As military spending skyrockets, the environmental toll of war often remains hidden. Wayne Hawkins sheds light on this pressing issue.
We have a major problem. Actually, several. But right now, let’s talk about the staggering amount we’re spending on military preparations—nearly $3 trillion each year—while claiming to care for our planet.
The military-industrial complex is quietly waging a war against our environment. This war doesn’t have formal battles but is exempt from accountability. And it’s winning.
Consider this jaw-dropping statistic: Scientists for Global Responsibility estimate that the military sector emits about 2.75 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually. This figure doesn’t even include emissions from active conflicts; it comes from peacetime operations like bases, training, and supply chains. If the military were classified as a nation, it would rank as the fourth-largest emitter globally—behind only the U.S., China, and India—and immune to international climate reporting standards. Convenient, isn’t it?
In 2025, global military spending reached an all-time high of $2.887 trillion, marking the 11th straight year of growth. Europe upped its defense budgets by 14%, while NATO set a new target: 5% of GDP by 2035. The U.S. also stands out, having already allocated over $1 trillion for defense in 2026—with potentially another $1.5 trillion on the way.
Meanwhile, at COP30 in Belém, delegates focused on sectors like aviation and agriculture for their environmental impact. However, military emissions didn’t even make the agenda.
Once a conflict erupts, the environmental consequences skyrocket. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, has generated an estimated 311 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent just since February 2022—comparable to the annual emissions of several European nations combined. Similarly, fighting in Gaza has resulted in over 33 million tonnes of emissions. What’s even more alarming is the additional pollutants released, such as sulfur hexafluoride—a greenhouse gas 24,000 times more potent than CO₂—due to bombing electrical infrastructure.
A 2025 study in Nature Communications found that increasing military spending directly contradicts efforts to limit global warming. The military sector emits nearly double the CO₂ per economic unit compared to civilian industries. Simply put, every increase in military spending pushes emissions higher and supports industries that resist green initiatives.
After wars end, the environmental destruction often lingers for generations. In Gaza, the UN Environment Programme found that 97% of tree crops and 95% of shrubland have been lost since 2023. Food production has become nearly impossible, and water supplies are contaminated. Health crises such as acute watery diarrhea increased by 36 times, along with other severe illnesses.
Similarly, Ukraine faces over $50 billion in environmental damage from contamination, unexploded ordnance, and devastation of ecosystems. This pollution will affect future generations, as every modern conflict leaves behind a toxic legacy.
However, accountability for these emissions is almost nonexistent. A 2025 report from the Conflict and Environment Observatory shows that military emissions reporting is deteriorating. The top three military spending countries— the U.S., China, and Russia—fail to provide adequate data to international organizations. Instead of improving accountability, the lack of reporting seems to grow worse.
At the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, military emissions were exempted from international climate accounting, a loophole that still exists today. When the most destructive industries operate off the books, we can’t measure their true impact on our planet.
Here we stand: spending nearly $3 trillion a year on systems that threaten our survival while evading the very frameworks meant to protect our future. The defense industry calls this “deterrence.” Climate scientists, however, see it as a ticking time bomb.
Our planet won’t exempt us from the consequences.
Wayne Hawkins is a small business owner in Hobart, Tasmania, and an independent candidate for the federal seat of Clark at the 2028 Election.
Source link
CLIMATE CRISIS, military emissions, climate change, global military spending, defence industry, militarism, carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, warfare, Ukraine war, Gaza, NATO, COP30, fossil fuels, military industrial complex, environmental damage, climate policy, carbon footprint, emissions reporting, conflict and environment, defence budgets, Wayne Hawkins
