War and climate funding

The world is amidst multiple border crises and complex geopolitical plight. Researchers around the world cannot help but compare current situations to the Second World War. This may sound like an exaggeration of a statement provided that the world has faced enormous geopolitical tensions in the cold-war era. 

Besides, most of us reading this article today do not have a transparent idea of developments that led to the two world wars. We have been informed about the dreadful horrors that took place "in" the wars and we want to believe that those nightmares are too horrific to be true. The harsh truth here is, those nightmares did come true, haunted generations afterwards and have every potential to repeat history. 

Unlike the Cold War era, we now do not have only two superpowers navigating the rest of the global systems. A "Moscow-Washington Hotline" (or Beijing-Washington Hotline for that matter) cannot quite ensure a quick and sustainable remission in today's multipolar world. Multiple parties are involved in the game today, each having very unique and diversified interests with the other. 

The "small powers" know their worth and potential in larger demography and have been empowering themselves against exploitation through regionalisation. As we walk down the line of multipolarity, we must confront that it is making the "big powers" less confident of their influence on others. They trust their counterparts, long-grown "rivals", once considered allies and other parts of the world they thought insignificant, less. 

These powers thus need to compensate for their insecurities with heightened economic control over parties and increased military self-reliance. 

Now, the question arises, how does all these relate to climate change?

Well, if anyone asks what the driving force behind nations going against each other is, the shortest answer would be "natural resources.". Nations need a profuse amount of water, oil, gas, heavy metals, sand etc to continue their development journey. But these resources are not infinite. So, competition for aclimate changeess to and control over these resources developed. The South China Sea conflict is a classic and transparent example of this.

Historically, humans have fought each other for enhanced ownership of natural resources, and we have mastered the art of exploiting resources over thousands of years. So much so that we really do not have much left when it comes to traditional resources. With the increasing population, modern-excessive consumption-based lifestyle and decreasing resources, the nations need a steady source of an inexhaustible number of resources, both traditional and alternative. 

Additionally, we have hampered environmental synergy to an extent that the environment has started taking its revenge with global warming, untimely floods, unpredictable climate events, extreme weathers, changed course of rivers and so on. All of these are frowning at our economic activities at an increasing rate. 

Our political and economic activities over the past few centuries have caused climate change. And now impacts of climate change are making our political and geo-economic practices more critical than ever. 

The joy of three industrial revolutions and haunting memories of two world wars made us go through exhaustive economic reformations and trade environmental safety for monetary gains. Injudiciously enough, we continue to do so.

As a result of climate change, nations are facing unprecedented risks in the health and production sector; salinity, inundation, drought causing agricultural losses that they know no remedy for, risks of epidemics and resistant virus/bacteria, loss of land, etc. These effects are making nations yet more vulnerable, less secure and more protective of their interests. All nations become more conservative in times of crisis and vulnerability. So, the environmental impacts make the nation more competitive in their race to acquire more resources to ensure their steady growth, leading further towards added geopolitical unrest.

Without minimising the effects of climate change or "repairing" the environment, a steady flow of resources is simply impossible. Climate change can hamper the economic growth of a nation more than any war. Understanding the facts, global leaders have started considering initiatives to reduce climate change effects. Unfortunately, recent geopolitical tensions and fear of a third world war are threatening those very new initiatives. 

What makes our common challenges in 2024 different from 1940s is "The Climate Change". We have witnessed extreme weathers, unforeseen disasters, hampered food production and many other climates change repercussions in recent years; each of which holds the potentiality to fuel ongoing geopolitical crises furthermore. 

So, tackling the consequences of climate change in short and midterm is also extremely important to respite the political heat among states and regions. Only bright side today is that contrary to the 1930s, we now have a better understanding of our environment and its risk factors. 

Which brought scientists and world leaders to a single table, discussing environmental risks, adaptation and mitigation policies and necessary strategies. After decades of research, dialogue, and unfortunate experiences, both the researchers and the leaders agree that climate financing is the most impactful tool to fight climate change, from scientific, economic, and political perspectives. 

Today, we all know how important climate financing is for the sustainable existence of humankind on planet earth. Luckily, we have also started taking the impacts of wars and weapons on the environment into consideration.

How do wars affect climate financing?

• Increased threats to sovereignty and border unrest compel countries to lien or spend an extended portion of their budget/GDP to ensure security. 
• Reaching war zones with climate activities is impossible or extremely risky. 
• Resources that could be allocated for climate action are often redirected to meet immediate humanitarian or security needs in conflict areas. Stakeholders tend to prioritise short-term necessities with available funds over long-term climate resilience and mitigation projects in times of vulnerability.
• Conflict-affected states tend to receive less climate financing. On average, countries facing both climate change and conflict receive only one-third of the climate financing per capita compared to countries that are only dealing with climate change. (Source: International Crisis Group).
• Political violence and instability complicate the administration and implementation of climate finance. Many funding organisations are reluctant to run projects in conflict areas due to safety issues and the potential for projects to be jeopardised.  
• Environmental awareness-building activities are affected greatly during times of geopolitical uncertainty, leading to disturbed environmental practices even after the unrest ends.

SIPRI reports, world military spending increased for the 9th consecutive year reaching an all-time high of $2443 billion in 2023, with the steepest year-on-year growth of 6.8% since 2009. military expenditure went up in all five of the geographical regions defined by SIPRI, with particularly large increases recorded in Europe, Asia, Oceania and the Middle East, for the first time since 2009. 

The USA alone funded NATO with $916 billion, which is 68% of NATO's military spending. China, the largest carbon-emitting country in the world, allocated approximately $296 billion to military spending in 2023 with a rise of 6% from 2022.

All these groundbreaking developments(!) Military expenditures are taking place when rich countries are at least three years overdue on their promised Green Climate Fund to mobilise $100 billion/year. 

When the GCF was supposed to mobilise $400 billion by the end of 2023, according to OXFAM, the real value of spending was only $24.5 billion, at best. More horrifically, these funds are being distributed as loans, instead of as grants, posing an added burden to the developing states' already high foreign currency debt percentage. The USA, the country with the highest per capita greenhouse emission, allocated $1 billion in climate finances in 2022 against the military expenditure of $876 billion. The African developing states, who are fighting to ensure basic rights for their citizens while struggling against climate change impacts, marked the highest increase in military spending with up to 105% of year-on-year growth.

So, in a way, wars increase climate budget needs and in other ways decrease the flow thereof. COP-29 can play a role here to compel global powers to actually pay their promised amount.

In summary, as climate change consequences impact geopolitical stability and international security, geopolitical unrest and wars affect climate finance greatly too, forming a vicious cycle of the two biggest risks of the century. So, we ought to rise and break the cycle for the sustainable existence of humankind on planet Earth.

Raisa Shakera Nishat is a contributor. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.