Ms Ellie Kinney:

I thank the Chair. Militaries are a highly polluting sector and as such every euro of military spending comes at a heavy cost to our climate. In 2019 it was estimated militaries and their supply chains were responsible for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than the emissions from international aviation and shipping sectors combined. That year global military spending was at $1.9 trillion but by 2024 it had reached a record $2.7 trillion. The proposal at the heart of today's discussion focuses on just a small fraction of this figure but the bigger picture is clear. If current trends persist global military spending could reach $6.6 trillion by 2035, which is nearly five times the level at the end of the Cold War and more than twice what was spent just last year.

There are uncertainties in tying together military spending with increases in greenhouse gas emissions. One key reason for this is military spending reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, is voluntary and as a result the data reported by governments is often patchy, incomplete or missing altogether. Most militaries have done little to map their supply chain emissions and the science of tracking emissions during armed conflicts is in its infancy. These exemptions, exclusions and omissions have consequences and slowed efforts to decarbonise militaries, created gaps in global climate predictions and in policy responses. This is what we call the military emissions gap. One recent analysis found an 82% gap between what EU militaries report to the UNFCCC and the likely true scale of their emissions.

Based on what we know, experts estimate that pledges to increasing military spending across NATO and EU states through the ReArm Europe Plan being discussed here would release up to 194 MtCO2eq each year. When we factor in how the additional heating from these emissions impacts societies and economies this equates to up to $264 billion per year in climate damage. This increase is driven by a range of factors. Ramping up military production to increase stockpiles is energy intensive and because limited progress has been made towards military decarbonisation the current procurement push means militaries will be locked into fossil fuel intensive equipment for decades. This means Europe’s militaries are committing to equipment today that will hinder tomorrow’s mitigation efforts well into our children’s futures. Simultaneously, the increased military spending is coming at the expense of spending on European climate action. Money is being diverted away from the Just Transition Fund’s original purpose. Money that was due to fund climate neutrality across the Union will now line the pockets of the arms industry in Europe and the US.

In theory, ReArm Europe is intended to protect and maintain Europe's safety and security, but by jeopardising efforts to mitigate the climate crisis and by weakening our capacity to adapt to climate impacts, the plan prioritises short term security at the expense of our collective long term security. While data on military emissions might be patchy, the research so far is clear that unconstrained military spending is incompatible with the EU’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050. It was only last month that the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the obligation of states in respect to climate change found that states party to climate treaties, and the indeed the EU as a whole, must adopt measures required to fulfil the objectives of these treaties. ReArm Europe seems at odds with these obligations. In developing its ruling the International Court of Justice heard from the State of Palestine, the counsel for which drew attention to the impact armed conflicts and situations of occupation can have on emissions and on the opportunity for affected states to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We are only just beginning to document the emissions footprints of wars, but the data from Ukraine and from Gaza suggests they can generate emissions akin to the annual emissions of entire countries.

While the bulk of emissions associated with militaries comes from their routine activities such as training or procurement, we know that militarism begets militarised responses. In this respect there is also a risk spiralling military spending will make future conflicts more likely and in turn the emissions they generate and the climate action that they constrain. In an increasingly militarised Europe voices like Ireland's, Slovenia's and Spain's are vital for reminding us that genuine human security is not simply a function of military spending.