Nato rearmament could increase emissions by 200m tonnes a year, study finds
A global military buildup poses an existential threat to climate goals, according to researchers who say the rearmament planned by Nato alone could increase greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200m tonnes a year.
With the world embroiled in the highest number of armed conflicts since the second world war, countries have embarked on military spending sprees, collectively totalling a record $2.46tn in 2023.
For every dollar invested in new hardware, there is not only a corresponding carbon cost but also an opportunity cost to potential climate action, critics say. This is on top of the huge death toll resulting from armed conflicts.
'There is a real concern around the way that we are prioritising short-term security and sacrificing long-term security,' said Ellie Kinney, a researcher with the Conflict and Environment Observatory and a co-author of the study, shared exclusively with the Guardian.
'Because of this kind of lack-of-informed approach that we're taking, you're investing in hard military security now, increasing global emissions for that reason, and worsening the climate crisis further down the line.'
That in turn is only likely to lead to further violence, with climate change itself now increasingly seen as a driver of conflict, albeit indirectly. In Sudan's Darfur region, conflict was linked to competition over scarce resources after prolonged droughts and desertification. In the Arctic, receding sea ice is leading to tensions over who should control newly accessible oil, gas and critical mineral resources.
Few militaries are transparent about the scale of their fossil fuel use, but researchers have estimated that collectively they are already responsible for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
That figure is expected to rise as tensions escalate in a number of regions and as the US, for decades the world's biggest military spender, indicates that it expects its Nato allies to devote significantly more resources to their armed forces.
According to the Global Peace Index, militarisation increased in 108 countries in 2023. With 92 countries involved in armed conflict, in places ranging from Ukraine and Gaza to South Sudan and DRC, with tensions seething between China and the US over Taiwan, and with the frozen conflict between India and Pakistan flaring, governments fearful of war are investing heavily in their militaries.
In Europe, the increase has been particularly dramatic: between 2021 and 2024, EU states' weapons spending rose by more than 30%, according to the International Institute for Economics and Peace.
In March, the EU, disconcerted by Donald Trump's cutting of military aid and diplomatic support for Ukraine, indicated this would go further, with proposals for a further €800bn spend across the bloc outlined in a plan called 'ReArm Europe'.
In analysis for the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, Kinney and colleagues looked at the potential impact of increased militarisation on meeting climate goals. What they found was sobering: the likely increase in emissions from Nato's remilitarisation alone would be the equivalent of adding the cost of a country as large and populous as Pakistan to the world's remaining carbon budget.
'Our analysis specifically looks at the impact on sustainable development goal 13, which is climate action – to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts,' Kinney said. 'And what our analysis finds, looking at the various sub-targets of that … [is] that there is a real threat to global climate action caused by global increase in military spending.'
Of all functions of states, militaries are almost uniquely carbon-intensive. 'First of all, with the equipment that they purchase, which is mainly a lot of steel and aluminium, which is very carbon-intensive to produce,' said Lennard de Klerk, of the Initiative on the GHG Accounting of War, another co-author of the study.
'Secondly is during operations, armies are very mobile. And in order to move around they use fossil fuels – that's diesel for ground operations and kerosene for air operations. Or for maritime operations it's mainly diesel as well, if they're not nuclear-driven.'
Given the secrecy that usually surrounds militaries and their operations, it is difficult to know just how much greenhouse gases they are emitting. Only Nato countries report enough of their emissions for scientists to attempt an estimate.
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
'We took Nato because they are the most transparent in terms of spending. So it's not that we particularly want to focus on Nato, but simply because they have more data available,' De Klerk said.
The researchers calculated by how much greenhouse gas emissions would increase if Nato countries excluding the US – since it already spends far more than the others – made a two percentage point increase in the share of GDP they devoted to their militaries.
Such an increase is already under way, with many countries in Europe significantly increasing military spending in response to the crisis in Ukraine. Although Nato countries have publicly committed to increasing spending to 2% of GDP, the researchers say the ReArm Europe plan could lead to an eventual rise to 3.5%, from about 1.5% in 2020. The researchers assumed a similar eventual increase in Nato members that are not members of the EU, such as the UK.
Borrowing methodology from a recent paper that argued each percentage point increase in the share of GDP devoted to military spending would lead to an increase in national emissions of between 0.9% and 2%, they estimated that a two percentage point spending shock would lead to an increase across the bloc of between 87 and 194 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) a year.
The researchers say that not only would such a huge increase in emissions supercharge climate breakdown but the increase in global temperatures would hurt the economy. Recent estimates of the social cost of carbon – a monetary indicator of the damage of CO2 emitted – put it at $1,347/tCO2e, suggesting the annual cost of Nato's military buildup could be as much as $264bn a year.
And that is only a fraction of the true carbon cost of militarisation, Kinney points out. 'The calculation in the paper, it's 31 countries – that only represents 9% of total world emissions. If you consider … the impact of that, there's a lot of the world that we haven't taken into consideration of this specific calculation.'
The analysis notes that spending more money on militaries also reduces resources available for policies aimed at mitigating climate change. This already seems to be the case, with the UK, for example, funding its increase in spending by reducing its overseas aid budget – a move mirrored in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
'This increase in military spending is impacting the kind of core trust that is necessary for multilateralism,' Kinney said. 'At Cop29, global south countries like Cuba in particular pointed out the hypocrisy in the room of states being willing to spend increasing amounts on their military spending, but offering … completely, unacceptably low climate finance commitments.'
The Guardian has contacted Nato for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Russia is at war with Britain and US no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from county Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy, and made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill says, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable United States. The best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and retired general Sir Richard Barrons, Hill, 59, said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national even after living over 30 years in the US. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill says, arguing that Putin sees the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia is already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she says, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill says, is that 'Russia is at war with us'. Though the foreign policy expert, a long time Russia watcher, says she first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the West,' she says. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill says events since demonstrate 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believes, she says, that Ukraine has already been decoupled from the US relationship because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it comes to defence, however, Hill says that the UK cannot rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the Cold War and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking even appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's long-standing assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgement in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and defence secretary John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey however, and Hill said she only met the prime minister once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill is not drawn on if she advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead 'the advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting'. She says simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She adds that unlike his close circle, Trump has 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late Queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she says. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. Already, she notes, Reform UK won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and leader Nigel Farage wants to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) before his falling out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she says. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steel works and coal mines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she says, arguing that Britain needs to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill says, is about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she says. Hill says she sees that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US has contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort'. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that is because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' Hill says. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalls that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
James Cleverly's shadow Tory leadership bid heats up
Photo byIs James Cleverly making another bid for the Conservative leadership? That's certainly how his speech at the Conservative Environment Network's Sam Barker Memorial Lecture on Wednesday night, in which he talked about 'rejecting both the Luddite left and the Luddite right', has been interpreted by Tory watchers. 'James Cleverly takes on Kemi Badenoch over decision to ditch net zero targets', read the Guardian headline. The Mail went with 'Kemi Badenoch faces Net Zero revolt as Tory big beast James Cleverly warns her to ignore climate change 'luddites''. The Telegraph, meanwhile, wrote it up as 'Former home secretary directly challenges Kemi Badenoch on net zero'. Cleverly himself has pushed back hard against the suggestion that his speech was in any way a rebuke of the current Tory leader, calling it 'fake news'. In a punchy Twitter thread, he pointed out that he never once mentioned the term 'net zero' in the speech (he also didn't mention Badenoch), and claimed protecting the environment ('like Margaret Thatcher once did') was 'in our economic and security interests'. Indeed, the text of the speech itself was far more about foreign policy (in particular the threat of Chinese dominance and mass migration caused by climate change) than it was about carbon emission targets. But the fractured state of the Conservative party is such that any intervention from a high-profile figure will be read as a tacit (or not so tacit) criticism of Kemi Badenoch's leadership and attempt at positioning to be her successor. That applies to Cleverly's environmental speech just as much as it applies to Robert Jenrick's viral videos on confronting fare-dodgers on the London Underground. It is the latter who has drawn the most attention in the seven months since Badenoch became leader. Partly, this is due to the fact that Jenrick was the runner-up, after a mix-up over vote-swapping meant Cleverly was knocked up before he had the chance to face the membership. Partly it's down to Jenrick's place in the shadow cabinet, whereas Cleverly has taken a break from frontbench politics. And partly it's to do with visibility – once dubbed 'a very ambitious blur' by Andrew Marr, no one watching Jenrick's frenetic activity in opposition has any doubt that he still covets the top job. Jenrick's stance, in the leadership contest and since, has been to shift rightwards and attempt to neutralise Nigel Farage by moving onto Reform's turf. But as the Tory party grapples with having to rebuild from an election calamity that saw it lose hundreds of seats to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Cleverly's name is increasingly being whispered by moderate Conservatives anxious about both the polls and the Reform-wards tilt. Cleverly's positioning as the 'One Nation' candidate in the 2024 leadership race came as something of a surprise to those close to him. A Brexit-backer first appointed to the role of foreign secretary by Liz Truss, he assumed the role of the moderates' champion almost by default, with both Jenrick and Badenoch running from the right. One friend in the party described his politics as 'to the left of Kemi, but not by much – his heroes are Thatcher and Regan', and called the One Nation label 'grossly simplistic'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe But it is true that Cleverly saw himself as a unifier, someone who could bring different strands of the party together after its worst ever defeat and who understood that parties can only win by building a broad coalition of support. Another ally said his pitch to the membership, had he got to that stage, would have been to argue there is more mileage in listening to voters who abandoned the Conservatives over concerns about competence and values rather than chasing people who have found a new home in Reform. At the time, the received consensus was that Tory members always pick the more right-wing candidate of the pair offered to them and would do again. That consensus is the reason Jenrick is the now bookies' favourite, seen as the likeliest successor to Badenoch. But something interesting may be happening to the Conservative membership. Tory members are notoriously hard to poll (we don't even know how many there are), but Reform now claims to have over 200,000. A substantial chunk of these are understood to be former Tories who have quit the party since the 2024 election. That will inevitably have shifted the internal dynamics among those who remain, perhaps to the extent that more moderate members – those repelled by Farage who find Jenrick's talk of some kind of pact with Reform anathema – now hold the majority. A Cleverly candidacy now, I was told by an active member in one local association, would have a much higher chance of success than in autumn 2024. (Others have different perspectives.) The parliamentary party too is more nuanced than current narratives about the Tories' rightwards tilt suggest. In the penultimate round of MP voting, the two candidates coded as more centrist – Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat – received 59 votes together; Jenrick and Badenoch got a combined 61. (On the environmental front, the Conservative climate caucus in parliament boasts 49 MPs.) A former Tory MP referred to the remaining One Nation cohort as the 'sleeping giant' of the Conservative party – a group that, were it to band together, could be a serious force in parliament. It will not have escaped their notice that the Tories are spiralling situation under Badenoch. A poll last month put the Conservatives fourth – below Reform, Labour and the Lib Dems – on a popularity level not seen since 2019 and Theresa May's Brexit deadlock. One Tory insider called the figures 'extinction-level'. Some Conservatives are getting desperate: rumours are swirling of various plots to oust Badenoch, possibly even before her year's grace period as leader is up in November. A Survation poll last week suggested 60 per cent of 2024 Conservative voters thought bringing back Boris Johnson would be better than keeping Badenoch as leader. Against this backdrop, any signs of dissent are being seized upon. Earlier this week, eight Tory MPs (including Father of the House Edward Leigh) wrote to Keir Starmer saying they would support him if the government were to move to recognise a Palestinian state – another move interpreted as an attempt to 'defy' Badenoch. Cleverly gave his Conservative Environment Network speech the following day, and was similarly read as a rebuke. The rumour persists that a coup is just around the corner, and every intervention plays into that narrative. Any hint of a Cleverly revival, however, should be tempered with a few caveats, both personal and political. His wife Susie, who is herself much loved in Conservative circles, came through a difficult battle with an aggressive form of breast cancer two years ago, which would caution anyone considering what's widely considered one of the worst jobs in politics to think twice. 'I'm not sure he's really been able to be in that headspace,' was the assessment of one friend. More generally, while frustration with Badenoch is growing, even her fiercest critics acknowledge that changing leaders yet again would do 'irreparable damage' to the already wounded party and be 'a colossal act of self-harm'. And that's without taking into considering how difficult it is to rebuild so soon after an election. One former MP who lost their seat in July put it bluntly: 'She's doing an impossible job badly.' Even Jenrick, for all his obvious ambition, doesn't want a leadership challenge now. His video efforts are aimed firmly at attacking Labour figures (Keir Starmer, Richard Hermer, Sadiq Khan). Yes they can be viewed obliquely as presenting an alternative pattern for leadership, but it isn't Badenoch in the direct crosshairs. Axing a leader so soon would fuel Labour and Reform narratives that the Tory party is too dysfunctional to be taken seriously, and the new leader – whether Jenrick, Cleverly, or someone else entirely – would be facing the exact same challenges and the same uphill battle. Boris Johnson has in past years likened himself to Cincinnatus, the Roman statesman who 'returned to his plough' after leading the state at a time of crisis and was then called back to assume power a second time. But years before that the then London mayor described his ambition to be PM with the line that 'Obviously, if the ball came loose from the back of a scrum – which it won't – it would be a great, great thing to have a crack at.' A passionate rugby fan himself, this was the comparison made by several people close to Cleverly about his leadership hopes. That doesn't mean that the former home secretary was clueless as to how his speech might be interpreted. One of the major criticisms of Badenoch is not merely the direction in which she seems to be taking the Tories, but the fact this seems to be down to 'drift' as opposed to a conscious and deliberate strategy, leaving the party undefined and chaotic. 'The first stage of surviving is defining yourself,' one centrist Tory put it. They then quoted the line from the musical Les Miserables: 'It is time for us all to decide who we are.' Cleverly's bold defence of a Conservative environmental agenda – one that takes in both economic and national security concerns – should be read, they argued, as a reminder that there is another way of doing leadership, one that isn't afraid of taking stances that come with trade-offs, 'and someone has to be a flag-bearer for it'. Finally, there is the personality issue. While Badenoch's management style veers towards abrasive and her media appearances lack cut-through, Cleverly is respected from all wings of the party as a strong media performer who can bring people together. 'James was pointing out that charismatic leaders are available,' one Tory insider quipped. 'He can't help being likeable and human.' What the speech does reveal is how far perceptions of the Tory party have travelled in a very short space of time. When Badenoch announced the party's U-turn on net zero in March, Sam Hall, director of the Conservative Environment Network, noted the decision 'undermines the significant environmental legacy of successive Conservative governments'. Six years ago Theresa May was signing the UK's net zero commitments into law; three and a half years ago Boris Johnson was championing Britain's climate leadership at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow. Back then, Cleverly's insistence that 'the idea that we must choose between a strong economy and protecting our environment is outdated and wrong' or support of climate commitments as 'defences against energy shocks and geopolitical instability' would not have been considered remotely controversial in Tory circles. Now, it's interpreted as a leadership challenge. And until the situation improves the Conservatives, so will everything else. [See also: Kemi Badenoch is in a hole – and she keeps digging] Related
Belfast Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Trump administration open to discussion on key issues, Merz says
Mr Merz described his Oval Office meeting and extended lunch with Mr Trump on Thursday as constructive but also candid, noting the two leaders expressed different views on Ukraine. He said: 'Yesterday, in the meeting at the Oval Office, I expressed a distinctly different position on the topic of Ukraine than the one Trump had taken, and not only was there no objection, but we discussed it in detail again over lunch.' The White House meeting marked the first time the two sat down in person. Mr Merz, who became chancellor in May, avoided the kind of confrontations in the Oval Office that have tripped up other world leaders, including Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa. The German chancellor presented Mr Trump with a gold-framed birth certificate of the president's grandfather, Friedrich Trump, who emigrated from Kallstadt, Germany. Mr Trump called Mr Merz a 'very good man to deal with'. The American administration, Mr Merz said, is open to discussion, listens and is willing to accept differing opinions. He added: 'Let's stop talking about Donald Trump with a raised finger and wrinkled nose. You have to talk with him, not about him.' Mr Merz said he also met with senators on Capitol Hill, urging them to recognise the scale of Russian rearmament. 'Please take a look at how far Russia's armament is going, what they are currently doing there; you obviously have no idea what's happening,' he said he told them. 'In short, you can talk to them, but you must not let yourself be intimidated. I don't have that inclination anyway.' Mr Merz, who speaks English fluently, stressed the need for transatlantic trust and said he reminded Mr Trump that allies matter. 'Whether we like it or not, we will remain dependent on the United States of America for a long time,' he said. 'But you also need partners in the world, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, are the best-suited partners. 'This is the difference between authoritarian systems and democracies: authoritarian systems have subordinates. Democracies have partners — and we want to be those partners in Europe and with America.' He reiterated that the US remains committed to Nato, particularly as Germany and others boost their defence spending. Mr Trump has in the past suggested the US might abandon its commitments to the alliance if member countries do not meet defence spending targets. Mr Merz said: 'I have absolutely no doubt that the American government is committed to Nato, especially now that we've all said we're doing more. 'We're ensuring that we can also defend ourselves in Europe, and I believe this expectation was not unjustified.' 'We've been the free riders of American security guarantees for years and we're changing that now.'
