What the NATO upgrade for the planet means-exclusive study

With the Paris climate agreement, the states had actually committed to significantly reducing emissions. Most countries want to be climate -neutral at the latest in 2050. Every carbon released has been documented since then. But all meticulousness is of no use if a main driver of man -made climate change does not flow into the calculations: wars.

Their number has increased in recent years. Putin’s war of attack on Ukraine followed the war in the Gaza Strip and Israel’s campaign against Iran. The arguments not only released millions of tons of carbon, but also fuel a upgrade spiral that also drives the emissions up.

How high the damage will be can hardly be quantified, because military data is often kept secret for security reasons. However, all the armed forces in the world are responsible for around five to six percent of global emissions. NATO’s armies alone cause so much CO2 that – if the military alliance would be a country – in the international ranking in the upper third, they would rank.

Against the background of the escalation in the Middle East and the ongoing preparations of the Cop30 Climate Summit in Brazil, the research team has now recovered from the Transnational Institute, such as Tipping Point North South and Ippnw, which means the global arms for the planet. Dem starthe paper was exclusively before the publication.

According to this, NATO has increased its military spending by 25 percent with the two percent target over the past few years. This also grew their ecological footprint – by 40 percent. If the members continued to adhere to the two percent goal, the emission could at least quadruple themselves in the coming years. These estimates are comparatively optimistic. Other studies assume significantly higher values. In any case, NATO has now officially said goodbye to the two percent goal.

No matter how high the greenhouse gas emissions are and will still be: the NATO goals have long been counteracting the target climate goals of the EU. This must save 134 million tons of CO2 annually by 2030 to halve its emissions in 1990. “We cannot upgrade without endangering our climate goals,” clarifies Laura Wunder, a consultant for air conditioning and global health at the IPPNW peace organization.

However, there is no shortage of the will: in 2021 the to lower and document their greenhouse gas emissions. However, against the background of growing international tensions and conflicts, this seems practically impossible. At the end of June, NATO plans to decide on the next arms destination. Then the Member States should spend 3.5 percent of their gross domestic product for the military.

And the federal states do a lot to do this to meet these goals: Germany wants to be responsible for its military expenses in the future. How much money the German federal government will ultimately provide is not yet fully clarified. In conversation, sums of more than 70 billion euros are in discussion this year.

Governments in Great Britain and Spain have also agreed to increase their expenses. Europe may protect itself from military opponents. Depending on the scenario, she only makes the opponent climate change.

A total of $ 13.4 trillion in NATO will flow in the next five years, the scientists calculated in their study. Money that should be missing elsewhere in the future. With the sums, for example, the entire global electricity generation could be completely switched to climate neutrality – or climate protection measures in developing countries, the scientists write.

So far, the EU countries have not publicly declared that they are eliminated in military spending. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz, for example, advocated using armed forces to combat climate change. It is questionable whether this really helps when military investments rise while auxiliary and developmental money is shortened.

Overall, the calculations of the NGOs and peace researchers only disclose a fraction of what the military and actually do the planet. Because the calculated emissions only refer to the production and supply chains of the equipment- not to their use.

This would be taken into account, the actual emission values ​​would be significantly higher: Putin alone has so far with his aggressive war on Ukraine, which corresponds to the annual emissions of Spain.

Have caused 281,000 tons of carbon dioxide, while the climate damage of the Israeli campaign against Iran cannot yet be quantified. In addition, the indirect greenhouse gas emissions of the redirected air traffic would also come due to closed air spaces and through the reconstruction of destroyed areas.

That is why the study authors and the Peace Organization IPPNW are calling for the immediate disarmament of NATO. Against the background of growing tensions and more and more conflicts, this requirement seems more than unrealistic. Especially since head of state like Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu should hardly be impressed. However, the peace researchers fear that the ambitious NATO goals could also encourage states such as China to arm arms- “which in turn would have an impact on (…) a possible redirection of climate and social investments for military purposes,” the study is suspected.

After all, peace researchers can record a success: For some years now, wars have been increasingly discussed as a climate killer. The Ukrainian President Wolodymyr Selenskyj also made a contribution to this. Whose citizens could report the damage to be able to prove a “Russian ecozide”. It is the first time that environmental damage to a war is documented so meticulously. At the COP27 climate summit in Egypt, Selenskyj addressed the environmental degradation through the Russian War of Agency and spoke of the fact that the world could “not afford a single shot”.

At the international meeting in Dubai the following year, the participants said goodbye. It was not about military emissions, but the connection between violent conflicts, humanitarian emergencies and the climate crisis. The COP29 in Azerbaijan 2024 was adopted, which emphasized the disarmament and peace efforts in connection with climate change.

“We hope that the Brazilian presidency will build on this this year,” says Laura Wunder from the IPPNW and adds: “I can understand that disarmament seems difficult in these times. But we should never upgrade to 3.5 percent.”