World peace, climate change, and warfare are antagonistic forces gaining much attention worldwide. As the world becomes polarized, communities embark on addressing one while often neglecting the others.
However, the trends have always surprised me, as warfare is increasing and continues to get much support compared to piece.
While the piece was expected to be the best option among others, it has become just a narrative and weighs next to nothing in this regard.
For example, in 2024, Ukraine spent nearly 500 billion dollars, including supporters such as the US, which contributed about 175 billion dollars, according to a report.
This is essentially a very large chunk of finance directed into warfare just in one war, leaving alone other support in various warfare.
On the contrary, Russia is estimated to have spent about 132 billion dollars on maintenance and equipment of the military for the Ukraine war in 2024, according to a Rand.org report.
Half of the national security forces and defence budget exceeds the allocated budget, and energy shortages are estimated to persist for several years ahead, impacting people’s living standards.
These resources spent in warfare by Russia are an indication of apport unity cost over human development and investment into warfare in the name of fighting for rights and human dignity.
The two examples of expenditures on warfare in one location give a snapshot of expenses incurred in waging wars worldwide.
As only one war has incurred such expenses, how about tens of wars and hundreds of civil wars across the globe, which also attract financial resources?
Can this not be a good qualification for global leaders if we check on the budget’s focus? Is that a fair war or warfare?
This is the game now played by the so-called Big Economies, who wage wars and entertain the fighting for their interests. Either waging war fares or fair wars, their expenditures have a return, I reckon.
Leaving alone these financial costs, these wars have incurred thousands of human lives ranging from military personnel to descent civilians.
Some of the lucky ones have been exposed to displacement and refugee status, which is unfair and against human rights and dignity. Human resources have been wasted and dislocated, and much frustration and trauma have even degraded their maximum potential to a large extent.
Additionally, natural resources on land, in the sea, and in the ocean have suffered ad libitum, but this is another story for another day.
How Much Climate Fair War Costs?
Climate change impacts are now very common jargon and familiar to almost everybody. Everybody feels the extent of their impact, and therefore, it becomes a concern of all living creatures.
However, having some portion of climate deniers is just an impression that there are always deviant characters in life, or at least assume those just bounce from deaf ears.
But on a serious note, climate change is real, and its impact is just a mere reality. Indeed, the warfare against these impacts is worth fighting.
Therefore, it is a matter of uniting all nations, states, and communities to fight. Surprisingly, this fighting has landed on the rocks and fallen on deaf ears, as witnessed in previous global summits on climate change.
For example, at the recently concluded COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, the Developing countries wanted the support of Developed Countries, which are large emitters of carbons, but instead ended up with far less than expected.
READ RELATED: Finance COP or Staggering COP29? Diverging Views from Developed and Developing Nations
The amount is less than an individual Big Economies contributing to warfare support in one location.
According to a report published by the UN’s Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance at the conference in Baku, the global projected investment needed for climate action is around US$6.3–6.7 trillion per year by 2030.
This is an indication of how much the big economies are prepared to support wars rather than Fair wars (Climate war fair).
Climate change, as a very sensitive agenda and phenomenon that is global in scale, was expected to reserve a mega push. Still, surprisingly, even giants like America are now anticipated to exit from climate negotiations in the name of a hoax.
Does warfare make more sense than climate change? Is it wise to invest in war, which is likely to exacerbate environmental destruction, human and wildlife loss, and biodiversity loss?
Should few world powers and warmongers continue to determine our future? How long should we wait until we make our own decisions for our fate?
That is yet a question to ponder as global geopolitics and climate politics become hot and confusing.
The Warfare attracts more investment in finances internally and through external support.
We currently have several ongoing wars, which are huge investments that continue to cost financial and human lives, including massive land, water, and biodiversity destruction and pollution across spatial scales.
Despite all these very vivid impacts, it seems to be unresolved, and several atrocities are barely ignored or else missed genuine support to condemn at least.
On the contrary, the Fair War (climate change war) is underestimated and likely to continue harming the entire population.
It requires a simple mind to acknowledge and join the efforts to combat the impacts related to climate change.
The negotiations were convened, but less support was attained, and again, the Big Economies, who were also supporters of war fares, were to seal the deal.
Their opportunity cost was biased towards the option of warfare. Henceforth, we should anticipate continued war fares rather than fair wars. The evidence is all over to exhibit the ongoing resource use conflicts.
For example, Congo remains the poorest country in the world because of ongoing conflicts, which are mainly attributed to resource use.
The Big Economies power the conflicts for their greedy need for rare minerals and proliferation of military weapons at the expense of human life. Supporting climate change means planting the seeds of their destruction.
Their limited support, therefore, logical reasoning that they are against fair war rather than in support of warfare.
The in the climate negations are also ‘bandits in the wagon. Maybe next time, we may need to identify these bandits and have their separate wagons of their own!
The roles of the so-called United Nations Organisations are becoming scrutinized as they fail to arrest the situation, at least in some cases.
They seem bureaucratic, powerless, and toothless, hence ineffective in combatting the unfolding situations.
Peacekeeping should mean peace and be vividly observed in operation; hence, the climate change organisation should also handle the matter to its core vehemently.
Critics of their operation ineffectiveness have been the subject of hot debates, which should alarm us to review approaches to improving the effectiveness of these organs.
This is world world-class article worthy of sharing widely. Congratulations Ndossi E,M (PhD) for the article well written article