The number one issue put forth by politicians and other climate change skeptics is that of the economic impact that the climate fight will entail. They are right. Adopting climate friendly practices on a global scale will be a massively expensive undertaking. To pour a great amount of resources on to a matter whose consequences we won’t even notice for decades feels like a ridiculous operation. Aside from the obvious holes in this line of argument, it is interesting to note that we already do spend such exorbitant amounts of resources on what can only be categorized as less crucial missions. Global military spending amounted to 1.9 trillion dollars last year (the highest it has been since 1988) while global spending on climate related finance totaled not over 579 billion according to Climate Policy Initiative, a climate focused think-tank. The absurdity of this distinction is only emphasized by the fact that climate change financing usually brings with it jobs and improved technology whereas military spending helps us better fight amongst one another. Of course, the military prefers to refer to this “fight money” as the ‘cost of security’. Use any form of euphemism you want but it wont drive us away from the real demon that is climate change.
Disparities
The current figures associated with climate finance are much higher than previous levels but still fall far short of what is needed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. Climate finance provided by governments totaled a paltry amount of 37 billion dollars in 2017/2018. The bulk of climate spending still comes from private finance which totaled 326 billion USD in 2017/18. In 2019, the 5 countries that spent the most on military were USA, China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The US military budget was 732 billion dollars. This figure which in itself was higher than that of the remaining 4 countries combined was also bigger than global climate spending. The US alone spends on military what the rest of the world together spend on fighting climate change.
Causes for spikes in expenditure
The increase in military expense can perhaps be attributed to the emergence of China as a world superpower in a way that reminds us of the Soviet era. As a precautionary measure against Chinese supremacy, several nations have ramped up their defense quotas. Volatility amongst African states is another trigger for increased spending in the sub-Saharan region. While the US likes to blame China for its increased military spending, the relative allocation of budgets by these countries must also be compared to get a better understanding of what’s at play. The Chinese spend almost half of their defense spending on climate while the Trump administration’s proposal for 2021 showcased steep cuts in the budgets of EPA and Department of Energy.
Hogwash reasoning
The prime goal of any government is the safety and security of its citizens. The war budget is hence warranted. This is the key claptrap argument used to justify the colossal defense expenditure. The senseless notion falls flat on its face when you consider the true cost of the global climate problem. With increase in greenhouse gases and subsequently global temperatures, polar ice will melt, and sea levels will rise. These effects will further cause a variety of climatic anomalies like massive floods, hurricanes, and droughts. Such trends will then impact economic systems. The effects always trickle down to the common citizen.
The military will be helping itself by going green
Analysis of general military spending patterns shows that more money is being spent on developing infrastructure resilience to climate change. This involves efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change by building structures that can withstand tropical storms, raising piers, strengthening sea walls, and increasing the robustness of systems in coastal regions. It is evident that the Department of Defense recognizes the consequences of extreme weather caused by climate change and continues to take steps to fight the effects.
It is in the military’s best interest to uphold the move to sustainability. A stable environment can potentially correlate to decreased political unrest. Series of unfortunate weather-related events will only have a detrimental impact on the defense system’s ability to maintain political stability. Even if you choose to ignore the macroscopic effects and focus on the ability to fight hostile attacks, green technology will only help in that regard. For instance, green EVs if used in the army might require less refueling and hence provide less downtime in unwelcoming regions. Such innovations can only spark positive outcomes even with respect to immediate welfare.
The militaristic perspective considers its expenses necessary to maintain order in the world. It does not seek to fix the world we live in. We need to recognize that taking care of the planet is our priority. In doing so we will only be taking care of ourselves. Senator Bernie Sanders had proposed a 16.3 trillion USD blueprint to fight climate change before dropping out of the US presidential race. He intended to fund the mission by cutting military funding among other things. Although not much can be said about that plan now, it is clear that more needs to be done in the search for global warming solutions. Climate spending has definitely been on the rise in recent years, though the rate of growth is far from optimum. We need to witness rapid increase in climate spending in order to limit the harmful effects of global warming. Climate is a far bigger threat than any terrorist.