Military Spending and Carbon Emissions: The Complex Relationship
Military spending rises will increase carbon emissions, but the exact relationship between the two is highly complex and difficult to predict. The way in which additional funding is utilized within the military can have varying impacts on carbon emissions. Will the extra funds be used to increase military activity, leading to higher fossil fuel use by combat planes and warships? Or will the money be directed towards expanding arms production, resulting in higher energy consumption in industry or the production of high carbon raw materials?
Furthermore, the supply chain emissions that may occur outside the home nation add another layer of complexity to tracking these emissions. Additionally, non-CO2 emissions from aviation in the stratosphere can contribute to further global heating effects. In light of these complexities, there has been a surge in research activity aimed at understanding and predicting how military spending levels affect carbon emissions.
A recent review report, conducted by Scientists for Global Responsibility, assessed 11 studies from the past two years that examined the impact of military spending rises on carbon emissions. The review found that a standardized rise of $100 billion in military spending could lead to an increase of approximately 32 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) in the military carbon footprint. However, due to limited data and the complexities involved, this figure could range as high as 59 million tCO2e.
Applying this analysis to a specific case, the increase in NATO’s military spending from 2019 to 2024 resulted in a rise of about 64 million tCO2e in its military carbon footprint – equivalent to the territorial emissions of Bahrain. Moreover, the planned increase to reach the 3.5% GDP spending target is projected to lead to an additional increase of approximately 132 million tCO2e – surpassing the territorial emissions of Chile.
It is crucial to note that these are single-year totals, and continued high spending levels will have a cumulative impact on emissions over time. For instance, a decade of increased NATO spending above 2024 levels could add around 1,320 tCO2e – equivalent to Brazil’s annual emissions.
The report emphasizes the need for improved measurement and reporting of direct and indirect military carbon emissions to monitor the effects of military spending rises accurately. Despite uncertainties, it is evident that stronger efforts are necessary to reduce the military carbon footprint.
As efforts to develop ‘greener’ weapons systems face ethical and technical challenges, there is a growing call for prioritizing peace-building in global affairs. Diplomacy, mediation, and trust-building are essential, along with increased arms control and disarmament measures.
While reducing military spending has shown to lead to a faster decline in emissions, urgent transformative action is needed to prevent breaching the Paris 1.5°C target. The current trajectory of military spending increases poses a significant challenge to achieving this goal, highlighting the importance of advocating for peace.
Dr. Stuart Parkinson, the executive director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, has conducted extensive research on ethical issues in science and technology, including military carbon emissions. With a background in climate change science, his work emphasizes the urgent need for transformative action to address the intersection of military spending and carbon emissions.
