The Pentagon’s growing budget is driving a massive rise in climate pollution, according to new research by the Climate and Community Institute (CCI). A projected $1 trillion military budget for 2026, up 17% from 2023, is expected to generate 178 megatons (Mt) of carbon emissions, equivalent to the annual output of 68 gas power plants or the entire country of Croatia.

That would make the US military the world’s 38th largest emitter if it were a nation.

These emissions could result in an estimated $47 billion in global economic damage, including losses in agriculture, health, and property due to extreme weather, based on the EPA’s social cost of carbon. However, the true climate toll is likely even higher, as the CCI analysis doesn’t account for emissions tied to supplemental military spending, such as US arms transfers to "Israel" and Ukraine, or the significant pollution caused by active conflict.

The CCI study only covers US military spending. Military spending in European NATO countries is also surging. At the June Hague Summit, all 32 NATO member states committed to raising defense and security spending from 2% to 5% of GDP by 2035. This means NATO military budgets in Europe and Canada could more than double, growing from roughly $500 billion today to $1.1 trillion by 2035, nearly matching the US defense budget. Every dollar spent on military buildup in anticipation of hypothetical wars with Russia, China, or others comes with environmental and opportunity costs.

Military strategy and the illusion of preparedness

Much of this increased spending is driven by inflated threat assessments. At a recent gathering of military-industrial leaders in Wiesbaden, Germany, NATO’s new Supreme Allied Commander, US Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, warned members to prepare for the unlikely scenario of simultaneous wars with Russia in Europe and China in the Pacific, citing 2027 as a potential flashpoint, despite the lack of concrete evidence.

Grynkewich, who also leads the US European Command, emphasized the urgency of the situation, warning that allies have very little time to prepare. “We’re going to need every bit of kit and equipment and munitions that we can in order to beat that,” he stated.

He made these remarks during a LandEuro symposium hosted by US Army Europe and Africa, which aims to bring together military and industry leaders to explore ways to dramatically boost weapons production, particularly in Europe. As is customary at such events, the two-day program also featured the “Warriors Corner", where companies showcased a variety of weapons systems.

Related News

White House concerned about unfolding domestic terrorism conspiracy

Von der Leyen faces no-confidence vote for 'surrendering Europe' to US

Grynkewich reiterated a key point often made by NATO leaders to justify increased military spending: the growing collaboration among adversaries.

“Each of these threats that are out there cannot be viewed, in my estimation, as discrete challenges," he said. “We need to consider how they are all aligning together.”

'Axis of Upheaval' vs. 'Eastern Flank Deterrence Line'

The so-called “Axis of Upheaval," China, Iran, DPRK, and Russia, shows only limited and mostly bilateral cooperation, rather than a fully coordinated four-way alliance. Their collaboration is mainly fueled by shared frustration with the US-led international order and a desire to challenge Western dominance. Actions like Donald Trump’s dismantling of the “rules-based international order,” illegal military strikes on Iran, and persistent anti-China rhetoric have further shaped this dynamic, risking it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

At the same symposium, US Army Europe and Africa Commander Gen. Christopher Donahue announced a new initiative called the “Eastern Flank Deterrence Line,” designed to strengthen NATO’s ground forces and improve military-industrial interoperability across the alliance. Donahue also claimed that NATO forces could capture Russia’s heavily fortified Kaliningrad region “in a timeframe that is unheard of” if needed. This highlights a contradiction: NATO argues it lacks sufficient resources, yet also claims it already can halt Russia’s momentum and seize Russian territory.

It’s also important to remember that the United States operates over 870 overseas military bases, more than two and a half times the number of all other countries combined, and that NATO members together account for 55% of global military spending.

Ignoring the climate crisis amid military expansion

The main disconnect at Wiesbaden was the failure to address the link between military spending and climate emissions. Unlike other symposium sections, there was no “Green Corner” to remind NATO generals that the climate crisis is an existential threat, one that endangers humanity and the planet itself. This narrow focus reflects attitudes from the top.

In March, Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted: "The @DeptofDefense does not do climate change crap. We do training and warfighting.”

Yet, this training and warfighting come with severe climate consequences, such as worsening water scarcity, rising sea levels, and expanding desertification in vulnerable regions. These effects will, in turn, fuel political instability and increased forced migration.

No 'green corner'

NATO’s role in driving the climate crisis cannot be overlooked. The alliance and its member states must be transparent about their emissions and commit seriously to reducing their carbon footprint.

Rather than escalating tensions with adversaries, top NATO generals should urge political leaders to prioritize diplomatic and non-military solutions to current political crises. As the authors of the CCI analysis suggest, funds currently allocated to increased US military spending could instead be redirected toward demilitarized climate resilience efforts, like public transit, renewable energy, or green social housing, representing a genuine investment in human security.