Many military leaders are echoing a growing concern: they need more weapons to tackle current threats. Simultaneously, the looming crisis of climate change is becoming a significant security issue, and military activities are part of the problem. In fact, a report from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warns that soaring military budgets may worsen climate problems.
Conflict around the globe is rising, which likely means even higher military spending and increased carbon emissions. Some experts highlight that funds aimed at combating climate change are being shifted to defense budgets.
What Do We Know About Military Emissions?
There’s no comprehensive source for tracking military carbon emissions, but some governments do share estimates. According to the UN, the military sector contributes anywhere from 3.3% to 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If militaries were considered a single nation, they would rank as the fourth largest emitter, following China, the US, and India, as per a 2022 study by the Conflict and Environment Observatory. Alarmingly, military budgets are on the rise, indicating this issue will continue to worsen.
In 2024, global military spending reached $2.7 trillion, a 9.4% increase from the previous year. Notably, over 100 countries raised their defense budgets, with significant growth seen in Europe and the Middle East. NATO plans to increase its members’ defense spending by 2035, raising it from 2% to 5% of their GDP. Coincidentally, NATO’s carbon footprint increased by 30 million tons from 2021 to 2023, roughly equivalent to the emissions from over eight million cars.
Which Military Activities Are the Worst Offenders?
Fighter jets are often cited as significant polluters. In the US military, jet fuel accounts for about 55% of the Department of Defense’s energy use. For example, an F-35 fighter jet emits as much CO2 over 100 nautical miles as a typical British car does in an entire year. Research found that the US military’s jet fuel use alone is equivalent to the emissions from six million passenger cars annually.
Despite the need for a greener approach, the US continued to increase its military budget by 5.7% in 2024. Doug Weir from the Conflict and Environment Observatory notes that boosting military production is energy-intensive and that advancements in low-carbon military tech are still behind.
Priorities in Defense Spending
The US Department of War spoke about its commitment to combat readiness over sustainability. According to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, their focus remains on improving warfare effectiveness. Meanwhile, NATO’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been criticized as minimal compared to their expansive budgets, according to analysts.
The Environmental Cost of War
While it’s challenging to gauge the total climatic impact of warfare, ongoing conflicts give us some insight. For instance, in the first year of the Russia-Ukraine war, approximately 175 million tons of greenhouse gases were emitted. Similarly, emissions from the Israel-Gaza conflict reached nearly 1.9 million tons, comparable to the annual emissions of 36 nations. Retired British Army General Richard Nagy points out that there are currently no zero-emission military technologies.
With military budgets soaring, funding for climate initiatives has taken a hit. A UN report indicates an annual climate funding gap of $4 trillion, projected to grow by $6.4 trillion in the coming years. In stark contrast, military expenditures could reach $6.6 trillion by 2035. Wealthy nations currently spend 30 times more on military than they allocate for climate assistance to vulnerable countries.
At the recent COP29 climate conference, developed nations pledged to contribute $300 billion by 2035, yet many developing countries argue they require over a trillion annually to adapt to climate challenges. Observations from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also reveal that at least 11 countries are planning to reduce aid, including climate funds, in the coming years. For example, the UK plans to slash humanitarian aid while boosting defense spending.
Some military experts suggest that while strong defense might deter aggression, it’s unclear whether an increased military presence will effectively shield populations from climate catastrophes. There’s a growing sense that without a shift in priorities, escalating military budgets could further endanger both the environment and the future of humanity.
For more information on military emissions and environmental impact, check out this report from the UN.
