14 DAY TRIAL // This past April 14, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute released a new report saying that, last year, global military expenditure amounted to an impressive $1,747 billion (€1,262 billion).
Environmental group Greenpeace was quick to react to this piece of news and argue that, instead of spending this much money on armies, governments would have been better off investing in renewables.
On its website, the organization details that, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditure in 2013 was 1.9% lower than it was the year before.
This is because Western countries, led by the United States, spent less money on their armies than they did in previous years. Still, military expenditure was documented to have increased in all other regions of the world in 2013.
More precisely, the amount of money spent on armies appears to have more than doubled in 23 countries, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia included, since 2004 until now, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute writes.
On its website, Greenpeace details that, according to information at hand, most of the money that was spent on global armies in 2013 went into defense. The organization argues that investing in weapons and saying that the end goal is defense does not really make much sense.
More so given the fact that, according to a recent report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global warming and climate change are currently the biggest threats that human society is facing. Hence, it would be best to invest in sustainability and renewables instead of in armies.
“Earlier this year, we heard US Secretary of State calling climate change 'perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction. It is only right then that money is diverted for defending us from such destruction,” the environmental group writes on its website.
“That would be a true defense spending. It is coal plants and oil rigs that are in fact weapons of mass destruction – not only destroying our planet, but killing people already. And subsidizing fossil fuels at a total of $1.9 trillion [€1.37 trillion] annually is no less than a crime against humanity,” it adds.
Greenpeace is not saying that the world's military expenditure should be entirely diverted into limiting climate change and global warming. On the contrary, the organization believes that having at least 50% of the global military spending invested in renewables and sustainability would suffice to bring much more security than buying tanks or the like.
“In light of the rough estimates by the IPCC and others, diverting even half of military spending into preventing climate change and adapting to the impacts we can no longer avoid would bring much more security than any tanks and bombs can ever do.”
“In return, we would get clean and safe energy, clearer skies, healthier oceans and a better future for our children. Just imagine how fast we could achieve the clean energy future climate scientists are calling for if we redirected all this money,” the environmental group says.