Military emissions, military spending & the “COP of peace”

To be a true ‘COP of Peace’ Baku needs to acknowledge the ‘hard’ issues that impact on peace, the climate emergency and climate finance.

Both recent civil society Global Weeks of Action (Payup and Phaseout 13-20 Sept) and (Peace and Climate Justice 21-28 Sept) timed to coincide with the UN Summit for the Future and UN General Assembly included urgent calls to address the impact of military emissions and spending on the climate agenda. With COP29 just a month away, we need to look at ‘COP of Peace’ and Azerbaijan’s ‘Joint Solemn Appeal for a COP29 Truce’.

The truce itself is a very timely wish, given relentless Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and now Lebanon, of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the ever-worsening and desperate humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan. The Geneva Academy charts the sorry state we are in: Middle East and North Africa have 45 armed conflicts ongoing; Africa, 35 armed conflicts; Asia 21 armed conflicts; Europe has seven armed conflicts; Latin America: six armed conflicts.

With social media and 24/7 news coverage, it is impossible not to know, not to see, the horrendous impact of war and conflict on men and women; infants and children; the elderly and the disabled.

To add to this, the global military carbon footprint (including its supply chain) is estimated to be around 5.5% of global GHG emissions. This figure does not include conflict emissions or post-conflict reconstruction. Researchers estimate the GHG emissions burden of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is currently estimated to be 175 million tCO2e. Latest research on Israel’s war on Gaza estimates the emission burden of 60 million tCO2e. As a result, since COP27 in Egypt, conflict-related GHG emissions have been included in the official COP programme and are now being referenced in negotiations.

How will Azerbaijan advance this?

A TRUCE vs REAL ACTION ON MILITARY EMISSIONS

Azerbaijan is a petro-state – and a petro-state that is accused of ethnic cleansing. Baku was the world’s first oil town and today, fossil fuels make up 90% of Azerbaijan’s exports: the petrostate pioneer is still one of the top 10 most oil- and gas-dependent economies in the world.

In April this year Armenia urged the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hold Azerbaijan responsible for what it said was the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from the Nagorno-Karabakh region, in a conflict that has roots in the post-Soviet era.

Despite this, host country Azerbaijan is calling for the climate emergency to be the moment nations put past disputes aside and come together in the spirit of co-operation, in order to move forward on finding solutions to the climate crisis. It has recognised this by having its Peace and Climate agenda flow through the COP29 programme.

And in one regard, its truce statement does make an important recognition.

Conflicts increase greenhouse gas emissions and ravage the environment, polluting soil, water and air. The devastation of ecosystems and pollution caused by conflicts worsen climate change and undermine our efforts to safeguard the planet.

This is a big step forward: COP29 acknowledges the impact of conflict-related GHG emissions. But remember the 5.5% global military carbon footprint doesn’t include conflict emissions. At 5.5% this is more than the combined GHG emissions of the 54 nations of the African continent. It is more than twice that of civilian aviation.

So to the hard part for this and future COPs: getting military GHG emissions in peace and war on the UNFCCC agenda.

We need to see all nations to compulsory submit full GHG military emissions reporting to IPCC/UNFCCC and to include their militaries’ and military technology industries in their NDC GHG emission reduction plans and targets. We are calling for the planned AR7 cycle IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Cities to include the impacts of war and conflict on cities. And article 2.1.(c) of the Paris Agreement obliges states to “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”. On this basis, increased military spending undermines the mandate of Article 2.1.(c) and should therefore be progressively reduced.

All this goes way beyond the call for a month-long truce.

MILITARY SPENDING & FINDING $5 TRILLION ANNUALLY FOR THE NEW CLIMATE GOAL

At the very moment we face this existential climate emergency, some nations are opting for an insane arms race. Military emissions and military spending are indivisible. Military emissions positively correlate to military spending – the more you spend on big ticket fossil-fuel reliant weaponry and equipment, the more emissions you emit. And right now, we are in a new arms race which is completely counter to every climate target. There is no way for the military to greenwash their way out of the climate crisis―there is no realistic alternative energy source to wholesale replacing fossil fuels by 2050.

This year global military spending has reached a record high of $2.4 trillion. It has increased by 27% since 2014. If the current trend continues, between 2024 and 2030 we can expect to see more than $17 trillion of public money spent on the global military. Around half of this $17tr trillion will be spent by Annex II―rich developed countries―on their own militaries. From there, much of it will find its way into the arms industry and their ever-increasing profit margins.

At Dubai, Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, called for at least $2.4 trillion annually to keep global climate change goals within reach.

The #PAYUP campaign is calling for a minimum of twice that at $5tr annually, to be paid by the Global North to meet its historic commitments to the global south. In laying out exactly how to raise this $5trillion, this latest research from Oil Change International included diverting military spending alongside an end to fossil fuel subsidies and deep tax measures.

As the Guardian reported:

A wealth tax on billionaires could generate $483bn globally, while a financial transaction tax could raise $327bn. Taxes on sales of big technology, arms and luxury fashion would be another $112bn, and redistributing 20% of public military spending would be worth $454bn if implemented around the world.

In the need to shift climate finance from billions to trillions it makes complete sense for the big spending military nations to have their priorities scrutinised and for that to lead to calls for the redirection of a significant percentage of those trillions to climate finance.

THE WORD IS SPREADING

Also with its eye on COP29, the recent UN General Assembly in September saw some nations also put the spotlight on the arms-race vs climate finance scandal. Brazil’s President Lula began his speech to the General Assembly by addressing war.

The year 2023 holds the sad record for the highest number of conflicts since the Second World War. Global military spending increased for the ninth consecutive year — reaching 2.4 trillion dollars. More than 90 billion dollars have been secured for nuclear arsenals. These resources could have been used to combat hunger and address climate change. What we are seeing is an increase in military capabilities…..This year, the number of people in need of humanitarian aid in the world will reach 300 million.

At a UN General Assembly press conference held by leaders of AOSIS (Association of Small Island States and LDC Group (Lesser Developed Countries), the Chair of AOSIS Fatumanava III Dr. Paolelei Luteru said

“It is also incredibly disheartening to hear of leaders from developed countries now changing their tune and amending their climate finance commitments to climate “ambitions” . We certainly understand the hardship of economic budget restraints. Yet it is a very bitter pill to swallow when we see bigger countries somehow conjuring endless streams of money to finance military conflicts with no end in sight.  Last year, 2023, saw the world military expenditure increase for the ninth consecutive year, reaching a total of $2,443 billion.

Funds for military conflicts and aggressions? Available at the ready. Yet funds to save lives and livelihoods from the climate crisis are continuously delayed. I do not need to remind you of the long overdue delivery of the $100 billion goal – and how grossly inadequate it has proven to be”.

ONE MORE FOR THE POT – CLIMATE FINACE TAX ON ARMS INDUSTRY

At the Bonn Climate Conference in June, the Arab Group & G77+China suggested developed countries could raise $441 billion ‘’by adopting targeted domestic measures” such as a “financial transaction tax”, a defence company tax, a fashion tax and a “Big Tech Monopoly Tax”.

While rich nations (Annex II) are obligated to pay for international climate finance under the Paris Agreement, they are now saying they are struggling to find the funds to do so and are calling on countries like China to step up also. As a route to pushing this back, Saudi Arabia, endorsed by the Arab Group and G77+China offered this ‘sales tax’ proposal.

‘Referring to the document in talks on the new finance goal yesterday, Saudi Arabia’s negotiator justified a tax on arms manufacturers by saying that military emissions of planet-heating gases represent 5% of global historical emissions. “One… potential idea is to have a tax on defence companies in developed countries,” he said, suggesting it could be put forward….  Around $21 billion a year could come from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the top 80 defense firms in developed countries, the paper says.’  Climate Home News

The timing of the Saudi /Arab Group/G77+China Sales Tax proposal chimed exactly with our report released for Bonn ‘Excess profits tax on the arms Industry to fund climate finance’. We are watching its development closely while we continue to advocate an excess profits tax, not a sales tax and one that is universal, not just levied on rich world arms companies.

We sincerely hope this idea remains on the table and is more thoroughly explored.

FROM BAKU TO BELEM

It seems that the scale and significance of military spending is – finally – finding its way into the climate finance narrative.

The Baku COP of Peace would seem to be a very good ‘framing’ for these bigger and tougher related issues.  But there is something bigger at play here and it’s PR of course.

A year ago, Azerbaijan attacked and took control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region — a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan — displacing more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians in a violent military operation many have called ethnic cleansing.  A year later, almost to the day after the invasion began, Azerbaijan announced a “COP 29 Truce,” calling for a cessation of all hostilities around the world during the climate summit it is hosting in November….While Azerbaijan swears its “COP Truce” is not just a “cynical PR stunt,” its $4.7 million contract with a public relations firm suggests otherwise…Teneo Strategy has a tall order: making a warring petrostate look like Mother Teresa. But the PR firm has embraced the “flood the zone” mantra to great effect, contacting 144 journalists in 88 different global media outlets some 500 times to promote Azerbaijan’s COP 29 agenda — including its peace-seeking narrative. Responsible Statecraft

If Azerbaijan really wants this COP of Peace to have lasting impact, it would go way beyond the ‘truce for a month’ concept. It would use its influence to push for both military emissions and spending to be more fully and comprehensively addressed.

On the other hand, we know the military establishment will be just as present at Baku as it was in Dubai. COP28 saw NATO head Jens Stoltenberg speak about the link between ‘climate and security’ and the efforts of NATO to make (superficial) military emission reductions. Stoltenburg did not address however, the impact on the climate of the 2% of GDP minimum he would like to see each of NATO’s 32 members spend on their fossil-fuel dependent militaries.

Military thinking is taking us down the road of the ‘securitisation’ of the climate emergency. The answer to everything from climate refugees to climate related conflict to humanitarian response is framed as a military response matter.

This is at best wholly inadequate, at worse, wholly disingenuous. The climate emergency is not a pretext for the military to re-invent itself as the climate ‘saviour’. Its emissions are part of the problem, its ever-rising budgets are part of the problem. We need a paradigm shift on what we understand as ‘defence’ in the face of 2 degrees of warming and it’s not ‘less fuel more fight’ principle that will see us through.

We need to build the greatest army of all time, composed of warriors of life. The army of life will not have the weapons of the global oligarchy, it will not have nuclear weapons, it will not compete for weapons, it will not have the money of the banks, it will not have the power to destroy the children in the genocides of the oligarchy, but it will have the greatest power of all—the power of a united humanity that will not let its existence on the planet be taken away from it.  There is only one infinitesimal point of life in millions of light-years around the universe, and it is called Earth, and on it, there is a superior life, which is intelligent life—humanity.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro at the 79th UN General Assembly  New York, Sept 24, 2024.

With President Lula’s leadership, supported by the President of Colombia; with increasing engagement by AOSIS, LDCs and the Arab Group, it may well be COP30 next year in Brazil, where civil society joins with parties to see action on both the climate change and climate finance impacts of militarism in all its forms, more fully and meaningfully taken on board.

 

Deborah Burton TPNS

23/10/24