The military footprint on climate crisis

Aren’t the recent weather conditions, like severe heat waves in European cities, recurrent devastating floods and cyclones in the USA, and changing monsoon patterns in South East Asia, indicative of the growing unpredictability of global climatic conditions? As the daily global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions roughly touch around 100 million tonnes per day, and the Earth’s temperature rises by an average of 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade, with 2024 being the warmest year since global records began in 1850 by a wide margin, the ‘climate crisis’ has indeed become a very much realised global reality.

While the dangers of global warming-induced disasters loom large, the world witnesses an increasing number of high-intensity armed conflicts. In 2024, there were 59 active conflicts, declining trust in institutions, and an overall decline of 0.36% in global peacefulness, the biggest drop since World War II, with 87 countries experiencing a deterioration in their peace levels (Global Peace Index, GPI, 2025). Simultaneously, global military expenditure soared to an all-time high of $2.7 trillion in 2024, a 9.4% rise from the previous year and the tenth straight annual increase (SIPRI). Its impact on the global economy was estimated at $19.97 trillion as per PPP (Purchasing Power Parity index), with military spending accounting for a significant portion.

As the defence spending touches around 2.5% of global GDP, rising to 4.4% in conflict-hit states, Europe saw the sharpest rise at 17%, driven by the Russia-Ukraine war. The EU’s ReArm Plan/Readiness 2030 called for an €800-billion boost to the military budget, about 3.5% of the EU’s GDP. Russia’s military spending rose 38%, while Ukraine’s, by 2.9%. In 2024, the NATO members collectively spent $1.506 billion on their militaries, accounting for 55% of the global total. This year, NATO committed to more than doubling its spending to 5% of the GDP, while the US military expenditure alone was $997 billion, representing 66% of total NATO spending and 37% of global military spending. The same year also had a record high of $318.7 billion in global arms sales by major companies, marking a 29% increase from the previous year. The resultant heightened military activities are estimated to contribute approximately 5.5% of global GHG emissions (Conflict and Environment Observatory).

The trend is particularly damaging when the global GHG emissions are on course to breach the target of staying below the 1.5°C temperature change by 2027, the potentially irreversible tipping point, even without the current rearmament moves. Continuing the current mitigation policies was only expected to limit the warming to 3.1°C by 2100, without taking into consideration the rapidly rising military budgets. A UN-sponsored research on the impacts of the increased global military expenditure on the SDGs assessed that the EU’s ReArm Europe Plan/Readiness 2030 proposal would lead to a further rise in one percentage point of the GDP in military spending, which is likely to increase the overall national emissions by between 0.9% and 2.0% (Markó B. 2024, Green Peace Dividend).

In 2023, the combined annual emissions of the 31 NATO countries (excluding the USA) were 4,861 million tCO2e, resulting in a Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) of approximately $1,347 per tonne of CO2, and a collateral climate damage of $119 to $264 billion annually. Nevertheless, these countries represent only 9% of the world’s total emissions. While the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Pact twice in less than 10 years, without any legal accountability, its military alone remained the world’s largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons. In 2023, the Pentagon’s operations generated about 48 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), more planet-warming gases than emitted by entire countries, including Finland, Guatemala, and Syria that year.

New approach, informed action

The world is yet to recognise ‘the interconnectedness between war, overall militarisation and the climate crisis’ (Ellie Kinney, Conflict and Environment Observatory). In 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted 27 legal principles (PERAC) for the protection of the environment during armed conflicts, but they don’t explicitly address the GHz emissions from military activities. The total carbon impact of war is still not counted in the global stocktake. The current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting framework has significant gaps in measuring, reporting, and reducing military emissions, as it only captures data on military fuel use, neglecting the broader emissions from military supply chains and the global weapons industry. This limited scope leads to an incomplete picture of the military’s total climate impact and hinders efforts to effectively address these emissions (World Climate and Security Report, 2024). Research into the UK and EU militaries showed that it is the military equipment procurement and other supply chains that contribute to the majority of emissions. Moreover, post-conflict assessment also remains understudied, as affected countries often suffer from huge spikes in deforestation, driving emissions, and permanently reducing the capacity of vital carbon sinks.

Ana Toni, the CEO of COP30, has alerted the world that the climate challenge is the ‘biggest war’, with the potential of triggering both intrastate and interstate conflicts. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s latest ruling has also reminded nations of their obligations to ‘prevent harm from climate change’. The upcoming COP30 must focus on setting targets for military infrastructure decarbonisation, sustainable procurement, energy transition within military supply chains, and an inclusive system of reporting on military emissions, as part of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), under the Paris Agreement. It is high time the world looked at climate action from the perspectives of future global security challenges.

(The writer is a former director-general, Doordarshan and All India Radio, and a former press secretary to the President of India)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.