Arms race a major contributor to climate chaos | Countercurrents

As the temperature around the globe is rising, melting of glaciers, ever increasing typhoons, irregular & untimely rains leading to increase in sea level effecting our day to day life, the climate change has entered to climate crisis and now climate chaos.

Hasan Abdullah author of the 'Climate Chaos How Violence Drives It - And The Best Bet For Change'has very aptly described the present situation not merely as a climate crisis, but as "climate chaos." In the book release ceremony on 10th April 2026 he explained the philosophy behind the whole issue and highlighted the arms race as a major contributor to the greenhouse gas emissions.

The term climate chaos captures the reality we are living in today. This is not a distant or abstract threat. It is a lived experience -- of extreme weather events, rising temperatures, ecological destruction, and deepening inequality. But what makes this crisis even more alarming is that it is unfolding alongside another devastating reality: the persistence and expansion of wars, militarism, and the global arms race.

But unfortunately, this aspect has been ignored in various international conferences, agreements and discussions. Major international agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement have played a crucial role in shaping global climate action. However, they largely ignored military emissions and the environmental impact of wars. The Conference of Parties (COP) on climate change to be held in Antalya, Turkey in November 2026 must take cognizance of this and highlight the need for check on the proliferation of small arms and complete abolition of nuclear weapons.

The relentless greed to control natural resources, combined with the pursuit of a life of excessive luxury, leads to wasteful consumption and a rising carbon footprint.

At the global level, it is the imperialist drive for geopolitical dominance that fuels war, conflict, and violence across the world. There is persistent effort to portray certain groups to be responsible for the problems of society -- on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, language, or nationality. Such thinking distances us from our shared humanity. It creates divisions, breeds mistrust, and ultimately becomes a source of conflict at multiple levels. History offers clear examples. During the Cold War, the United States viewed the Soviet Union as the "other," leading to decades of sustained hostility. The cold war period was followed by imperialist and neo-colonial powers to construct new "enemies," often targeting sections of the Islamic world.

Today, wars are raging across multiple regions of the world. From the ongoing devastation in west Asia, repeated attacks on Lebanon, and rising tensions involving Iran, the prolonged war in Ukraine and the deeply troubling internal conflicts in Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and across the Sahel region -- including Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger -- the world is witnessing a dangerous escalation of violence.

These are not isolated or accidental conflicts. They are deeply connected to struggles for geopolitical dominance, economic control, and access to natural resources. Powerful nations and global forces often act -- directly or indirectly -- as aggressors or instigators, fueling instability for strategic gain. The consequences, however, are borne by ordinary people, by fragile ecosystems, and by the future of our planet.

While we are rightly concerned about the human cost of wars -- the deaths, injuries, displacement, trauma and mental health crisis, we must also recognize an equally serious but often ignored dimension: the environmental and climatic impact of militarism and armed conflict.

It is now increasingly acknowledged that military activity is a significant contributor to climate change. The global military sector is estimated to account for nearly 5 to 6 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. If the world's militaries were treated as a country, they would rank among the largest emitters globally.

Modern militaries are among the most energy-intensive institutions on Earth. Fighter jets, warships, tanks, and military vehicles consume enormous quantities of fossil fuels. For example, the United States Department of Defense is often cited as one of the largest institutional polluters in the world. Every military exercise, every deployment, every war operation leave behind a massive carbon footprint. But emissions from fuel consumption are only one part of the problem.

The production of weapons -- from conventional arms to missiles and nuclear warheads -- is itself highly energy-intensive. Industries that manufacture steel, explosives, chemicals, and advanced electronics contribute significantly to carbon emissions. At the same time, they generate toxic waste, pollute air and water, and degrade ecosystems. Then comes the impact of war itself.

Armed conflicts destroy forests, agricultural lands, water systems, and infrastructure. Forests -- our vital carbon sinks -- are burned or cleared. Agricultural systems collapse. Oil wells are set on fire. Cities are reduced to rubble. The environmental damage is immense and long-lasting.

War does not end when the fighting stops. The process of reconstruction -- rebuilding cities, infrastructure, and economies -- is itself carbon-intensive, adding further to emissions.

Thus, militarism contributes to climate change in multiple ways; Direct emissions from military operations; Industrial pollution from arms production; Environmental destruction during war; Carbon-intensive reconstruction after conflict.

Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, there is a striking and troubling silence on this issue in global climate policy. In some cases, military emissions have been explicitly exempted or inadequately reported, often in the name of national security. The result is a serious gap in our understanding and accounting of global emissions. This is not a minor oversight -- it is a structural blind spot in global climate governance.

At a time when the world urgently needs resources for renewable energy, climate adaptation, sustainable development, and public health, vast financial and technological resources are being diverted into arms production and military expansion.

Global military expenditure 2025 was 2.6 trillion dollars. USA alone spent more than $997 billion. Imagine if even a fraction of this was invested in clean energy, resilient agriculture, healthcare systems, and climate mitigation. The progress we could achieve would be transformative.

Instead, we are witnessing an intensifying arms race, including the modernization and expansion of nuclear arsenals. Studies supported by organizations such as the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and ICAN point out the catastrophic consequences of even a limited nuclear war.

The study titled 'Nuclear Famine -Even a "limited" nuclear war would cause abrupt climate disruption and global starvation' carried out by physicists, biologists, climatologists and other scientists highlight the concept of nuclear winter is no longer theoretical speculation. It shows that even a regional nuclear conflict -- for example, involving a small fraction of the global arsenal -- could inject massive amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere. This would block sunlight, cause a sharp drop in global temperatures, disrupt rainfall patterns, and lead to widespread crop failure. The result would be global famine on an unprecedented scale, potentially affecting billions of people. In such a scenario, the majority of deaths would not occur from the immediate blasts, but from hunger, disease, and societal collapse in the months and years that follow.

A large-scale nuclear war would be even more devastating -- posing an existential threat to human civilization and many forms of life on Earth. This is why the issue of nuclear disarmament is not only a matter of peace and security -- it is fundamentally a climate and public health imperative. The medical community understands this clearly. Just as we emphasize prevention in public health, we must recognize that there is no cure after a nuclear war. Prevention is the only option. And prevention means moving towards the elimination of nuclear weapons and reducing our dependence on militarized systems.

If we are serious about addressing climate change, we must broaden our perspective. Climate change is not only about emissions from industries, transport, or agriculture. It is also about the systems of power, conflict, and exploitation that drive environmental destruction.

We cannot achieve climate justice without addressing militarism; we cannot speak of sustainability while ignoring war; we cannot demand emission reductions from civilians while allowing one of the largest emitters -- the military sector -- to remain outside accountability; therefore, there is an urgent need for policy change.

Inclusion of military emissions in national and global climate reporting; Transparency and accountability in defence-related environmental impacts; Recognition of war and conflict as drivers of climate change; Reduction in military expenditure and reallocation of resources towards climate action and public welfare; Strengthening of international efforts towards disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament. The path forward requires courage -- political courage, moral courage, and collective action.

We must build a global movement that connects the struggles for peace, climate justice, and public health, because ultimately, these are not separate issues. They are deeply interconnected. A world at war cannot be a world at peace with nature. A world investing in destruction cannot simultaneously invest in sustainability. A world divided by conflict cannot effectively confront a global crisis like climate change.

The climate crisis is not only a scientific or environmental challenge -- it is a reflection of the choices we make as a global society. If we continue on the path of militarism, competition, and exploitation, we will deepen the crisis. But if we choose cooperation, peace, and justice, we can still build a sustainable future.

There can be no climate solution without peace. There can be no sustainable future without disarmament. The choice is ours -- and the time to act is now. It is important to develop global outlook and local responsibility. We must raise our voice where ever we are; organize movements to change the mindset and educate the society.

Dr Arun Mitra is a Practicing ENT Surgeon in Ludhiana, Punjab. He is also the President of Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD) www.idpd.org