As shown by the most recent report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2023 global military expenditure increased for the ninth consecutive year, reaching a total of $2443 billion. In 2022, the richest countries were spending 30 times more on their militaries than on providing climate finance to the most impacted communities. To have an idea: $70 billion of climate adaptation could be paid with just 3 per cent of annual global military spending.
Based on this alarming data, we ask a simple question: when will enough be enough?
On the occasion of the Global Days of Action on Military Spending, it is important to draw attention to the link between the climate crisis and increased military spending. These two issues are deeply intertwined and mutually reinforcing: on one hand, war has a considerable impact on the environment, on the other, excessive investments in armaments have as a consequence under-investing in other sectors, including climate change mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. Governments must urgently redefine their priorities and make sure human and environmental rights prevail over their investments in war. Young peace activists might wonder, how much in our future is worth to our governments? They need to invest in the environment and make the changes necessary to ensure our generation and future generations live on a healthy planet.
The conflicts engulfing the world today not only result in human tragedies but also carry grave environmental disasters. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas has a high ecological and environmental impact. We have clear examples of this in the conflicts spreading around the world today. For two years, we have feared the worst from the conflict around the Ukrainian nuclear power plants at Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhya. In Ukraine, there has also been debate over the use of depleted uranium weapons, the health and environmental consequences of which are sadly known since they were used in the Balkan wars in the 1990s. To this we can add the use of harmful gases that irreversibly damage the environment.
Ongoing conflicts produce significant emissions, on top of emissions originating from military operations. As we highlight in a precedent article, the first year of the war in Ukraine released emissions that roughly equal the annual output of a country like Belgium.
Another striking case is the destruction of Palestinian territory after more than six months of war. Analysing the ongoing genocide in Palestine, we immediately realise that we are also facing a clear case of ecocide. Israel has set in motion a deliberate plan to destroy the ecosystem, making life in Palestine less and less possible. The air breathed by Palestinians is now laden with pollutants, while the water supply is contaminated, signalling a genuine environmental crisis in Gaza. The Guardian has published numerous reports showing the destruction in the area of Gaza. In addition to the destruction of trees, the soil and water have been contaminated by toxic bombing debris. The Guardian reports the destruction of about 38-48 per cent of tree cover and farmland and the Forensic Architecture estimated that Israeli military activity had destroyed 38 per cent of the Gaza area, by the end of February 2024. These are clear cases of a systematic destruction of territory that will have long-term effects, leading us to speak of ecocide and war crimes. All moves that Israel has defined as “military necessities”.
Beyond these horrific cases of land destruction in wartime contexts, it must be emphasised that military emissions are also a problem outside of specific situations of armed conflict. Military emissions account for 5.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The National Priorities Project report ‘No Warming, No War’ and the Costs of War project at Brown University show how the Pentagon is the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum. Continuing conflicts generate substantial emissions, in addition to those stemming directly from military activities. A recent analysis investigated the emissions of the first 60 days of war in Palestine by Israel, coming to the conclusion that the total emissions were higher than the annual emissions of countries such as the Central African Republic and Belize. When we combine the emissions from all the world’s armed forces, they would rank as the fourth-largest national emitter, behind China, the United States, and India. Although the climate responsibility of the military was increasingly addressed (particularly by civil society) at the last UN climate summit (COP28) in Dubai, the topic is not yet on the official agenda and there is no binding transparency and accountability mechanism for military emissions to date.
How to get out of this spiral of military pollution? The only answer is demilitarisation. Demilitarisation can help prevent conflicts by tackling their underlying causes and It means moving money from weapons to climate mitigation. This approach involve promoting transparency and accountability regarding the ecological effects of military operations and conflicts, reallocating military funds toward gender-inclusive climate initiatives, investing in diplomacy and environmental peacebuilding efforts, and facilitating a fair transition from war-oriented economies to sustainable, environmentally conscious economies focused on caring for the planet’s well-being and regeneration. If the military sector contributes to environmental degradation, then demilitarisation must be integrated into the remedy.
