Joining Forces with the World Peace Foundation: Addressing the Intersection of Military, Climate, and Justice

We are honored to announce that IPB has been featured in the World Peace Foundation’s esteemed Movement Index. This recognition comes alongside the publication of their critical report, written by Nico Edwards, examining the complex interplay between military actions, climate change, and social justice.

The report, released in conjunction with the ongoing discussions at COP28, delves into the emerging concept of ‘Green Militarism.’ This term refers to the ways in which environmental challenges are increasingly becoming entangled with military responses, raising important questions about the future of eco-social policies and practices.

With the title “Resisting the Militarization of Eco-Social Crises,” the report is a compelling call to action. It invites us to reconsider our approaches to environmental challenges and to advocate for solutions that are not only effective but also just and equitable.

How You Can Help Amplify This Message:

  1. Retweet the Foundation’s Report: Show your support by retweeting the report from the World Peace Foundation’s Twitter account. Retweet Here
  2. Share the Report on Social Media: Use your platform to spread the word. You can use the suggested copy or create your own to highlight the importance of resisting green militarism. Read and Share the Report
  3. Use the Hashtag #RESISTgreenmilitarism: Including this hashtag in your posts will help in creating a unified voice and will enable the World Peace Foundation to easily retweet and share your support.

We are proud to be part of this critical conversation and are grateful for the World Peace Foundation’s efforts in shedding light on these pressing issues!

The military elephant in the room will lead to an unjust transition

Post-review of NATO Climate Killer Part 2: Climate Crossfire Webinar, recorded on December 2nd, 2023, during COP 28

Author: Pippa Bartolotti

As we navigate COP 28, this webinar addressed the pertinent issues of military spending and its environmental ramifications.

Ably introduced by the Canadian policy analyst IPB Vice President Steven Staples, this important webinar discussed in detail the links between the military and environmental degradation. Taking place on Day 4 of the COP 28 summit in Dubai, it was a thorough reality check.

The first speaker was Nick Buxton, Transnational Institute, who had some superb graphics and data to support his call to shrink the military, boost renewables and fund poorer nations in their efforts to combat the climate change they did not cause.

He explained that, in view of global emissions significantly exceeding the pledges to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming, (Paris Agreement 2015) we now only have a tiny window in which to take radical action. Shrinking the military was now critical is we are to deliver climate justice.

The gap between policy and action has increased. Those countries promising to make adjustments by 2050 were basically not planning to make any changes at all. In other words, 2050 pledges are the ‘do nothing’ option.

Nick pointed out that holding this COP in a petro-state such as the UAE was rather like asking the head of a tobacco company to launch an anti-smoking campaign – ludicrous. His research showed clearly that those countries with the highest military spending created the most emissions, and that fossil fuel expansion had been the real aim since the end of WW1 when the Ottoman Empire was carved up to reflect the places where oil pipelines were going. The US backed Israeli onslaught on Gaza in order to claim the gasfields off that coast are an ongoing example of this policy.

The global military spend in 2022 was $2.24 trillion. In 2028 it is expected to be $11.8 trillion. The richest countries spend 30 times more on their military than on supporting a survivable climate.

In 2015 £100 billion was promised to help poorer countries. Only half of that has been delivered to date, and that came late.

Russia spends $158b on the military, China $578b, NATO spends $2,327b – that is 55% of global military spending. Of the 2% of GDP spending goal expected from NATO countries, 20% is targeted to be spent on military equipment, thus enriching the military industrial complex.

Nick showed us a map pinpointing the 750+ US military bases across the world, most of which correlate closely with the infrastructure of resource extraction.

Every country now has Climate Security Plans. The trend is to see climate change as a security issue where the victims are seen as threats, where borders become militarised, where exploitation of the vulnerable is increased, and where any form of peaceful response is denied. Spending on borders alone is now twice the spend on climate finance. NATO is now in place to deal with the consequences of the unstable conditions they themselves have created.

The second speaker was Wendela de Vries of Stop Wapenhandle, has been looking at the lack of transparency and accountability of the military across the globe.

She spoke of hardliners evading the subject of emissions, of the NATO Arctic Command established in order to protect deep sea mining in the Arctic. Of how current discussion is fuelling a new cold war and how closely correlated military spending was to a rise in emissions.

Most military spending is now in equipment not personnel. There is not expected to be a rise in numbers of personnel. But expenditure on ships, tanks and weapons would increase.

The military carbon footprint as of 2021 was bigger than the worlds footprint from civil aviation.

Th US emissions are more than all other NATO countries combined. More than 70% of all military emissions come from the US. 50% is from the military and more than 20% is on weapons manufacture.

Future member contributions to NATO are scheduled to rise to 3% of GDP. This is important for the arms industry who want to consolidate long term contracts, but labor and environmental rights are being damaged in the upscaling of weapons production – largely being driven by the Ukraine war.

Wendela spoke of the greenwashing of military products, such as the fallacious term ‘sustainable defence’ being used to greenwash biofuels and synthetic fuels, both of which still require burning for energy, and which will not reduce emissions at all. In the case of biofuels, enormous amounts of land would be required to grow the feedstock, damaging ecosystems and compromising biodiversity. The military are not going to change their energy systems to electricity as that would make all their ships, tanks etc obsolete. Electric propulsion would require a full redesign, and as military hardware is expected to last 40 years, such a proposal is not entertained.

Nuclear, particularly the plethora of small reactors, will make it much more difficult to control the toxic waste, and is no solution at all.

The arms industry still has huge support, many people still believe that the military make the world a safer place, and that thinking has to change. We have to de-militarize to be more safe.

Some interesting points came out of the question and answer session at the end. There was discussion about health being at the heart of peace, that a peaceful world would enable a healthy and dignified life for all. Others were looking for some way out of our current trajectory of everlasting war where every problem looked like a nail, and needed a hammer to solve it.

There was concern that rich countries did not look after poor countries. On the whole the speakers were not optimistic for the future as we sink into dark circumstances in this crisis of all crises.

The real challenge is to put collaboration before competition, to find a different pathway, and to make war illegal. Hope remains with social movements and in the streets.

Co-organized by four esteemed organizations—the International Peace Bureau, Global Women’s United Against NATO, No to War, No to NATO, and the Asia-Europe People’s Forum—this series of webinars seek to provoke thoughtful dialogue and foster a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between militarism and the environment.

Watch the full Recording in IPB YouTube Page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0axVq1alkkw&t=18s

NEW RESEARCH: NATO 2% SPENDING GOAL COULD DIVERT $2.6 TRILLION FROM CLIMATE FINANCE BY 2028

NATO’s goal of 2% spending of GDP on the military will accelerate climate breakdown by diverting millions of dollars from climate finance and increasing greenhouse gas emissions, concludes a new report that urgently calls for a ‘climate dividend’ similar to the ‘peace dividend’ that was won with the end of the Cold War.

The report, Climate Crossfire, produced by the international research organization, Transnational Institute, together with Stop Wapenhandel (Netherlands) and Tipping Point North South (UK) estimates the likely financial implications as well as increased greenhouse gas emissions that would result if all NATO members meet their commitment to increase military spending to a minimum of 2% of GDP. 

The report finds that:

  • NATO’s military spending this year – $1.26 trillion-  would pay for 12 years of promised climate finance of $100 billion a year.
  • If all NATO members meet its 2% military spending targets, it would divert an estimated additional US$2.57 trillion by 2028 away from climate spending, enough to pay for climate adaptation costs for all low- and middle-income countries for seven years.
  • NATO’s estimated military carbon footprint this year – 205 million tCO2e – is comparable to the total annual greenhouse gas emissions of many countries. If NATO’s militaries were a country, it would rank 40th in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • If all NATO members meet its 2% military spending targets, this would lead to an estimated additional 467 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • NATO members export arms to 39 of the 40 most climate-vulnerable countries, fuelling conflict and repression at a dangerous moment of climate breakdown.

NATO’s spending goals have undoubtedly gained momentum as a result of Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, however even before achieving the 2% target, in 2021 NATO overall spent more than 16 times as much as Russia and its allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO, which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan). Russia has increased its military expenditure to a projected $102 billion in 2023, but this would still be less than a twelfth of NATO’s collective expenditure of $1.26 trillion.

The biggest danger of NATO’s 2% military spending goals is that it is encouraging a worldwide arms race. Global military spending in 2022 reached record highs of $2.24 trillion. Our report last year, Climate Collateral, revealed that the richest nations (known as ‘Annex 2’ countries in UN climate negotiations) are spending 30 times as much on military as on climate finance. 

Nnimmo Bassey, former president of Friends of the Earth International and director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria says in a foreword to the report:

‘Wars kill people, extinguish biodiversity, and destroy the infrastructure that could otherwise provide safeguards in the face of extreme weather events. Warfare is an act of climate denial.’

Co-author of the report, Nick Buxton of Transnational Institute says:

‘This report shows that the climate has tragically become the latest victim in the crossfire of war. We have a closing window of time to address the climate crisis, but the world’s political leaders are more focused on arming themselves to the teeth than prioritising climate action. NATO’s 2% minimum spending goals are adding fuel to the climate fire, diverting much needed resources and increasing greenhouse emissions. We urgently need to de-escalate tensions and find peaceful solutions to conflicts if we are to defend our planet. There is no secure nation on an unsafe planet.’

Contact: Nick Buxton  | +1 530 902 3772 /California |  nick@tni.org | @nickbuxton

Co-authors of the report, Dr Ho-Chih Lin and Deborah Burton of Tipping Point North South say:

‘The military like to portray themselves today as positive climate actors, but they have been the biggest institutional user of fossil fuels. Oil-free fighter jets or electric tanks do not exist and there is nothing realistic on the horizon that will make a meaningful dent in military carbon footprint. Not in our lifetime and certainly not by 2050. The stark reality facing politicians is that to green the military, we need to reduce military spending significantly and this will require a new approach to security, one invested in building diplomacy, peace and climate resilience rather than war.’  

Contact: Deborah Burton  | +44 7779 203455/ UK | deborah@tippingpointnorthsouth.org

Wendela de Vries, a researcher at StopWapenhandel, Dutch Campaign Against the Arms Trade says: ‘High military budgets lead to more emissions, which is not making the world safer. The big winner is the arms industry whose profits are skyrocketing. As the planet reaches a climate tipping point, it is insane that we are investing in making arms dealers even richer, rather than protecting those whose lives are being devastated by climate breakdown

Contact: Wendela de Vries  | +31 (0) 6 506 522 06/Netherlands |   w.de.vries@stopwapenhandel.org  |  @CTWnl

Notes

  1. The full report can be found at https://www.tni.org/climatecrossfire. The executive summary is also available in Spanish, French, Catalan and German.
  2. Total global military expenditure increased by 3.7 per cent in real terms in 2022, to reach a new high of $2240 billion https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/world-military-expenditure-reaches-new-record-high-european-spending-surges 

Deborah Burton of Tipping Point North South attended COP27 and spoke at a packed UNFCCC side event, Dealing with military and conflict related emissions under the UNFCCC, on 9 November 2022. She hopes to attend COP28 in UAE.

Climate & The Military: How Global Militarization Is Costing Us The Earth

By Alessandra Fontanella, Assistant Coordinator (IPB)

New Reports Show the Extent of Military Pollution on our Planet

Recent data from reports published by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)and the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), as well as from the Transnational Institute (TNI), Stop Wapenhandel, and Tipping Point North South (TPNS) demonstrate the overwhelmingly negative impact of global military activities on our climate.

The 2022 SGR report estimates that the world’s militaries contribute to 5.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas  (GHG) emissions. It also finds that if the world’s militaries were a country, it would have the 4th largest national carbon footprint in the world. To illustrate these findings further, if global militaries were combined they would be the world’s 29th top oil consumer, ahead of Venezuela and Poland.  SGR and CEOBS estimate the annual military carbon footprint of the US at 205 million tonnes, and 11 million tonnes for the UK.

Despite the new methodology that has enabled scientists to approximate the level of military carbon pollution, their estimations are limited. A lack of clear and consistent reporting of data by governments has made it difficult to provide accurate estimations of military greenhouse gas emissions – under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, governments are not obligated to report their emissions data to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Further, collaborative research by between CEOBS and Concrete Impacts: militaryemissions.org shows no yearly improvements on voluntary reporting by governments. It is also difficult for researchers to measure emissions from damage to buildings, eco-systems and reconstructions efforts post-conflict leading to significant data gaps.

Despite these limitations, the existing data is alarming and highlights the need for dialogue between governments, international organisations and civil society to work towards a global plan. Civil society can play a crucial role in advocating for the redirection of finance from the military towards funding climate change. The richest countries (annex II in the UN Climate Talks) have a military expenditure 30 times greater than what they allocate to climate finance for vulnerable countries and have failed to meet their obligation of providing $100bn a year to the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world. The redistribution of just one year’s military spending by the top 10 military countries towards climate finance would provide 15 years  (US $100bn) of the promised funding.

Moreover, a thorough set of data protocols should be put in place to enhance transparency and pave the way for more comprehensive and accurate data on global military emissions, as suggested by SGR. We must demand greater transparency and accountability from governments, and promote the dissemination of information about military emissions to increase public attention on governments’ military spending and activities.  Collective action in the peace and climate movements  is necessary to bring about a  reduction of military carbon emissions, and the redirection of spending in this sector towards mitigative action for our climate.

The best way to reduce military pollution on our planet is to reduce war. The International Peace Bureau is committed to promoting positive peace and justice, below we outline several recent actions that IPB has taken:

  • IPB’s year round campaign – Global Campaign on Military Spending (GCOMS) raises awareness of excessive military spending and aims to reduce global military expenditures.
  • IPB Council member Tyson Smith Berry Jr. hosted the panel “Climate Change & Common Security: challenges and solutions in Africa and the world at large” at the conference : From Conflict to Beloved Communities – A Series of International Gatherings on Peace, Justice and Non-Violence on November 8 in Juba, South Sudan.
  • For the COP 27 which recently took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, the IPB alongside the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and World BEYOND War (WBW)sent two open letters addressed to the UNFCC and Green Climate.
  • Visit IPB’s Youtube Channel to watch our broadcast updates from COP27 – focused on the events and activists that brought together the themes of peace and climate.

Conference Review: ‘From Conflict to Beloved Communities: A Series of International Gatherings on Peace, Justice and Nonviolence’ in Juba, South Sudan

Tyson in Juba, South Sudan

From 03-21 November, the Province of the Episcopal Church of South Sudan in conjunction with the Organization for Nonviolence and Development hosted the conference “From Conflict to Beloved Communities: A Series of International Gatherings on Peace, Justice and Nonviolence.”

IPB council member and Executive Director of 4kids International, Tyson Smith Berry Jr., hosted IPB Day at the conference on 08 November. The program, titled “Climate Change & Common Security: challenges and solutions in Africa and the world at large,” included various seminars and workshops.

Read Tyson’s report here:

Click here to learn more about IPB Day in Juba!

Matt Meyer, Secretary-General of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA), also shared afterthoughts from the events in Juba:

Open Letter Launch on military spending and climate finance

In a collaboration between the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) , World BEYOND War (WBW), and the International Peace Bureau (IPB), we come to present you two Open Letters written especifically for the occasion of the COP27 happening in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egipt from the 6th to the 18th of November.

The first letter is addressed as an Appeal to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chang (UNFCCC) to Study Climate Impacts of Military Emissions and Military Spending for Climate Financing. The second one, as a Global Appeal to Reduce Military Spending and Re-Allocate to Climate Financing, is addressed to Yannick Glemarec, Executive Director of the Green Climate Fund.

“It is inconceivable that while millions of people are waiting for vaccines, medicines or food to save their lives, the richest countries continue to prioritize their resources in armaments at the expense of people’s well-being, climate, health and equitable recovery.”

We appeal to the UNFCCC and the IPCC to do a special report and assessment of the climate impacts of war and the military. Global military spending has risen to over $2.1 trillion USD. We urge the UNFCCC to call on member states to cut military spending for climate financing.

In 2021, global military spending rose to $2.1 trillion (USD), the highest ever in history. This is 20 times more than the $100 billion pledged for climate finance, a target that Western countries failed to meet. 

The military is the largest consumer of fossil fuels and biggest carbon emitter in the governments of state parties. Countries must demilitarize to decarbonize.

Military emissions and expenditures are derailing progress on the Paris Agreement. Peace, disarmament and demilitarisation are vital to mitigation, transformational adaptation, and climate justice. We also appeal to the Green Climate Fund to study the reduction and re-allocation of military spending for climate financing facilities.

Live from COP27: Climate Change, Militarism, and Justice

The Conference of the Parties (COP27), taking place from 6-18 November in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, intends to bring nations together in a new era of implementation by turning their commitments under the Paris Agreement into action. In the midst of the discussions to happen, how can climate change, militarism, and justice be approached to build an environment of peace?

Join us live from COP27:

Monday, 7 November | 12.00 CET

What to expect from cop27: How is Militarism (not) Addressed? 

Join the International Peace Bureau and CODEPINK as Nancy Mancias gives us the first impressions on the ground in Sharm El-Sheikh at the start of COP27. The discussion will include what is expected to take place in the first week, the atmosphere of a COP in the context of a militarized police state, and the overlap of peace and climate.

Registration: bit.ly/COP27LIVE

Wednesday, 9 November | 16.00 CET/10.00 EST

COP27 Finance Day: Cut Military Spending for Climate Finance

Join IPB and WILPF for a conversation led by Tamara Lorincz, who will provide us insights into what activists are doing in Sharm El-Sheikh to push for reductions in military spending as a tool to support the climate transition and to provide funding for loss and damage resulting from climate change. We will discuss the open letters to the UNFCC and Green Climate Fund, the controversial F-35 carbon impact, and how these ideas are being brought forward at COP27.

Registration: https://bit.ly/COP27LIVE3

Saturday, 12 November | 17.00 CET/11.00 EST

Week 1 Wrap-Up: What have we learned? What to expect in week 2?

Join the International Peace Bureau and CODEPINK as Nancy Mancias shares her experiences from the first week of COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, including the range of civil society activities in the Green Zone, established connections between peace and climate, and what to expect for the second week.

Registration: bit.ly/COP27LIVE2

Tuesday, 15 November | 13.00 CET

Emissions and Spending – A Report from the Blue Zone

Join IPB and Tipping Point North South for a conversation led by Deborah Burton, who will share the results of her organization’s official COP side event, which includes the launching of a methodology around counting of military emissions. We will also discuss a newly-released briefing on military spending and explore the COP’s Blue Zone.

Registration: https://bit.ly/COP27LIVE4

Thursday, 17 November | 19.00 CET/13.00 EST

No War, No Warming: Demilitarization and Climate Justice

Join IPB and Ramon Mejia of the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance for a conversation about their groundbreaking events “No War, No Warming” in the Blue Zone of COP27 and further activities in Sharm El-Sheikh to fight for climate justice and peace.

Registration: https://bit.ly/COP27LIVE5