Ellie Kinney is Climate Advocacy Coordinator at the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS)
The world has now marked a decade of rising military spending, with the global total now standing at a record breaking $2.7 trillion annually. Within this, spending in Europe rose by 17 percent, a dramatic increase of 83 percent from 2015.
As the rising tide of militarism continues to engulf Europe, interlinked with global instability and the very real need to defend citizens from authoritarian states, there is a risk that promised investment into EU militaries will only serve to expose us to a different threat: the climate crisis.
Militaries are already responsible for an estimated 5.5 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They and their supply chains are fossil fuel intensive and every Euro of military spending will carry a carbon cost. And now, as EU leaders plan an €800 billion boost to defence spending, military climate action that can help measure and mitigate their impact is becoming more important than ever; but instead voices are calling for it to be deprioritised, or actively erased.
A recent paper published by the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) found that the cost of the climate damage caused by NATO’s increased military spending could amount to up to $264 billion per year. This figure factors in the announced investment in EU militaries as well as those announced by non-EU NATO members like the UK and Norway, and is based on research that suggests a 1 percent rise in military spending by share of GDP increases national GHG emissions by up to 2 percent. Are we truly investing in security if it contributes to the long-term insecurity caused by the climate crisis?
"Militaries are already responsible for an estimated 5.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions"
Ramping up military production to increase stockpiles is energy-intensive and, with limited progress towards military decarbonisation, the current procurement push means that militaries will be locked into fossil fuel-intensive equipment for decades. The European Defence Agency (EDA) recently noted the lack of standardised ‘green’ procurement across EU militaries, with fewer than 40 percent of respondents reporting a ‘green’ procurement policy in place – ‘green’ in this context does not equate to low carbon. This means that we are committing to equipment today that will hinder tomorrow’s mitigation efforts.
In addition to directly increasing military emissions, rising military spending also risks diverting finance from climate action. Research finds that increasing military spending crowds-out green investment and innovation, disrupting the green transition. Governments like the UK are directly cutting aid and development funding to fuel defence spending, throwing uncertainty over the country’s ability to meet climate finance commitments and support crucial climate projects overseas. As expected, charities have branded this decision as “disgraceful” and “short-sighted”, and even a former Army chief of staff has called the move “a fundamental strategic error”. Not only will rising military spending risk worsening the climate crisis, it will also limit our ability to respond to its impacts effectively.
The world’s militaries’contribution of 5.5 percent of global emissions will increase as military spending rises and the rest of society decarbonises. However, this is only an estimate as countries don’t currently have to include the emissions from their militaries in their national reporting to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. While some choose to publish their military emissions independently, what is released is far from the full picture. This means that we don’t have an accurate understanding of the impact that militaries are having on global emissions now, and nor can we accurately project how this will increase with the planned increases in military spending. As governments ramp up military spending, accurate data is becoming increasingly critical for efforts to understand how much of our rapidly dwindling carbon budget is being consumed by military investment.
We urgently need more transparency. Instead we can see the opposite happening. Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has deleted the climate portal from the Department of Defense (DoD) website, removing a back catalogue of US military emissions reporting. The US DoD is the single largest consumer of energy in the US, and the world’s single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels and, while this reporting was not a complete picture of the full scale of the US DoD’s climate legacy, it represents a significant portion of global military emissions. The removal of this data is not just a headache for academics or activists working to spotlight the military’s emissions, it also sets a dangerous precedent globally. While avoiding reporting military emissions is not a new phenomenon, the past few years have seen a slow but steady creep towards greater transparency of military emissions and the US closing the book altogether should be condemned by civil society, militaries and policymakers alike.
The actions of Trump’s administration to hide the true scale of the DoD’s contribution to the climate crisis, and to performatively denounce military climate action as ‘woke’ nonsense, is a warning sign of a more far-reaching risk. The EU faces its own rise of far right populism, which joins Trump in using military climate action as fuel for culture-war fires. Add to this spiralling defence budgets detached from consideration of their environmental impact, and you create the perfect conditions for less transparency in military emissions reporting, and stalled progress on defence decarbonisation.
It would be highly regressive for the EU to turn its back on military climate action at this stage, regardless of pressure from the US or from the EU’s political right. It’s not just peace or climate activists who say so;, in recent years it has largely been militaries themselves driving forward change. The EDA hosts the Consultation Forum for Sustainable Energy in the Defence and Security Sector (CF SEDSS), a network designed to help the European Union Ministries of Defence move towards greener, resilient, and more efficient energy models, and contribute to the EU’s goal of net zero by 2050. EDA Deputy Chief Executive André Denk has noted that “The EU’s goal to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot be achieved without the engagement of the defence sector.” Through this network, European Ministries of Defence can share knowledge and promote best practice, while collaborating on research and innovation in sustainable energy.
"Countries don’t currently have to include the emissions from their militaries in their national reporting"
But the moral imperative to support Europe’s decarbonisation efforts doesn’t even need to be the driving factor behind military climate action. There are numerous reasons why European militaries benefit from climate action; Denk has also pointed out that more energy sustainability in defence means “less costs, less reliance on fossil fuels, and increased resilience.” EUROMIL, the European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions, advocates the promotion of sustainable practices in the military sector, and has recognised that policies that reduce emissions can simultaneously increase operational effectiveness.
In addition, they note that initiatives like specialised training on the topic of climate change for military personnel can not only significantly contribute to reducing the military’s impact on the climate but also support troops’ ability to safely respond to climate impacts. Those at the coal face of military climate action, like EUROMIL and the CF SEDSS network, understand the clear military imperative for decarbonisation, as well as its societal urgency.
These military-driven initiatives are operationalising what has already been encouraged within the European Parliament. Ahead of COP28 in Dubai, parliamentarians voted to encourage the defence sector to contribute to the reduction of emissions through accelerating the development of decarbonisation technologies and strategies, as well as agreeing that military emissions reporting to the UNFCCC must improve. While the EU is yet to be a driving force encouraging the UNFCCC to implement mandatory military emissions reporting, a number of its member states are already taking the lead by improving the reporting of emissions from their Ministry of Defence - an example other countries must follow.
The foundations for effective military climate action have been slowly building over recent years. But pushing back on the threat that climate-blind rearmament poses to military decarbonisation requires far deeper engagement than we have seen to date from the climate movement, philanthropy, policymakers and militaries themselves. We also need leadership from those governments whose militaries have adopted climate targets and are already advancing decarbonisation policies — weaker sectoral action and backsliding on commitments will impact existing and planned work. We need a coalition of voices, be they military, academia, or civil society raising the alarm about the risks that abandoning military climate action poses to national and international climate targets, and ultimately to our collective security.
The last few years have seen considerable momentum build around military decarbonisation but the current rush to rearm for short-term defence threatens to undermine this progress, while exacerbating the longer term threat we face from the climate crisis. Military decarbonisation is a prerequisite for our future security but this future will not happen unless governments and the wider climate movement fight for it.
Become a subscriber and receive the digital edition of European Energy Innovation every quarter.
