possible to put a price tag on the wider costs to the economy and society at large. This can be expressed by the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), a monetary indicator of the damage from each additional tonne of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. In our joint paper Lennard de Klerk calculated that this unchecked rise in military emissions could cause $264 bn in climate damage, annually.
It’s not just about NATO
While news coverage has focused on the direct emissions of NATO military spending, this is part of a far bigger picture. Overall, NATO states represent just 9% of the world’s total GHG emissions but the SDGs symbolise a global effort to create a sustainable future. We chose to focus on NATO due to the relative availability of emissions data compared to the rest of the world’s militaries. UNFCCC reporting exemptions mean that some of the world’s biggest militaries like India, China and Saudi Arabia release little to no data on the emissions from their militaries. Yet military spending is rising in every region of the world. Should this global arms race continue at its current pace, it is another barrier to us reaching the overarching goal of the Paris Agreement: limiting the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C.
Developing countries say: move the money to climate action
Importantly, the paper finds that the impact of rising military spending on climate action reaches beyond simply an increase in emissions. One of the targets of SDG 13 is for developed countries to mobilise the climate finance commitments made to the UNFCCC, initially $100 bn by 2020. When states met to agree on an updated target at COP29, developing countries had no hesitation in pointing out the imbalance in ambition between funding climate finance and increasing military budgets. Panama put this most clearly when pushing for a new target of $1 tn, suggesting that: “Global military spending stands at about $2.5 trillion yearly. $2.5 trillion to kill each other is not too much, but one trillion to save lives is unreasonable.”
The target of $1 tn was rejected and states instead agreed on a disappointing $300 bn, setting a moment of strained multilateralism in policy. These policy decisions have since been reflected on a national level with a trend of sweeping cuts to aid budgets while increasing defence spending in developing countries. The UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer explicitly stated that a cut to aid budgets would directly fuel defence spending, although other European leaders have taken a more discreet approach.
A vision for the future
The SDGs set out a vision of a peaceful, equitable and sustainable future for all by 2030. There’s no doubt that security plays an important role in this, but we need investment in genuine, human security. Moreover, for many, the climate crisis is already undermining their path to an equitable, sustainable and peaceful future.
Tackling growing military emissions is complex, however our joint paper highlighted four important steps that the international community could take to address them, and which spiralling military spending are making all the more urgent:
- Governments should commit to military GHG emissions reporting that is robust, comparable and transparent, and which covers the full scope of military activity including stationary emissions, mobile emissions, and supply-chain emissions, as well as emissions from warfighting where relevant.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should update its Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories to facilitate comprehensive reporting of military GHG emissions to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
- Governments should commit to ambitious and comprehensive plans for the reduction of military GHG emissions, which cover the full scope of military activity including stationary emissions, mobile emissions, and supply-chain emissions, as well as emissions from warfighting where relevant.
- Governments should be transparent and clearly communicate to the public how increased military expenditure decisions impact their contribution to the SDGs, and in particular the overarching goal of the Paris Agreement to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C.
You can read the paper How increasing global military expenditure threatens SDG 13 on Climate action here.
Ellie Kinney is CEOBS Climate Advocacy Coordinator, the other authors of the joint paper are: Dr Stuart Parkinson, Scientists for Global Responsibility; Lennard de Klerk, Initiative on the GHG Accounting of War; Prof Gregory Hooks, McMaster University; Dr Erwei Xiang, Newcastle University; and Madara Melnika, European University Institute.
