This article appeared in The Quint
It was a grim reality check that the world prioritises fortifying borders over securing a liveable planet.
In an era defined by the twin existential crises of security and survival, two pledges stand as examples of human ambition and the competing narratives in 2024.
On one side is NATO’s defence spending of over $1.4 trillion reported in 2024 (with most members stepping up on their war spending with a floor of 2 percent of their GDP) – an amount steeped in the urgency of geopolitical tensions and an evolving war landscape.
On the other is the global demand to mobilise $1.3 trillion for climate action in developing nations – a lifeline for countries most vulnerable to the ravages of climate change, yet least responsible for its causes.
Two Fronts in the Fight for Better Life
The proponents of the NATO pledge argue that in an era of resurgent authoritarianism, territorial disputes, and warfare, military investment is not a luxury but a necessity.
The war in Ukraine has been a reminder for many countries that peace cannot be taken for granted, and deterrence requires resources.
To NATO allies, this is about preserving sovereignty, democracy, and the global rules-based order – a narrative that resonates deeply in a fragmented world.
They rallied for a $1.3 trillion climate finance pledge by the developed countries, which echoed, not only a call for delivering on climate action, but also responding to justice.
These nations face threats of supercharged storms, floods, and droughts, that threaten to erase communities and economies.
Their call is simple yet profound: the industrialised world, which grew wealthy through carbon-intensive development, bears a moral responsibility to fund their transition to greener futures and build resilience against the climate crisis.
At Baku, various developing countries including India, indicated the urgency of climate financing to save the lives and livelihoods of millions of people who are among the most economically insolvent.
The flow of finances for strengthening adaptation measures for these people is extremely important, not only to prevent them from slipping into further distress, but also to ensure justice and equal opportunity in a greener economy.
The requirement for this is substantial, as both mitigation and adaptation measures are costly to put in place.
For example, India’s Economic Survey report this year noted that the country’s adaptation expenditure in 2021-2022 was about Rs 13.35 lakh crore, which amounted to about 5.6 percent of the country’s GDP.
At COP29, India called for a boost of in adaptation finance, indicating that building adaptation capital could rise to over $854 billion.
The Geopolitical Dilemma of the Urgent vs the Essential
The simultaneous existence of these figures reveals a broader geopolitical tension: the challenge of reconciling the urgent with the essential.
Many within the corridors of Baku’s COP pavilion argue that defence spending highlights a paradox: resources can be swiftly mobilised for war, yet climate action commitments often languish unfulfilled.
In 2009, developed countries pledged to mobilise $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020, a target that remained unmet for the longest time. Even when it came, a large proportion (over 69 percent) was in the form of loans that added to the debt burden of many developing countries.
Therefore, skepticism abounds over the controversial New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) to scale up financing to developing countries to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035, in which developed countries have pledged to take the lead to mobilise $300 billion.
However, on the other hand, it is only likely that the defenders of defence spending will argue that without security, there can be no climate action.
A public policy professional, Srestha’s core interest lies in improving environment and resource governance, and securing community rights through an interface of strong research and advocacy. She is currently director, Just Transition, at iFOREST.