It’s a cliché to say there is always money for war, but maybe that’s because we know it to be the case. If it is right to demand that rich nations’ pay up for their historic emissions burden if it is right to address the damage of western finance on development through the lens of indebtedness or tax havens, then surely the time has come to look at the impact on the global south of rich nations’ foreign and defence policy as manifested through insane – ever rising – levels of military spending. Righting the Wrong Kinds Of Wealth Transfer It is projected to cost $2 trillion over its lifespan – a massive public to private wealth transfer. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Fighter jet ( still far from ‘mission capable’) is partially built and maintained by British weapons makers and now being sold around the world. And while humanitarian appeals may or may not reach their target, weapons manufacturing is lucrative business to be in. They will face the horrors of war, their homes destroyed and will rely on emergency humanitarian appeals – while at the same time living on the frontline of climate change.Ĭonversely, the war profits accruing to defence contractors will guarantee very healthy shareholder dividends. In the UK, the MoD, by its own admission, is the single largest contributor to GHG emissions within the central government, responsible for more than half of the total.įor all this, militaries are exempt from compulsory reporting of their GHG emissions to UN processes and have no realistic or practical zero-carbon plans.Īnd ultimately, these expensive fossil-fuel-dependent weapons systems are intended for use, as the people of Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan will testify. The Pentagon is the single largest consumer of energy in the US and the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. For example, F-35, the most advanced and most expensive fighter jet currently on sale, drinks 6000 litres/ 1585 gallons of fuel per flight hour. They are locked into fossil fuel dependent hardware like tanks, warships and fighter jets, guzzling enormous amount of fossil fuels in operation. They account for 87% of annual $ 2trillion global military spending (day to day operations, overseas bases, conducting war / conflict etc). The bulk of military spending is by G20 nations. Although the emissions data available is far from comprehensive, it’s obvious that military spending literally fuels military GHG emissions. Global military spending is currently $2 trillion per year, twice as much as at the height of the Cold War. Winners & Losers–Conflict–Climate Relationship Moreover, that military spending + military emissions combined = a major unaddressed development concern. It soon became very clear to us ever rising military spending was key to significant military emissions. Before too long we had inevitably arrived at the military/climate/development angle. Ho-Chih Lin at Tipping Point North South, we’d been researching military spending through the development lens. I now see something similar in the climate/military relationship because conveniently, deliberately, hidden away inside the climate debate is the almost invisible matter of global military GHG emissions. A timely guest post from Deborah Burton Stumbling Upon A Rather Well-Funded Gas-Guzzling Elephant in The RoomĪs a former trade and tax campaigner (Christian Aid), I was fascinated by the progression of development sector campaigns – from debt to trade, from trade to tax.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |