According to a recent analysis, the most significant number of armed conflicts since World War II is driving a global spike in military spending, which is seriously jeopardising climate goals. According to researchers, NATO‘s rearmament plans could add 200 million tonnes of emissions each year, the same as including a carbon-intensive nation like Pakistan in the global emissions budget. The carbon cost of this increase and the opportunity cost of taking money away from climate action raise concerns, as nations spent a record $2.46 trillion on militaries in 2023. Researchers from the Initiative on GHG Accounting of War and the Conflict and Environment Observatory conducted the study, emphasising the risky feedback cycle in which militarisation exacerbates climate change, which feeds further conflict.

The Carbon Footprint of Militarization

The military is one of the industries with the highest carbon emissions because it uses high-emission products and processes. As a co-author of the report from the Initiative on GHG Accounting of War, Lennard de Klerk noted, “The equipment they purchase, mainly steel and aluminium, is very carbon-intensive to produce.” Furthermore, military operations rely primarily on fossil fuels, using kerosene for airborne missions and diesel for land and naval operations. According to the report, militaries already contribute 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions; this percentage is expected to increase as tensions grow in areas like Gaza, Ukraine, and the Arctic, where conflicts over newly available resources have been triggered by melting sea ice.

The researchers examined the effects of a two percentage point increase in military spending as a percentage of GDP among NATO nations (except for the United States, which already spends disproportionately) because of the alliance’s relative transparency in spending data. With spending expected to rise from 1.5% of GDP in 2020 to a projected 3.5% under programs like the EU’s “ReArm Europe” plan, which calls for an additional €800 billion in military investment, many NATO members are heading towards this increase. This spending increase may contribute between 87 and 194 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e) each year, according to the study, which uses methodology from a previous paper. This would seriously undermine global climate targets, especially Sustainable Development Goal 13 on climate action.

Also Read: Oceans Have Absorbed 30% Of Human CO2 Emissions Since Industrial Revolution, But Limits Are Nearing

Climate Change as a Driver of Conflict

Ironically, the cycle of militarisation is self-reinforcing: rising emissions exacerbate climate change, which in turn fuels conflict. Prolonged droughts and desertification in Sudan’s Darfur region have exacerbated competition for limited resources, which has led to an increase in violence. Geopolitical tensions have increased in the Arctic due to the opening of oil, gas, and mineral resources as sea ice melts. More bloodshed is likely to result from “investing in hard military security now, increasing global emissions, and worsening the climate crisis further down the line,” cautioned Ellie Kinney, a co-author from the Conflict and Environment Observatory. Long-term global security is at risk because of this feedback loop, which justifies military development by driving displacement and war due to climate-induced instability, such as food and water scarcity.

The economic cost of these pollutants is also highlighted in the paper. NATO’s military buildup might cost $264 billion a year, based on a societal cost of carbon estimate of $1,347 per tonne of CO₂e. However, this number only includes 31 nations, or about 9% of global emissions, indicating that the actual cost of militarisation is far higher. Kinney pointed out that non-NATO nations are also raising their military budgets amid international tensions, saying, “There’s a lot of the world that we haven’t taken into consideration in this specific calculation.”

The Opportunity Cost: Diverting Funds from Climate Action

In addition to direct emissions, NATO’s rearmament plans could add 200 million tonnes of emissions, and this boom takes vital funds away from initiatives to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Countries including the UK, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands have slashed their overseas aid budgets to finance military growth, frequently at the price of their climate finance pledges, in Europe, where arms spending increased by more than 30% between 2021 and 2024. Cuba and other countries from the global south criticised this hypocrisy at COP29, pointing out the discrepancy between growing military budgets and inadequate climate funding. Kinney noted the decline in international collaboration on climate action, saying, “This increase in military spending is impacting the core trust necessary for multilateralism.”

According to the Global Peace Index, 108 countries saw increased militarisation in 2023, with 92 countries involved in conflicts ranging from South Sudan to Ukraine. This pervasive insecurity compels governments to put short-term defence ahead of long-term sustainability, a decision that detractors claim jeopardises stability in the future. Every dollar spent on new military equipment represents a lost chance to fund climate-resilient infrastructure, renewable energy, or adaptation strategies for communities at risk from drought, floods, and sea level rise. The impact of direct emissions is exacerbated by this opportunity cost, making it more difficult to reach Paris Agreement commitments and prevent catastrophic warming.

Also Read: Low Emission Zones Proven Effective In Reducing Air Pollution And Improving Public Health, Study Finds

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

Since militaries are notoriously opaque about their emissions, increased transparency from them is necessary to address the climate impact of militarisation. Only NATO nations give academics adequate information to calculate their carbon footprint, generally ignoring the emissions of other powerful countries like China, Russia, and India. To better integrate military operations into global climate policies, the study calls for militaries to report their emissions and consumption of fossil fuels comprehensively. The actual scope of the issue is hidden in the absence of this transparency, which makes it more challenging to reduce the carbon cost of global rearmament.

The researchers also call for governments to reassess security objectives and balance the long-term threat posed by climate change and present defence requirements. The core causes of conflict, such as resource scarcity, can be addressed while lowering emissions by investing in clean energy, fortifying global climate agreements, and rerouting funding towards sustainable development. The study serves as a sobering reminder that absolute security is not found in more weaponry but rather in a stable climate for future generations as the globe struggles with rising tensions and a warming planet.

Also Read: India Sets First-Ever GHG Emission Intensity Targets Under Carbon Credit Trading Scheme