Militarism and climate finance are inseparable issues that demand urgent attention. Rising global military spending not only diverts crucial resources away from addressing the climate crisis but also contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. As the world gathers for COP29, it’s critical to recognise that militarism undermines efforts to build a just and sustainable future. These are 10 essential facts about the link between militarism and climate finance, emphasising why it’s time to shift resources from conflict to climate solutions.

1. Global Military Expenditure at Record Highs: In 2023, global military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2443 billion.¹ This rampant increase in militarism directly hinders global efforts to address the climate crisis.
2. Military Spending Drives Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An increase in military spending positively correlates with an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.² The military sector is estimated to contribute at least 5.5% of total global emissions, more than twice that of the civilian aviation industry.³
3. Increased military spending means a more insecure world: Rather than promoting peace, military expenditures exacerbate tensions, reduce trust, and lead to more conflicts and wars that devastate people and the planet. Between 2010 and 2022, conflicts nearly doubled, from 30 to 56.⁴
4. Militarism Diverts Resources from Climate Action: Military spending diverts resources away from investments into climate change mitigation, adaptation, and for addressing loss and damage. It also deprives funding from human security needs like health, education, and social safety nets.
5. Military Spending Outpaces Climate Finance: Countries that are historically responsible for the climate crisis continue to increase their military spending while failing to meet international climate finance pledges. Wealthy nations are currently spending 30 times more on their militaries than they are on climate finance for vulnerable countries.⁵
6. Military Spending in the UNFCCC Negotiations: Military spending has been introduced as an alternative source of funding within the UNFCCC space. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III, in its contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (March 2023) explored how moderate reductions in military spending could free up considerable resources for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda, both in the countries that reduce spending and in the form of ODA (…)⁶
7. Public Finance is Available but Misallocated: As demonstrated by ever skyrocketing military spending, public finance is available but misdirected. In negotiations on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) to be adopted at COP29, many developed countries claim lack of funding. At COP28, the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, emerged from a high-level meeting stating: “It is unacceptable that the promise of $100 billion a year made by the developed countries will not come to fruition while, in 2021 alone, military spending reached $2.2 trillion.”⁷ The real issue is the political will to prioritise climate finance over militarisation.
8. Military Spending Can Fund Climate Finance: One year’s military spending by the top 10 military spenders could cover 15 years of promised climate finance commitments ($100 billion per year).⁸ Reallocating even a fraction of these funds could significantly impact global climate action.
9. Militarism Weakens Climate Resilience: Just 3% of global annual military spending could provide $70 billion in funding for climate-resilient development⁹—nearly three times what developed countries were willing to provide for climate adaptation in 2021.¹⁰ Reallocating military spending is critical to address the growing climate crisis.
10. Climate Finance is a Moral and Legal Obligation: Reallocating military spending to financially support those most impacted by the climate crisis is not only a matter of justice but also a legal obligation for developed countries. It requires political leadership to prioritise climate action over militarisation and meet international climate finance commitments.

Learn More