Climate concerns should remain at the center of global agendas. However, instead of focusing on solving these problems, nations worldwide have recently been driven by fear and suspicion, leading to a new arms race.
The temperature of the Earth is rising, and climate change is still causing serious problems, putting at risk the lives of flora and fauna worldwide, which has consequences for human life itself.
 |
| Environmental Impact of the Global Arms Race |
In 2023, global military spending reached an unprecedented level of over $2,4 trillion, marking the ninth consecutive year of increase.
For example, the European Union member states collectively earmarked €326 billion for military spending in 2024, an increase of over 30% compared to 2021.
Similarly, NATO recorded a total military expenditure of over $1,3 billion in 2023, a significant increase of $126 billion compared to the previous year. (Source: sipri.org)
The causes are largely due to the prevailing geopolitical tensions and large-scale conflicts around the world.
Since the environmental issue, terms such as climate change, green deal are more current than ever, one wonders what relationship the sustainability of this recent intensification of the global arms race has with the potential associated environmental damage. Sustainability, in this context, refers to the long-term implications of military activities on the planet's finite natural resources and the delicate balance of its ecosystems.
 |
| Environmental Impact of the Global Arms Race |
One fact is immediately clear: military operations, by their very nature, involve significant energy consumption and contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, which determine climate change.
The insatiable demand for diversified resources by the military-industrial complex has a significant impact on the environment.
Finally, environmental damage inflicted during armed conflicts can have long-lasting impacts on public health, compromise livelihoods, and destabilize entire regions.
Between 2021 and 2024, the swift increase in military expenditure within the European Union might surpass current decarbonization efforts, potentially undermining all progress made so far.
Furthermore, analyzing the historical data, an arms race could likely cause:
- Resource Diversion: A major drawback is the massive diversion of financial, human, and natural resources from essential sectors like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and sustainable development initiatives.
- Economic Instability (in the long term): While the arms industry can offer short-term economic benefits, an excessive focus on military spending can lead to long-term economic instability by creating debt in a single sector and neglecting other vital areas of the economy.
- Increased Risk of Conflict: An arms race can heighten tensions and mistrust between nations, increasing the likelihood of armed conflict.
 |
| Environmental Impact of the Global Arms Race |
We can only hope that the years of improvements we’ve made in the fight against climate change won’t be undone as a result.
The Military Machine’s Insatiable Appetite
Modern armies require a huge amount of resources, such as aluminum, copper, platinum, and rare earth minerals, to produce platforms, from fighter jets to ballistic missile systems. Just one F-35 fighter requires over 400 kilograms of rare earth elements, approximately the same material needed for about 700 to 1,300 MRI machines (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), enough for several hospitals.
 |
| Environmental Impact of the Global Arms Race |
Internationally, in the next ten years, military rearmament may require over 20 million tonnes of minerals globally, coupled with a huge consumption of fossil fuels.
Not only is this use and consumption of resources unsustainable, but it is also competing with new green industries that require the same metals and minerals to produce technologies for clean energy.
The military's usage of fuels and minerals reduces our planet's natural resources, alongside the pollution and emissions that the military creates, which further exacerbate the climate crisis.
Carbon Footprint of the Army
Many people are unaware of the massive military impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. Military emissions account for approximately 5.5% of global emissions, higher than several other large national polluters.
To give a little context, the global military sector would be the 4th largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world if it were a country.
Military activity is energy-intensive, from making weapons to maintaining bases, conducting training, and, of course, combat.
- In 2023, NATO’s military activity alone produced 233 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent, about the same amount of emissions as Colombia or Qatar.
- Estimated Percentage of Global GHG Emissions of Russia-Ukraine War (first two years), 2022-2024, greater than the annual output of the Netherlands
In addition, emissions from the military sector are typically excluded from international climate agreements and reporting. Not only does this mean we are missing a piece of the climate puzzle, but while other energy-intensive sectors are expected to reduce emissions, the military sector tends to be left out.
As an added concern, rising military budgets mean less $ for clean energy and climate solutions.
Pollution and Toxic Waste
The environmental damage doesn't stop at carbon emissions. The entire lifecycle of a weapon -- production to disposal -- can produce hazardous pollutants.
Nuclear weapons are particularly damaging, producing as much as 2,000 metric tonnes of radioactive mining waste for just one nuclear bomb. This waste can contaminate land and water for decades or even centuries.
Conventional weapons are also equally as bad, containing hazardous heavy metals and toxic chemicals in explosive ordnance (e.g., bombs, missiles, grenades...) that leach into soil and groundwater. Disposal methods like open burning, open detonation, all release hazardous fumes and particulates into the air.
In the United States, there are approximately 15 million acres of land contaminated with military explosives from weapons testing and training exercises. Cleaning up these sites is costly and often not completed.
To help you visualize 15 million acres of land, here are some comparisons:
 |
| Environmental Impact of the Global Arms Race |
Whenever war breaks out, it's almost guaranteed that it will result in some level of environmental devastation. These involve trees, wetlands, wildlife, homes, farmland, ecosystems, and entire landscapes. During war, landscapes will be bombed, missiles fired, and artillery used, and again families are displaced, farms destroyed, and pollution will follow from rivers to the air.
In the past 60 years, two-thirds of the world's biodiversity hotspots experienced armed conflict.
This should not only be troubling to wildlife interests, but extremely troubling to climate resilience because these ecosystems act as carbon sinks as well as regulating temperatures, which act as major environmental support.
Conflicts have a nasty habit of damaging infrastructure, such as water and waste management facilities; even more, the pollution can reach greater distances than intended and affect air, soil, and water quality.
Can the Military Go Green?
Some in the defense sector have begun exploring ways to reduce their environmental impact. Military technology has, in some cases, resulted in useful civilian applications, such as GPS and drone technologies, for instance, were originally developed for military use and are now tools in environmental monitoring and conservation.
The U.S. Department of Defense is also testing bio-based lubricants, eco-friendly building materials, and renewable energy sources for military bases. NATO has initiated projects to improve energy efficiency and manage water resources more sustainably.
However, critics argue that these efforts are too small compared to the overall damage being done. Sustainability programs within the military often focus on minor changes while continuing to expand destructive capabilities. There’s also a risk of “greenwashing”—making superficial environmental claims without real impact.
 |
| Environmental Impact of the Global Arms Race |
Some say military-controlled zones, which are off-limits to civilians, can act as accidental nature reserves. But even these areas are at risk due to contamination from training and weapons testing.
Environmental Costs That Last Generations
"Historians tell us that the Arms Race was certainly a major contributor to the emergence of both World Wars. Not the sole reason, but it acted as some sort of catalyst."
The war’s environmental impact remains after the guns fall silent. Nuclear fallout, toxic chemicals, and heavy metal contamination can last in the environment for thousands of years. These pollutants become part of food systems and soil quality, and can negatively affect health and biodiversity for generations.
The process of rebuilding from war and cleaning it up is a slow and often expensive experience. In many cases, impacted areas either never fully recover, or at least it is difficult for them to fulfill their pre-war potential. Those living in previously affected areas must deal with poisoned lands, undrinkable waters, and toxic air.
In even worse scenarios, poorly resourced governments in war-affected regions, or post-conflict regions, are marginalized to meaningfully enforce environmental laws or undertake remediations. This means pollution is passed through into the social and environmental systems, fueling a cycle of social instability, environmental degradation, and reduced governance.
Ultimately, the long-term outlook appears very concerning. Climate change, including the military's contribution to emissions, is driving extreme weather, rising sea levels, and food insecurity. Shortly, environmental stressors can become triggers for conflict, continuing the social crisis and furthering environmental destruction.
0 Comments