The report argues that a change from 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.
Oct 22, 2014
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.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Institute for Policy Studies
Miriam Pemberton
Miriam Pemberton is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She directs its Peace Economy Transitions Project which focuses on helping to build the foundations of a postwar economy at the federal, state and local levels.
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.
Miriam Pemberton
Miriam Pemberton is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She directs its Peace Economy Transitions Project which focuses on helping to build the foundations of a postwar economy at the federal, state and local levels.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.