Global Military Spending Threatens A Liveable Future; Militarism Will Cost Us The Earth
Despite the multiple escalating threats to humanity and life on earth that urgently require cooperative global action, military spending increased to its highest ever recorded level last year - 'an unprecedented rise' according to new figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) today, the Global Day of Action on Military Spending.
SIPRI has estimated global military expenditure last year was at least $2,718 billion (USD, ±$4,500 billion NZD), an increase of 9.4% in real terms from 2022 and the steepest year-on-year increase since the end of the cold war. [1] On average, this is equivalent to more than $7.4 billion (USD, ±$12.3 billion NZD) squandered every day on incessant preparations for war.
While the horrific impacts of this are obvious in Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan and far too many other places over the past year, the devastation of armed conflict is not the only casualty of military spending - it has wider consequences that threaten us all.
By way of comparison, for example, global funding for official development (ODA) and humanitarian assistance last year dropped by 7.1% in real terms to only 7.8% of the amount of military spending [2], while on average more than 13,150 children under the age of five died every day from mainly preventable causes [3] - lack of access to adequate food, clean water and basic medicines: that is more than nine tragically senseless deaths every minute.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
This is one of the prices paid, the collateral damage that is seldom talked about, for maintaining armed forces in a state of combat readiness around the world; an appalling situation that will worsen this year as some states, including Britain, have announced their ODA contribution will be diverted to increased military spending.
As another comparison, at COP 29 last year, pledges for loss and damage funding for vulnerable countries most susceptible to the devastating impacts of climate change amounted to less than three hours of global military spending; while the total amount of funding committed by the global Green Climate Fund is equivalent to 0.61% of last year's military expenditure. [4]
It is inexcusable that many states - including New Zealand - continue to prioritise spending on combat-ready armed forces over human health and wellbeing, and care for the planet. The opportunity cost of military spending is multiple opportunities lost. Every dollar of military expenditure is a dollar taken away from socially useful spending - a dollar that could be used to take real action on climate change, to ensure a decent standard of living for all, and to ensure health and social welfare systems can function well in national, regional or global emergencies: it is a dollar that could be used to save lives, to promote climate justice, flourishing communities and care for the planet, rather than being spent on endless preparations for war.
The multiple threats to humanity and the planet - the rapidly escalating climate catastrophe, rising sea levels, intensifying extreme weather events, humanitarian disasters, horrific armed conflicts, environmental degradation, collapsing ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, species extinction, and increasing levels of social inequity - are devastating lives and livelihoods around the world; while highlighting and exacerbating systemic social, economic and political inequities, and exposing multiple flaws in government spending and other priorities, including the folly of maintaining armed forces in a constant state of combat readiness when there are so many other more pressing needs.
It is obvious that none of these threats can be addressed by increasing military spending and militarisation, and that all are compounded by the deadly priorities of those governments that continue to cling to outdated narrow notions of military security. Armed forces cannot turn the tide on rising sea levels, and increased combat capability cannot provide shelter from cataclysmic storms: instead, militarisation is exacerbating the climate emergency and other catastrophes facing humanity.
Now more than ever, with the future of life on earth at stake, states must work together cooperatively to find sustainable solutions, instead of continuing to pour public money into wasteful destructive military activity - the ultimate in unsustainability, with military emissions estimated to be at least 5.5% of the global total.
The five biggest military spenders in 2024 were the United States (37%), China (12%), Russia (5.5%), Germany (3.3%)and India (3.2), which together accounted for 60 per cent of world military spending; while expenditure by the 32 NATO member states was 55% of the global figure. Overall, average military expenditure as a share of government expenditure in 2024 was 7.1%, and the global military burden (military spending as a share of gross domestic product) was 2.5%. [1]
New Zealand's military spending
While New Zealand does not feature in the SIPRI rankings of the highest increases in military spending this year as it did in 2023, that is simply because other states increased their spending by more, not because New Zealand's military spending has decreased.
Despite the urgent need for action on climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as the desperate need for increased funding for essential public services including health, housing, education, and support for persons with disabilities, successive New Zealand governments continue to prioritise military spending.
In last year's Budget, $$5,790,195,000 (NZD) was allocated for military spending, on average than $111.3 million every week. [5] New Zealand's enthusiasm for being an integral part of the global cycle of violence has led to the shameful spectre of military spending being at least doubled over the next eight years, announced earlier this month as New Zealand seeks to be a combat capable 'force multiplier' with 'enhanced lethality and deterrent effect' - a further threat to the possibility of substantive action on human health and wellbeing, and on climate justice both here in Aotearoa and in the region. [6]
Pacific communities and leaders have repeatedly stated that climate change is the existential security threat to the region, but New Zealand's focus is on more militarisation rather than climate action. The Pacific is already one of the most highly militarised regions in the world, although only four Pacific island nations have armed forces. The overwhelming majority of militarisation in the Pacific comes from outside the region - military bases, military live training exercises, military alliances including AUKUS (specifically named in the SIPRI Factsheet), military involvement in extractive industries, and military occupation by the armed forces of Indonesia, France and the United States, in particular, along with Australia, Britain, China, Russia and New Zealand. Clearly there are better things New Zealand could be doing in the Pacific based on a dedicated focus on demilitarisation so that existing threats can be properly addressed and resourced, rather than fabricating more.
The ongoing prioritising of military spending - whether here in Aotearoa or around the world - is a reflection of the deadly ideology of militarism, a destructive mindset focused on obsolete concepts of military security that continue to harm the future of humanity and the planet, rather than real human security that meets the needs of all.
It is totally reprehensible that military spending continues to rise in the midst of the rapidly worsening climate catastrophe, humanitarian crises, and ongoing social inequities that are often caused, and always made worse, by militarisation: a transition from combat-ready armed forces to civilian agencies to meet the needs of all peoples and the planet is long overdue. [6]
The IPCC warned two years ago that if we want to have a liveable future, taking the right action now is needed for the transformational change essential for a sustainable, equitable world [8] - clearly it is time to invest in the future for peoples and planet, and budget for peace, not war. Unless there is an immediate and meaningful change in the priorities of New Zealand and other states, militarism will cost us the earth.
Resources and references:
Aotearoa New Zealand Campaign on Military Spending, https://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gdams.htm
SIPRI, https://www.sipri.org
[1] 'Unprecedented rise in global military expenditure as European and Middle East spending surges', SIPRI, 28 April 2025, and 'Trends in world military expenditure 2024', SIPRI Fact Sheet, April 2025, both are available at https://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gdams.htm
[2] 'International aid falls in 2024 for first time in six years', OECD, 16 April 2025
[3] 'Levels and trends in child mortality: 2024 Report', UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, 24 March 2025
[4] See, for example, 'COP of Peace?', https://www.facebook.com/PeaceMovementAotearoa/posts/987598483397284 and Green Climate Fund dashboard, 26 April 2025
[5] 'Budget 2024: Missed opportunity to slash wasteful military spending', Peace Movement Aotearoa, 30 May 2024, https://www.facebook.com/PeaceMovementAotearoa/posts/870510595106074
[6] 'Defence Capability Plan 2025', NZ Government, released 7 April 2025
[7] As outlined, for example, in 'Budget 2024: Missed opportunity to slash wasteful military spending', note above.
[8] See, for example, 'Urgent climate action can secure a liveable future for all', IPCC, 20 March 2023, https://www.ipcc.ch/2023/03/20/press-release-ar6-synthesis-report
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
6 days ago
- Scoop
New Research Proves A Container Deposit Return Scheme Will Cut Litter And Waste Fast In New Zealand
The new 'Littered with evidence research from Reloop clearly shows Container Deposit Return Schemes dramatically reduce beverage container litter across diverse regions worldwide. The evidence in favour of the schemes effectiveness is consistent and … A quarter of all our litter, by volume, in Aotearoa, is discarded drink containers, polluting our rivers, roadsides, parks and beaches 1. New international comparison research shows New Zealand could halve that litter, fast with a Container Deposit Return Scheme, like 58 countries and states have already done 2. Across the world, the Reloop research shows, countries with Container Deposit Return Schemes have reduced their litter by more than half, on average. A well-designed scheme, like the 5.5 million people in Slovakia enjoy, might cut our littered drink bottles, cans and cartons by as much as 75% – and massively increase the proportion of drink containers that get recycled from 54% to over 85%. Slovakia introduced a Container Deposit Return Scheme in January 2022 in which people can claim back a deposit of €0.15 (NZD$0.26) on each container they return. In Summer 2021, before the scheme, metal beverage cans and PET beverage bottles represented 10% and 11% of all litter collected in Slovakia, respectively (by count). By Summer 2023, just 18 months after launch, cans and PET bottles each made up only 2% of litter – down 78% and 72% 3. Beverage containers make up over half of all food and drink packaging sold globally—and the waste is staggering. In 2024 alone, 1.3 trillion drinks were sold in PET, glass, or metal containers, worldwide. Locally, a whopping 2.6 billion drinks are sold in containers here in New Zealand each year. Every day, about 4 million of those drink bottles, cans and cartons get landfilled or littered in Aotearoa. That's why they are such a common sight in our towns and along rural roads and why so many end up in our ocean. The new 'Littered with evidence' research from Reloop clearly shows Container Deposit Return Schemes dramatically reduce beverage container litter across diverse regions worldwide. The evidence in favour of the schemes' effectiveness is consistent and overwhelming. Countries and states with Container Deposit Return Schemes for beverage packaging see rapid and dramatic reductions in beverage container litter—in some cases cutting it by far more than half in just a few years. 'The development work for a New Zealand Container Deposit Return Scheme has already been done. The update to our waste and litter laws, proposed last month, paves the way by ensuring those who make or import packaging pay for how it's handled. All we need now is the ambition from our MPs to modernise how we reduce waste and litter and catch us up with the rest of the world,' says Sue Coutts of Zero Waste Aotearoa. All our parks, streets and beaches look better with less litter. Litter-free places are safer for children and wildlife. Less plastic litter means less plastic in our oceans and less micro-plastics everywhere. As well as dramatic cuts in litter, it's also been shown Container Deposit Return Schemes improve the quality of recycling, making more high-quality recycled material available. Making new drink containers from recycled materials produces less greenhouse gas emissions than making containers from virgin plastic, glass or aluminium. When companies avoid using raw materials, they help reduce pollution and other environmental harm, such as mining. Surveys show 80% of New Zealanders want a Container Deposit Return Scheme here. Many fondly remember returning bottles to claim deposits in the 1970s and 1980s. 'Where the previous Government fell short, this Government has an opportunity to implement a popular and tangible, low-cost policy,' says Sue Coutts of Zero Waste Aotearoa. Note: 1 Keep NZ Beautiful National Litter Audit 2019 – Total beverage containers found in litter 4,956 units / 106.98 kg. 2 Littered with evidence: Proof that deposit return systems work, Reloop, June 2025 – Global average litter reduction of 57% for countries with Container Deposit Return Schemes.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Scoop
New Research Proves A Container Deposit Return Scheme Will Cut Litter And Waste Fast In New Zealand
A quarter of all our litter, by volume, in Aotearoa, is discarded drink containers, polluting our rivers, roadsides, parks and beaches 1. New international comparison research shows New Zealand could halve that litter, fast with a Container Deposit Return Scheme, like 58 countries and states have already done 2. Across the world, the Reloop research shows, countries with Container Deposit Return Schemes have reduced their litter by more than half, on average. A well-designed scheme, like the 5.5 million people in Slovakia enjoy, might cut our littered drink bottles, cans and cartons by as much as 75% - and massively increase the proportion of drink containers that get recycled from 54% to over 85%. Slovakia introduced a Container Deposit Return Scheme in January 2022 in which people can claim back a deposit of €0.15 (NZD$0.26) on each container they return. In Summer 2021, before the scheme, metal beverage cans and PET beverage bottles represented 10% and 11% of all litter collected in Slovakia, respectively (by count). By Summer 2023, just 18 months after launch, cans and PET bottles each made up only 2% of litter – down 78% and 72% 3. Beverage containers make up over half of all food and drink packaging sold globally—and the waste is staggering. In 2024 alone, 1.3 trillion drinks were sold in PET, glass, or metal containers, worldwide. Locally, a whopping 2.6 billion drinks are sold in containers here in New Zealand each year. Every day, about 4 million of those drink bottles, cans and cartons get landfilled or littered in Aotearoa. That's why they are such a common sight in our towns and along rural roads and why so many end up in our ocean. The new 'Littered with evidence' research from Reloop clearly shows Container Deposit Return Schemes dramatically reduce beverage container litter across diverse regions worldwide. The evidence in favour of the schemes' effectiveness is consistent and overwhelming. Countries and states with Container Deposit Return Schemes for beverage packaging see rapid and dramatic reductions in beverage container litter—in some cases cutting it by far more than half in just a few years. "The development work for a New Zealand Container Deposit Return Scheme has already been done. The update to our waste and litter laws, proposed last month, paves the way by ensuring those who make or import packaging pay for how it's handled. All we need now is the ambition from our MPs to modernise how we reduce waste and litter and catch us up with the rest of the world," says Sue Coutts of Zero Waste Aotearoa. All our parks, streets and beaches look better with less litter. Litter-free places are safer for children and wildlife. Less plastic litter means less plastic in our oceans and less micro-plastics everywhere. As well as dramatic cuts in litter, it's also been shown Container Deposit Return Schemes improve the quality of recycling, making more high-quality recycled material available. Making new drink containers from recycled materials produces less greenhouse gas emissions than making containers from virgin plastic, glass or aluminium. When companies avoid using raw materials, they help reduce pollution and other environmental harm, such as mining. Surveys show 80% of New Zealanders want a Container Deposit Return Scheme here. Many fondly remember returning bottles to claim deposits in the 1970s and 1980s. "Where the previous Government fell short, this Government has an opportunity to implement a popular and tangible, low-cost policy," says Sue Coutts of Zero Waste Aotearoa. Note: 1 Keep NZ Beautiful National Litter Audit 2019 - Total beverage containers found in litter 4,956 units / 106.98 kg. 2 Littered with evidence: Proof that deposit return systems work, Reloop, June 2025 - Global average litter reduction of 57% for countries with Container Deposit Return Schemes. 3 Before and after: How deposit return systems cut beverage container litter, Reloop, April 2024
NZ Herald
20-05-2025
- NZ Herald
China's J10-C jets in spotlight after Pakistan-India conflict
While China pours hundreds of billions of dollars into defence spending each year, it lags far behind the United States as an arms exporter. China's drones are used in counter-terrorism operations, and its weapons have been deployed by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and against rebel forces in African countries, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) senior researcher Siemon Wezeman told AFP. 'But this is the first time since the 1980s that a state has used large numbers of Chinese weapons of many types in action against another state,' said Wezeman, referencing the Iran-Iraq war when they were used on both sides. 'Primary option' Pakistan accounts for around 63% of China's arms exports, according to conflict and arms-research institute SIPRI. In the recent fighting, Pakistan used the J10-C Vigorous Dragon and JF-17 Thunder planes, armed with air-to-air missiles. It was the first time the J10-C has been used in active combat, said the Stimson Centre's Yun Sun. Islamabad's air defences also used Chinese kit – including the HQ-9P long-range surface-to-air missile system – and deployed Chinese radar as well as armed and reconnaissance drones. 'This was the first sustained fight where the bulk of Pakistan's forces used Chinese weapons and, basically, relied on them as their primary option,' said Bilal Khan, founder of the Toronto-based Quwa Defence News & Analysis Group. India has not officially confirmed any of its aircraft were lost, although a senior security source told AFP three jets had crashed on home soil, without giving the make or cause. Rafale maker Dassault has also not commented. The Rafale is considered one of Europe's most high-tech jets, while the J10-C 'is not even China's most advanced', said James Char from Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. But if Pakistan's claims are true, 'this should not be surprising... considering that the Rafale is a multi-role fighter, whereas the J-10C was built for aerial combat and is also equipped with a stronger radar,' Char said. The Chinese air defence systems, however, 'do not appear to have been as effective as the Pakistan Air Force would have hoped', said Quwa's Khan, after India said it had neutralised one near the eastern border city of Lahore. If true, said SIPRI's Wezeman, that 'would be a bigger success and more than balance the loss of some aircraft in the process'. 'Significant reorientation' In the days after the dogfight reports, J10-C maker Chengdu Aircraft Company's stock soared over 40%. 'We most likely will see more orders going to Chinese contractors,' said the Stimson Centre's Sun. However, 'it will take time and significant reorientation by Chinese arms manufacturers for the country to be a big arms exporter', said Jennifer Kavanagh from the US think tank Defence Priorities. She noted that China 'cannot mass-produce certain key inputs, including aircraft engines'. Wezeman said he thought the stock markets 'overreacted', as 'we still have to see how well all the weapons used worked and if it really means much'. Even if more data emerges, the conflict still does not reveal much about the Chinese military's own capabilities, the analysts said. China's own systems and weapons are much more advanced than what it exports. And while having high-tech hardware is important, 'much more important is how those weapons are used', said Kavanagh. Brian Hart of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies said he would caution against 'reading too much' into recent developments. 'I don't think you can make direct comparisons to how these Chinese-made systems would fare in different environments against more advanced adversaries like the United States,' he explained. 'Since the number of data points is small and since we don't know much about the proficiency and training of the personnel on either side, it is hard to draw definitive conclusions.'
