Combat vs. The Climate: The Military and Climate Security Budgets Compared
A new report connects U.S. military engagement and the threat of climate change.
As the U.S. debates the President's plan for new military engagement, hundreds of thousands converged on New York to urge the world's nations to take stronger action against the threat of climate change. A new report connects these two issues, and finds that the gap between U.S. spending on traditional instruments of military force and on averting climate catastrophe has narrowed slightly. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of security spending on climate change grew from 1% of military spending to 4%.
The report argues that a change from 1% to 4% of security spending is not commensurate with the role U.S. military strategy now assigns to climate change: as a major threat to U.S. security. Nor is it remotely sufficient to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control.
The U.S. balance between military and climate security spending compares unfavorably to the record of its nearest "peer competitor," China. Although China's environmental record is unquestionably problematic, it strikes a far better balance than the U.S. in the allocation of its spending on military force and on climate change. Its climate security spending, at $162 billion, nearly equals its military spending, at $188.5 billion.
Other Key Findings:
- The balance in the area of international assistance has not improved. The U.S. actually increased its military aid to other countries from 2008-2013, relative to the help it gave them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
- For the price of four Littoral Combat Ships -- currently there are 16 more in the budget than the Pentagon even wants -- we could have double the Energy Department's entire budget for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
- The U.S. currently spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined. The disparity between U.S. military spending and the countries presumed to be threats to our security is even more extreme.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As the U.S. debates the President's plan for new military engagement, hundreds of thousands converged on New York to urge the world's nations to take stronger action against the threat of climate change. A new report connects these two issues, and finds that the gap between U.S. spending on traditional instruments of military force and on averting climate catastrophe has narrowed slightly. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of security spending on climate change grew from 1% of military spending to 4%.
The report argues that a change from 1% to 4% of security spending is not commensurate with the role U.S. military strategy now assigns to climate change: as a major threat to U.S. security. Nor is it remotely sufficient to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control.
The U.S. balance between military and climate security spending compares unfavorably to the record of its nearest "peer competitor," China. Although China's environmental record is unquestionably problematic, it strikes a far better balance than the U.S. in the allocation of its spending on military force and on climate change. Its climate security spending, at $162 billion, nearly equals its military spending, at $188.5 billion.
Other Key Findings:
- The balance in the area of international assistance has not improved. The U.S. actually increased its military aid to other countries from 2008-2013, relative to the help it gave them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
- For the price of four Littoral Combat Ships -- currently there are 16 more in the budget than the Pentagon even wants -- we could have double the Energy Department's entire budget for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
- The U.S. currently spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined. The disparity between U.S. military spending and the countries presumed to be threats to our security is even more extreme.
As the U.S. debates the President's plan for new military engagement, hundreds of thousands converged on New York to urge the world's nations to take stronger action against the threat of climate change. A new report connects these two issues, and finds that the gap between U.S. spending on traditional instruments of military force and on averting climate catastrophe has narrowed slightly. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of security spending on climate change grew from 1% of military spending to 4%.
The report argues that a change from 1% to 4% of security spending is not commensurate with the role U.S. military strategy now assigns to climate change: as a major threat to U.S. security. Nor is it remotely sufficient to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control.
The U.S. balance between military and climate security spending compares unfavorably to the record of its nearest "peer competitor," China. Although China's environmental record is unquestionably problematic, it strikes a far better balance than the U.S. in the allocation of its spending on military force and on climate change. Its climate security spending, at $162 billion, nearly equals its military spending, at $188.5 billion.
Other Key Findings:
- The balance in the area of international assistance has not improved. The U.S. actually increased its military aid to other countries from 2008-2013, relative to the help it gave them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
- For the price of four Littoral Combat Ships -- currently there are 16 more in the budget than the Pentagon even wants -- we could have double the Energy Department's entire budget for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
- The U.S. currently spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined. The disparity between U.S. military spending and the countries presumed to be threats to our security is even more extreme.