18 September 2024

Open letter to U.N. Secretary-General H. E. Mr. António Guterres.

In copy to: His Excellency Philemon Yang, President of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly; Deputy Secretary General Amina Mohammed; Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu; Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme Achim Steiner; Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Mr. Simon Stiell

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

SUMMIT OF THE FUTURE & UN GENERAL DEBATE

Urgent pressure needed to address the role and responsibility of runaway military expenditure in the climate emergency through the allocation of trillions of dollars to fossil-fuel reliant militaries and associated (supply-chain) industries instead of climate finance.

The United Nations has long recognised the harm done to people and planet by the mis-spent billions and trillions of dollars allocated by governments to the world’s militaries, right up to the present day.

First — we need peace. Conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and beyond are causing a devastating loss of life. And they are diverting political attention and scarce resources from the urgent work of ending poverty and averting climate catastrophe. It’s time to silence the guns in line with the UN Charter and international law. Stop spending on war and destruction. Invest in peace and development instead.

Secretary-General’s remarks at the Opening of the Ministerial Segment of the High-Level Political Forum Delivered by the Deputy Secretary-General, 15 July 2024

Both the Global week of action for climate finance and a fossil free future (13-20 Sept) and the Global Week of Action for Peace and Climate Justice (21-28 Sept) call for runaway military spending as an urgent source to tap for climate finance. This letter offers up some practical proposals on this.

CLIMATE BREAKDOWN: THE ROLE OF THE FOSSIL-FUEL RELIANT GLOBAL MILITARY

Ever rising military spending contributes significantly to increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is incompatible with every climate target since the more spent on heavy-duty fossil-fuel hungry weaponry, the greater the military emissions.

  • The global military carbon footprint was estimated to be 5.5% of total global emissions.
  • This is more than the combined annual emissions of the 54 nations of the African continent.
  • It is twice as much as emissions from civilian aviation.
  • This estimate does not include conflict-related emissions.

HARD TRUTH: TRILLIONS FOR THE BIG MILITARIES BUT NOT CLIMATE FINANCE

Agreement on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance is mired in obfuscation and delay by the very nations historically responsible for the climate crisis and which have persistently failed to fulfil their legally binding climate finance pledges.

  • The Climate Action Network has estimated that rich nations need to pay developing countries a minimum of $5 trillion per annum in public climate finance.
  • The wealthiest countries (Annex II) spend 30 times more on their militaries than on providing climate finance for the world’s most vulnerable countries.
  • In 2023 the world spent $2.4 trillion on their militaries.
  • If the current trend continues, between 2024 and 2030 we can expect to see more than $17 trillion spent on the global military, around 55% will be spent by Annex II rich developed countries on their own militaries
  • Value for money: the $2 trillion lifetime cost of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jets could have funded UN disaster risk reduction for the next 4,000 years or global biodiversity conservation at $100 billion per annum for the next 20 years or WHO funding at $2 billion per annum for the next 1,000 years.

ACTION ON MILITARY SPENDING & MILITARY EMISSIONS

To reduce and redirect military spending is win-win for the climate, climate finance and human security. The IPCC Working Group III in its contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (March 2023) explored such a reallocation as “(…) moderate reductions in military spending (which may involve conflict resolution and cross-country agreements on arms limitations) could free up considerable resources for the SDG agenda.”

Military Spending: Routes to reduce and redirect

(i) COP29 − COP of PEACE to call for redirection of military spending to climate finance.

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom briefing ‘Towards Climate Justice: Redistributing Military Spending to Climate Finance’ calls for NCQG and cover text of the “COP of Peace” to include the redirection of military spending as a key way for developed countries to fulfil their public support obligation to developing countries.

(ii) Consider universal, equitable routes to reducing and redirecting military expenditure

‘The Peace Dividend Campaign’ launched in 2020 with over 50 Nobel Prize Laureates. It proposes to reduce military spending by 2 per cent per year, in all countries. The 2 per cent cuts over five years, starting in 2025, would liberate an estimated $1.3 trillion and could be redirected to a global fund to tackle the climate crisis and other challenges such as pandemics.

‘The Five Percent Proposal’ is a two-part formula to sustainably cut and redirect military spending that: 1) almost halves global military spending via absolute annual cuts of 5% over 10 years (compounded to 40%), with those savings redirected to people and planet and 2) thereafter implements a 5 percent threshold formula, designed to significantly rein back annual military spending increases such that any increase will be much smaller than economic growth. A 40% reduction in military spending from the current level could release many hundreds of billions of dollars for human and planetary needs, including climate finance, green transition, poverty reduction, biodiversity conservation and habitat preservations among others, and also reduce military carbon footprint by up to 40%.

Taxing polluters and profiteers: the arms industry

The top 100 arms companies accounted for $592 billion in arms sales in 2021 (pre Gaza, pre Ukraine). Past and present conflicts grossly inflate arms industry profits.

(iii) Sales tax on developed world arms companies. At this year’s SB60 Bonn Climate Conference, Saudi Arabia, endorsed by the Arab Group and G77+China offered a proposal whereby developed countries can raise $441 billion “without compromising spending on other priorities entirely by adopting targeted domestic measures” such as a “financial transaction tax”, a defence company tax, a fashion tax and a “Big Tech Monopoly Tax”. An estimated $21 billion a year could come from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the top 80 defense firms in developed countries.

(iv) Excess profits tax on the global arms industry could raise $30 billion dollars a year to fund international climate finance. In times of war, an additional punitive excess profits tax could deliver considerably more. Had such a war profiteers tax been applied in 2024 (for Ukraine and Gaza wars), an extra $52bn would have brought the 2024 total to $82 billion.

Military Emissions

The war in Ukraine and Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has brought long overdue attention to this issue at UNFCCC climate meetings (Bonn and COP), attracting considerable global media coverage.

Civil society has been highly pro-active on this matter and wants to see (i) all nations to compulsory submit full GHG military emissions reporting to IPCC/UNFCCC  (ii) all nations to include their militaries’ and military technology industries in their NDC GHG emission reduction plans and targets (iii) the Subsidiary Body of Scientific and Technical Advice to elaborate rules for reporting of military and conflict-related emissions under the Paris Agreement in the context of the enhanced transparency framework (iv) the planned AR8 cycle IPCC Special Report on Cities to include the impacts of war and conflict on cities.

Finally, 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.

CONCLUSION

Ever growing militarisation has seen our world torn apart by wars rooted in failed 20th century foreign policy-making.

Israel has dropped more bombs on Gaza in less than a year than were dropped on Dresden, Hamburg and London combined during WW2. From post 9/11 wars to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; from Yemen to Sudan and Congo, there is no end to the prolonged bloodshed, loss, pain and trauma.

The expansion of a fossil fuelled global arms race is well underway and new ‘cold war’ rhetoric is rising again. This at the very same moment humanity and all life on our planet Earth is facing the existential threat of substantially overshooting 1.5°C.

Civil society calls are clear.

Global North governments should end public subsidies for fossil fuels. Tax systems should be reformed, so polluters and profiteers pay their dues. Vast amounts of government spending on weapons and military operations that harm people, destroy the environment while also being a massive source of carbon emissions, should be diverted towards programs for climate justice and our planet’s security.

 

Deborah Burton, Kevin McCullough

Co-Founders

Tipping Point North South/Transform Defence Project