Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced “Lifestyle for the Environment” (LiFE) at COP26 in Glasgow on 1st November 2021. It was a noble effort to give more visibility to making consumption patterns more sustainable. In this proposed framework, every citizen and stakeholder contributes to the green transition through mindful everyday consumer practices.

However, during current times of war in Europe and beyond, these noble priorities may not only be mothballed. The increasing militarisation creates a more unstable international environment and causes significant additional carbon emissions and environmental pollution. Thus, we propose that peace-making efforts remain a precondition for LiFE. Furthermore, implementing a global climate tax should be considered within the framework of G20 discussions.

How armed conflicts endanger the global green transition

Current tensions in the international political systems and ongoing wars create a serious obstacle to supporting change in environmental and climate policies. The existing regional conflicts in Syria and Yemen are far from being resolved. The political situation in countries like Afghanistan and Ethiopia remains fragile. In addition to these conflicts, since the announcement of the LiFE initiative, we witnessed a full-scale war caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the unstable situation in East Asia, especially around the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Certainly, armed conflicts are detrimental to climate crisis mitigation efforts. Here the Ukraine war serves as a striking example.

Since February 2022, the conflict took approximately at least 200,000 combat losses and cost many more civilian victims. According to a recent UNEP report, the war caused massive chemical pollution and degradation of human and natural habitats. The Ukrainian ministry for environment recorded 2,300 instances of environmental damage: 2.9 million hectares of protected areas and 3 million hectares of forests have been affected so far by the conflict. Furthermore, compared to OECD forecasts from December 2021, global GDP is now projected to be at least US $2.8 trillion lower in 2023. Energy and food crises amplified by war force many to return to the cheapest but environmentally most damaging fuels, such as black or brown coal.

The pressing global challenges, including climate action, may suffer from the concentration on security challenges. We risk further development of the environmentally heavily damaging industries needed for arms production, such as the steel and chemical sectors.

The era of arms manufacturing and militarisation

The military-industrial complex is already a significant source of carbon emissions worldwide. Although there were attempts to add them to the main agenda at COP27 in 2022, there is no strategy for controlling military emissions. Weapons production is simply not sustainable.

Watson Institute at the Brown University emphasised that the US Department of Defense is the largest single institutional consumer of fossil fuels contributing to climate change. Reliable data from China and Russia are more difficult to obtain, but the sheer size of the military complex in these countries suggests a huge carbon footprint as well. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), sales of arms and military services by the 100 largest companies in the industry reached US$592 billion in 2021, a 1.9-percent increase compared with 2020 in real terms.

Because of the war in Ukraine and refocus on hard security, further global growth of military spending is likely. Japan and Germany, economies number 3. and 4. by nominal GDP, committed themselves to a rapid increase of military and defence spending to 2 percent of GDP. Actors geographically closer to the conflict zones plan even sharper spikes, e.g., Poland announced a rise from 2.1 percent GDP in 2022 to 3 percent GDP in 2024. These new commitments, viewed as necessary in the context of deteriorating international security situations, directly contribute to further carbon emissions and environmental pollution.

The arms industry developed ESG reporting to meet public expectations and legal obligations, but it’s conducted in a heterogeneous manner. Leonie Nimmo from the Conflict and Environment Observatory, having analysed the Environmental CSR reporting by the arms industry, found that the lack of a consistent reporting framework for energy, water and waste makes it difficult to compare companies within this sector. Moreover, claims over the potential of synthetic aviation fuels for military use ignore huge financial and energy costs. Although, as the arms manufacturers progressively respond to the ESG requirement, more discussion on the public spending on the military and its real impact on the environment and climate is required.

The other problem with increased defence spending, precisely because of its secretive nature, is the potential absence of public scrutiny in many countries. These may lead to corruption-generating practices and further decrease the commitment to climate finance and green transition. Moreover, as SIPRI states, there exists no comprehensive database that compiles disaggregated military spending data, thus, the composition of military expenditure and priorities in military planning is missing. The risk, that because of more imminent security threats climate resilience and green transition initiatives will remain critically underfunded on a global level, remains high.

Humanitarian aid remains underfunded 

Moreover, concentration on military and security spending may lead to continuous underfunding of other global priorities. Although the total international humanitarian assistance slowly grows in absolute numbers, around 50 percent of humanitarian needs remain unmet. According to Development Initiatives, in 2020 and 2021 the percentage of total requirements met was estimated at 51 percent and 53 percent. Funding requirements decreased only marginally from a historic high in 2020, with the shortfall in funding by volume the second highest ever in 2021. Due to the spike in defence and military spending, the funding gap in humanitarian assistance is likely to grow in the years to come.

Global climate tax: How to find synergies between peace efforts and climate initiatives?

The focus on traditional security and the increase in militarisation cause remarkable additional carbon emissions and environmental pollution. In the longer run, it may drive public and private spending away from climate-related policies or concentrate investment only in the wealthier geographies.

Therefore, we need a broader international framework which caters to both the security challenges, i.e., deter international actors from entering armed conflicts and provide finance for critically underfunded programmes related to SDGs.

A global climate tax should be considered as an economic tool in the broader toolbox discussed by global leaders. Let us explore employing the power of international trade and development funds in bringing change:

• A state violating international peace provisions should be determined as such by the UN General Assembly.
• If trade with such a party cannot be avoided because of its role in the international trade system, this trade should be effectively taxed. Such taxation can be operationalised as a percentage of due payment by the contractors of entities coming from aggressive states. Funds raised in this way should be transferred to an international green development fund.
• This fund may be financed by a similar tax on international trade in armaments and military technologies.
• A future global unified ESG reporting for the defence industry could raise public awareness of the climate costs of armed conflicts as well as military industries and subsequently add more public pressure both on introducing more climate-neutral technologies and practices

There is, of course, no silver bullet for complex challenges. Nevertheless, in times of global upheavals, we should proactively look for solutions to deter aggressive military behaviour, cap military spending and catalyse investments in green transformations. G20, with its track record in successful economic coordination policies, may become an important forum for addressing these challenges. Otherwise, we risk losing yet again a decade for climate response due to mounting international conflicts.