Militarism as a Climate Disaster: How NATO's Arms Buildup Imperils the Planet
- by Chris Leitner
- 5 Min Read
Increased Military Arsenal by NATO Negatively Impacts the Earth's Environment - The Destructive Impact of NATO's Military Arsenals on the Environment
In the wake of the Paris Agreement, nations had committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. Most governments aim for carbon neutrality by 2050. Every tonne of CO2 emitted is now accounted for. Yet, this meticulousness is futile if a major driver of human-induced climate change is not factored in: wars.
Conflicts have been on the rise in recent years. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Gaza, and Israel's campaign against Iran are prime examples. Not only do these wars release millions of tonnes of CO2, but they also fuel an arms race that exacerbates emissions.
Determining the damage is challenging due to military data often being kept classified for security reasons. However, estimates suggest that all the world's armed forces combined contribute around 5-6% to global emissions. Alone, NATO's military emissions are so high that if it were a country, it would rank among the upper third globally, as calculated by a group of non-governmental organizations.
A research group including the Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW has reassessed the impact of global military competition on the planet in the backdrop of Middle Eastern escalations and COP30 climate summit preparations. Der Spiegel brings you an exclusive preview of their report before its publication.
Spiraling Military Expenditure Equals Soaring Emissions
According to the research, NATO has increased military spending by 25% over the past years, aiming for the two-percent target. Consequently, its carbon footprint has expanded by 40%. If members persist in meeting the two-percent target, emissions might quadruple in the coming years. Such estimates are optimistic: other studies suggest much higher increases. Regardless, NATO has, in essence, abandoned the two-percent target.
Inevitably, NATO's emissions goals undermine the EU's climate goals. The EU needs to save 134 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030 to halve its emissions compared to 1990. "We can't keep arming ourselves without endangering our climate goals," says Laura Wunder, climate justice and global health expert at the peace organization IPPNW.
Determination is not lacking: in 2021, NATO pledged a plan to reduce and document its greenhouse gas emissions more robustly. Yet, given the growing international tensions and conflicts, this seems impracticable. NATO is set to decide on the next rearmament target at the end of June, with member states expected to spend 3.5% of their GDP on the military.
Germany plans to borrow money for its military spending. The exact amount the German federal government will allocate is uncertain. Discussions revolve around more than 70 billion euros this year. The UK and Spain have also agreed to increase their spending.
While Europe fortifies itself against military threats, climate chaos gains ground.
Militarization Meaning Decreasing Aid to Developing Countries
Over the next five years, scientists estimate $13.4 trillion will flow into NATO modernization. Such funds are likely to be diverted from other sectors. For instance, this amount could fully transition global power generation to climate neutrality or fund climate protection measures in developing countries for three years, the researchers assert.
As of yet, EU countries haven't publicly declared they will shift climate and aid funds to military spending. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has proposed using armed forces for climate change mitigation. However, it's uncertain whether this strategy will yield benefits if military investments increase while aid and development funds are cut.
Disarming NATO: A Farfetched Idea or Imperative?
The NGO and peace researcher calculations only represent a fraction of the environmental harm wrought by military and wars. The calculated emissions refer only to the production and supply chains of equipment—not their use. Including use, actual emission values would be significantly higher. For example, Putin's attack on Ukraine has released approximately 230 million tonnes of CO2, akin to Spain's annual emissions.
Estimates for the Gaza War put carbon dioxide emissions at around 281,000 tons in the first two months alone, while Israel's campaign against Iran's climate impact remains undetermined. Additionally, there's the indirect greenhouse gas emissions from rerouted air traffic due to closed airspaces and rebuilding devastated areas.
Therefore, the authors of the study and the peace organization IPPNW demand immediate disarmament of NATO. Given the prevailing tension and mounting conflicts, this demand seems unrealistic. Besides, leaders like Putin or Netanyahu are unlikely to take notice. The peace researchers, nevertheless, warn that NATO's ambitious goals might embolden nations like China to engage in an arms race, thereby influenced climate and social investments being redirected to military purposes.
A climate summit or a peace summit?
The peace researchers can claim one success: the discussion surrounding wars as climate killers has gained public prominence, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy contributing through a platform enabling citizens to report damage to prove a "Russian ecocide." This is the first time environmental damage caused by war has been documented so diligently. At COP27 in Egypt, Zelenskyy discussed the environmental destruction wrought by the Russian attack and declared the world could not afford "a single shot."
At the international conference in Dubai the following year, participants adopted the Declaration of Peace, Recovery, and Resilience. While it didn't directly address military missions, it focused on the link between violent conflicts, humanitarian crises, and the climate crisis. At COP29 in Azerbaijan in 2024, the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery was adopted, emphasizing 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, adding, "The military buildup is escalating in these times, but we can't afford a 3.5% increase."
- NATO
- Climate
- Vladimir Putin
- Ukraine
- Arms race
- Gaza Strip
- Climate change
Enrichment Data:
Overall:
NATO’s current and projected military spending is having a significant and growing impact on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, posing a serious threat to international climate goals.
Current Impact of NATO Military Spending on Emissions
- NATO military expenditure rose by 25% from $1.177 trillion in 2021 to $1.506 trillion in 2024. This surge has corresponded with a nearly 40% increase in NATO’s estimated carbon footprint, from 196 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) to 273 MtCO2e[2][4].
- European NATO members and Canada recorded their largest annual military spending increase in decades in 2024, at 17.9%, fueling higher emissions levels[2][4].
- NATO states account for about 9% of global GHG emissions, and rising military expenditures contribute to this share[3].
- Research shows that an increase in military spending by 1 percentage point of GDP is linked to a 0.9% to 2% increase in national emissions. A 2% increase in military spending could add roughly 87 to 194 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually across NATO countries[1][5].
- The social cost of this carbon output is estimated to be up to $264 billion per year, reflecting the economic damages caused by additional emissions[1][5].
Projected Impact with NATO’s New Spending Goals
- NATO is proposing to raise its military spending target from 2% of GDP to 3.5% of GDP by 2030. This would increase total military expenditure to $13.4 trillion by 2030, a $2.6 trillion increase over current plans[2][4].
- Under the 3.5% GDP spending scenario, NATO’s cumulative military emissions could reach 2,330 MtCO2e by 2030. This is roughly equivalent to the combined annual GHG emissions of Brazil and Japan[2][4].
- The increase in emissions (about 692 MtCO2e above current levels) would negate the EU’s entire planned emissions reduction target for 2030, which is a cut of 134 MtCO2e annually compared to 1990 levels[2].
- The magnitude of spending under this plan could fund nearly three years of global climate finance for developing countries (at $1 trillion/year), or convert the entire global electricity grid to net zero emissions by 2030—indicating a substantial opportunity cost of military spending for climate investments[2][4].
Broader Implications
- Increased NATO military spending and associated emissions threaten Sustainable Development Goal 13 (climate action) by diverting resources from climate mitigation and adaptation efforts[1][3][5].
- Some NATO members have funded military budget increases by cutting foreign aid, further constraining global climate aid and sustainable development funding[5].
- The expanding carbon footprint of military activity is multi-faceted, including emissions from manufacturing, operational use of equipment, and infrastructure[1].
Summary
NATO’s rising military expenditure is a major driver of increasing carbon emissions within the alliance, with current spending already causing substantial emissions growth. Continued escalation to meet a 3.5% GDP military spending goal by 2030 would add emissions on a scale comparable to entire large countries, undermining climate targets and consuming financial resources that could otherwise be directed towards climate action and sustainable development. This trajectory poses a serious challenge to global efforts to mitigate climate change.
Thus, NATO’s military spending has both direct environmental consequences and indirect impacts by limiting funds for clean energy and climate finance, making it a significant factor in the global climate crisis today and into the near future[1][2][4][5].
- The research group, which includes Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South, and IPPNW, has found that NATO's increased military spending over the past years has contributed to a 40% increase in its carbon footprint.
- If NATO members continue to meet the two-percent target for military spending, their emissions might quadruple in the coming years, according to the research.
- This escalating military spending could fund climate neutrality in global power generation for three years or fully transition power generation in developing countries, as estimated by the researchers.
- Thus, many argue that disarmament of NATO is necessary to combat climate change, as the environmental harm from military and wars extends beyond just the production and supply chains of equipment.
