Choices regarding spending

Choices regarding spending

 The annual Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations has traditionally made many promises but delivered few results. The majority of observers noted that this year's COP27 even reversed commitments made at COP26 in Glasgow.

The carbon war on our planet and the way the world's richest nations responded to the Ukraine conflict are, without a doubt, starkly different. The summit's encounter with a significant additional obstacle in 2022 was less well-known. This year, the war in Ukraine, which has been the United States' and the European Union's top foreign policy priority since Russia's invasion began in February, took precedence over the climate crisis. The carbon war on our planet and the way the world's richest nations responded to the Ukraine conflict are, without a doubt, starkly different.

The United States and its NATO allies have willingly absorbed severe economic shocks brought on by the war's energy price increases since Russia's invasion began, welcomed nearly seven million refugees, and provided Ukraine with military assistance worth more than $25 billion.

These nations did not hesitate to increase their military spending despite the possibility of a global recession. For instance, Germany allocated 104 billion euros ($100 billion) from its budget for 2022 to the armed forces, and the US House of Representatives approved a record $840 billion for the military.

However, even at COP27, these wealthiest nations were unable to provide the $100 billion in climate finance promised to the world's most climate-vulnerable nations in 2009. The richest countries spent $9.45 trillion on their militaries between 2013 and 2021, compared to an estimated $234 billion on climate finance, according to a recent report co-published by my employer, the Transnational Institute. To put it another way, they have spent 30 times as much on the military as on climate finance.

At COP27, nations finally agreed to create a loss and damage mechanism to provide funds to impoverished nations affected by severe climate impacts after years of pressure, but it is currently just an empty pot. The increased tensions between the United States and China and the escalating arms race that has developed since the Russian invasion suggest that the majority of wealthy nations will not place a high priority on filling that pot anytime soon.

Additionally, every dollar spent on the military exacerbates the climate crisis, so these spending decisions are significant not only because they divert resources away from urgently required climate action. The majority of militaries use a lot of fossil fuels. According to one estimate, military emissions could account for 5.5% of global emissions. Prior to Russia, the global military would be the fourth largest emitter in the world if it were a nation.