Analysis of U.S. Military Expenditures and Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: Military Operations and SDG 13 (Climate Action)

A recent study highlights the U.S. military’s position as the world’s single largest institutional consumer of energy and emitter of carbon pollution, presenting a significant challenge to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action). Research conducted by sociologists from the University of Utah, Penn State University, and the University of British Columbia, published in PLOS Climate, establishes a direct correlation between military expenditures and energy consumption. The findings suggest that a reduction in military spending is a viable and effective strategy for mitigating climate change by significantly lowering carbon emissions.

Key Findings on Consumption and Emissions

The report details the scale and nature of the U.S. military’s environmental footprint, which directly impacts several SDGs, including SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

• Scale of Emissions: As an institution, the U.S. military’s carbon emissions are comparable to those of an entire nation, such as Venezuela, and would rank 47th globally if it were a country. Between 2010 and 2019, it released 636 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
• Source of Emissions: The majority of emissions originate from non-combat activities, including transportation of fleets, equipment logistics, pilot training, aircraft testing, and the operation of over 1,700 domestic and overseas bases. This underscores the need for sustainable operational practices in line with SDG 12.
• Primary Energy Consumer: Aviation is the most energy-intensive sector, with jet fuel accounting for 55% of the military’s direct energy use. This identifies a critical focus area for transitioning towards cleaner energy sources as mandated by SDG 7.

The Link Between Spending and Energy Use: An Asymmetrical Relationship

The study analyzed data from 1975 to 2022, revealing a direct but asymmetrical relationship between military spending and energy consumption. This relationship provides a clear policy lever for advancing climate goals.

1. A 1% increase in military expenditures was found to correlate with a 0.648% increase in energy consumption.
2. Conversely, a 1% decrease in military expenditures resulted in a more significant 1.09% decrease in energy consumption.

These findings demonstrate that sustained reductions in military spending could yield substantial energy savings, contributing directly to the targets of SDG 13.

Implications for Global Sustainable Development

The research underscores the broader consequences of military spending on the global sustainable development agenda, particularly concerning resource allocation and international cooperation.

• Diversion of Public Funds: The report notes that high levels of military spending often lead to decreased public investment in essential social programs, including healthcare, education, and initiatives specifically designed to address climate change. This trade-off hinders progress on SDGs 3 (Good Health and Well-being), 4 (Quality Education), and 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
• A Gap in Climate Governance: The authors argue that the vast energy consumption of the world’s militaries is an understudied field within the scientific community. This oversight impedes comprehensive global climate governance and highlights the need for greater transparency and research partnerships, as encouraged by SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
• Policy Recommendation: Reducing military spending is presented as a direct and impactful policy tool. Such reductions not only curb emissions but also free up public funds that can be redirected to support sustainable development initiatives across all sectors. Aligning national security policy with sustainability objectives is crucial for global progress.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • The article is fundamentally about climate change, identifying the U.S. military as the “world’s single largest consumer of energy and emitter of climate-altering carbon pollution.” It directly discusses the military’s carbon footprint (“636 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent” from 2010-2019) and frames the reduction of military spending as a key strategy for “climate mitigation.”

2. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

   • The article focuses on the military’s massive energy consumption, particularly from fossil fuels. It states that “Jet fuel accounted for 55% of this energy use” and that the military is the “largest single institution as far as burning of fossil fuels.” It also touches on energy efficiency, noting that “fuel consumption fell by more than half… due to more efficient equipment.”

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article links military expenditure directly to societal trade-offs. It argues that increased military spending “generally results in a massive decrease in general public spending for social programs, health care, education, and programs to address climate change.” This highlights the theme of resource allocation by public institutions and how prioritizing military spending can undermine other aspects of sustainable development.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The research discussed in the article is a collaborative effort. It mentions the study was conducted by researchers from the “University of Utah,” “Penn State University,” and the “University of British Columbia.” Furthermore, they used data from diverse sources, including the “U.S. Department of Energy” and the “Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s military expenditure database,” showcasing a multi-stakeholder partnership to generate knowledge for sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

   • The article’s central argument is that reducing military spending should be considered a core part of climate mitigation strategy. It states, “To ignore [the military’s emissions] comes at our own peril,” implicitly calling for the integration of military budget and operations planning into national climate action plans.

2. Target 7.3: By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency.

   • The article mentions that despite rising military spending, “fuel consumption fell by more than half–to 622 trillion BTU–due to more efficient equipment.” This directly relates to the concept of improving energy efficiency as a means to reduce overall consumption.

3. Target 16.4: By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime.

   • While military spending is not illicit, the article’s focus on reducing “military expenditures” to reallocate public funds aligns with the broader principle of this target: scrutinizing and reducing financial flows related to armaments to promote peaceful and sustainable societies. The article explicitly links high military spending to a “decrease in general public spending for social programs… and programs to address climate change.”

4. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

   • The article is based on a study that exemplifies this target. The research was a partnership between multiple academic institutions (“University of Utah,” “Penn State University,” “University of British Columbia”) and utilized data from governmental (“U.S. Department of Energy”) and international research (“Stockholm International Peace Research Institute”) bodies to address a global challenge.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions

   • The article explicitly mentions the military’s carbon emissions, providing a specific figure: “Between 2010 and 2019, the military released a total of 636 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.” This is a direct indicator for measuring progress on climate action (SDG 13).

2. Total Energy Consumption

   • The article quantifies energy use in “British thermal units, or BTU,” stating that consumption fell to “622 trillion BTU” in 2022. It also notes that “a 1% decrease in military expenditures resulted in 1.09% decrease” in energy use. This serves as a key indicator for energy efficiency and consumption (SDG 7).

3. Military Expenditure

   • The article tracks military spending in inflation-adjusted dollars, noting it “climbed from $464 billion to $812 billion in 2022.” This figure is used as the primary independent variable linked to emissions and as an indicator of resource allocation by a national institution (SDG 16).

4. Collaborative Research and Publications

   • The existence of the study itself, published in the journal “PLOS Climate” by a team of international researchers, acts as an indicator of multi-stakeholder partnerships (SDG 17) working to generate data and analysis on sustainable development issues.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: attheu.utah.edu