The carbon footprint of EU's defence spurge

We have faced two of the hottest years on record consecutively; the Mediterranean is warming a fifth faster than the rest of the world’s seas, and lives and livelihoods are at risk across the continent. Yet despite more intense climate risks than ever, Europe is investing in weapons with more zeal and aggression than it has ever approached the climate emergency.

Figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute last week show that world military expenditure reached a record $2.7 trillion [€2.43 trillion] in 2024, driven most of all by a huge 17-percent increase in military spending by Europe (including Russia). 

This European arms race has only deepened in 2025.

On 22 April, the Spanish prime minister announced a 50-percent boost of €10.5bn to annual military spending (€34bn) while saying the country remained “pacifist”. 

This follows the announcement by the European Commission in March that it will mobilise over €800bn for European militaries over the next four years, breaking with fiscal spending rules but only for military expenditure. 

UK prime minister Keir Starmer in February not only promised an additional £13.4bn [€15.9bn] more on the military from 2027, but unashamedly took the money from the most climate vulnerable in the world by slashing development assistance aid to pay for it.

In Germany, the government has announced a “Zeitenwende” [turning point], changing its constitution to enable a €100bn fund for “comprehensive investment” into the German military. This was initiated by former chancellor Olaf Scholz, but his successor Friedrich Merz has promised to supercharge the spending.

Europe’s climate ambition meanwhile is in retreat.

Ursula von der Leyen who took the reins of the commission in 2019 on the platform of a Green New Deal, has replaced her environmental rhetoric of global collaboration to tackle a planetary crisis with dark warnings of military threats, tightened security and aggressive economic competition.

The European Environment Agency reports that the EU is likely to miss more than two-thirds of its 2030 environmental targets. 

The commitments are being weakened further with the commission this year diluting emission standards for cars and currently considering loopholes for industry and agriculture that will undermine EU’s commitment to cut 90 percent of greenhouse gas pollution by 2040.

How to respond?

How should climate activists and those concerned with global heating respond to Europe’s embrace of a ‘security’ emergency that has completely displaced its commitment to tackle the far bigger climate emergency?

So far, the response from climate groups has been rather muted, with few statements by climate organisations and little evident public resistance. 

Some perhaps feel that taking on this issue is not a priority or a front they want to open up given the already difficult battle against fossil fuel interests. Others may even see a potential ally in the military, which has included climate science in military planning and talked of climate change as a ‘threat multiplier.’

There is a real danger, however, that the rapid escalation of the global arms race could completely derail all efforts to tackle the climate crisis, absorbing all political attention, diverting resources from climate action and adding to the problem through increased military greenhouse gas emissions. 

A joint report by Transnational Institute, Tipping Point North South and Stop Wapenhandel [Stop the arms trade] estimated that if all Nato members meet the target of two-percent GDP spending, between 2021 and 2028 their total collective military carbon footprint would be 2 billion tCO2e, greater than the annual GHG emissions of Russia, a major petroleum-producing country.

For European Nato members, the €1 trillion extra spending needed to achieve the two percent of GDP target for military expenditure is equivalent to the €1 trillion needed for the EU Green Deal.

Even before the recent rush to war, Europe was spending more than three times as much on arms as Russia.

A global arms race will only ratchet up spending everywhere, bolster authoritarian governments, and reward arms companies that thrive on instability and conflict. It is a deeply dangerous and counter-productive investment when the overriding urgency is to invest in preventing dangerous levels of global heating that threatens ever more extreme weather and disruption of complex global systems from food to trade to finance.

Climate organisations and all those concerned with a liveable future on the planet know that true security and collective safety depend on cooperative and collaborative action and policies rooted in justice.

This is the only way to tackle the root causes of the climate crisis, where the greed and pollution of a small rich few, together with Big Oil, have created a crisis that threatens the living conditions for the marginalised majority. 

That is why the resounding call of the climate movements has not just been for climate action but for climate justice.

An ever more armed planet threatens to undermine all possibility of climate justice — building walls, jets and tanks in place of zero-carbon, resilient and just communities.

The resources currently being thrown towards military spending could and should be used to end, not extend, the crisis. The $693bn spent by Europe on the military in 2024 could instead be invested in good-quality green jobs, a clean energy revolution that reduces energy bills and addresses the cost of living crisis,  repairing damaged ecosystems, and protecting people and communities worldwide against the impacts of climate change.

This year, we turn 25 and are looking for 2,500 new supporting members to take their stake in EU democracy. A functioning EU relies on a well-informed public – you.