The rise in defence spending worldwide will worsen the climate crisis, which will in turn cause more conflicts. This is the vicious cycle outlined by British daily The Guardian, which warns that the dramatic surge in military expenditure risks irreversibly undermining not only peace and geopolitical stability, but also internationally agreed climate targets. The British newspaper's focus falls primarily on the old Continent: while European governments officially commit to climate neutrality by 2050, their armed forces continue to be among the largest unaccounted emitters of greenhouse gases, benefiting from a veritable exceptional military moment.

Rearmament and the climate crisis: a vicious cycle to break

According to the most recent data collected by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), the world's armed forces are responsible for 5.5 per cent of global emissions — more than the civil aviation sector and less only than the steel industry. These figures come from a private research institution precisely because international climate treaties do not oblige governments to declare the carbon footprint of their defence sector. This is a serious shortcoming, as Florian Krampe, head of climate and security research at Sipri, underlines to The Guardian: "Ignoring military emissions is not only worrying with regard to climate change. It ignores the growing awareness that climate change represents a serious security risk for Europe and beyond."

Florian Krampe @FlorianKrampe

𝕏

Alarming @guardian report by @NiranjanAjit: Only 2/30 European countries have net-zero targets for military emissions. A massive oversight given militaries account for ~5.5% of global emissions.

This isn't just a climate issue—it's a #SecurityRisk. 👇 #ClimateSecurity

♥ 1💬 1 31 mag 2025 · Apri su X →

The analysis conducted across 30 European countries (including some outside the European Union, such as the United Kingdom) reveals that only Austria and Slovenia have set clear targets for achieving net-zero emissions in their respective armed forces. Most defence ministries, including those of Germany, the United Kingdom and Greece, merely declare a generic contribution to national climate commitments, without setting sector-specific targets. The spokesperson for the German ministry even defended this position by stating that "climate protection must not come at the expense of the performance of our weapons systems" — a declaration that neatly encapsulates the inversion of the priorities that should be in place for the protection of all.

NATO pollutes as much as Pakistan every year

The second investigation considered by The Guardian, carried out in collaboration with the Conflict and Environment Observatory, extends the scope from Europe to the Atlantic Alliance, and highlights that NATO's rearmament plan — which now seeks to push member states to spend up to five per cent of their gross domestic product — could alone increase global emissions by nearly 200 million tonnes of CO2 every year: practically the entire carbon footprint of a country like Pakistan, one of the world's largest and most polluted nations. And not just once, but every single year. "Because of this kind of uninformed approach that we are taking, we are now investing in rigid military security, consequently increasing global emissions and further worsening the climate crisis": so Ellie Kinney, co-author of the study, sums up the vicious cycle described at the outset.

The Military Emissions Gap @milemissionsgap

𝕏

The collateral climate damage caused by NATO's increased military spending could reach up to $264 billion per year.

Read our latest for the @guardian on the risk of prioritising short term hard security over long term climate action.

theguardian.com/environment/20…

♥ 9💬 2 29 mag 2025 · Apri su X →

Meanwhile, as we know, global military spending reached a new all-time record in 2023: 2,460 billion dollars, with further acceleration expected from the EU's "ReArm Europe" plan, which allocates 800 billion euros to boost the continent's defence capabilities. The climate impact of these investments is as direct as it is overlooked: according to Lennard de Klerk of the War Greenhouse Gas Accounting Initiative, a group studying the environmental impact of conflicts, "with the equipment they purchase — steel, aluminium — and with ground operations that rely on diesel and kerosene, the military sector is structurally difficult to decarbonise." And in the absence of transparency, the risk is that military emissions will grow out of control. Yet, as Krampe reiterates, "increased military spending should stimulate green innovation, not lock in carbon dependency."

SIPRI ✓ @SIPRIorg

𝕏

The global military burden—the share of global gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to military expenditure—increased to 2.5 per cent in 2024.
Explore the data: sipri.org/databases/milex

♥ 13💬 3 3 giu 2025 · Apri su X →

The paradox becomes evident when one looks at the social cost of CO2: according to the most up-to-date estimates, every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted costs humanity approximately 1,347 dollars. NATO's rearmament could therefore generate environmental damage equivalent to 264 billion dollars a year. This is without counting the indirect costs, such as the reduction of funds for international cooperation or climate policies, already evident in the budgets of the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands. "At Cop29," Kinney concluded, "countries from the Global South, such as Cuba in particular, highlighted the hypocrisy of those states willing to spend ever-increasing sums on military expenditure, while offering climate finance commitments that are completely and unacceptably low." The challenge today, therefore, is to ensure that the security of the present does not become the greatest threat to the future.