Climate vs war: Trump vs Biden

In the midst of global uncertainty surrounding the future of the climate agenda, a significant shift is about to take place. On 20 Jan 2025, one of the world’s leading climate advocates will leave office, to be replaced by a successor who has openly dismissed the climate crisis as a hoax. While this transition raises concerns about potential setbacks, it also highlights a deeper hypocrisy: even under the leadership of an administration championing climate action, actions that significantly harm the environment have persisted

Under President Biden, the United States has made historic investments to combat climate change. Domestically, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocates over $370bn to clean energy and climate programs. These include tax credits for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency, alongside funding for climate resilience and environmental justice initiatives. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directs over $50bn toward clean water projects and green transportation infrastructure, such as electric vehicle (EV) charging networks. Industrial emissions reduction efforts include $6bn for decarbonization in manufacturing and $3 billion for the Federal Buy Clean Initiative to promote low-emission materials.

On the international front, the Biden administration committed to increasing annual public climate finance to over $11bn by 2024, including a $3bn contribution to the Green Climate Fund for global initiatives. Additional funding supports climate resilience, food security, and disaster preparedness in developing nations. Combined, these domestic and international measures represent one of the most ambitious climate investment efforts in the US. history, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars

Yet, these environmental commitments stand in stark contrast to the administration’s support for global conflicts, which carry devastating environmental consequences. Wars are a significant source of carbon emissions, with the military sector contributing approximately 5.5 percent of total annual greenhouse gas emissions—more than the aviation and shipping sectors combined. These emissions stem from fuel consumption, infrastructure destruction, and reconstruction activities, all of which are energy-intensive and environmentally damaging

For instance, the ongoing conflict in Gaza has resulted in the destruction of infrastructure that will require carbon-heavy rebuilding efforts. In Ukraine, the war has intensified fossil fuel use through military operations and the destruction of energy facilities, further increasing emissions. These conflicts also leave behind long-term environmental damage, such as soil and water contamination, deforestation, and debris accumulation. Despite the significant impact, military emissions remain underreported due to the lack of standardized international monitoring and disclosure requirements

The environmental toll of these wars is staggering. A recent analysis of the Gaza conflict found that within its first 120 days, military operations had already produced emissions exceeding the annual totals of 26 countries. Rebuilding efforts are projected to generate emissions equivalent to those of mid-sized nations like Sweden or Portugal. Similarly, Sudan’s conflict has worsened existing ecological challenges, such as deforestation and overuse of scarce resources like water and arable land. Heavy artillery and airstrikes have further damaged ecosystems, while displacement has led to increased reliance on unsustainable fuels like charcoal. The war in Ukraine has caused widespread environmental degradation, including the destruction of agricultural land, pollution of rivers, and contamination from industrial facilities. These conflicts disrupt ecosystems, exacerbate resource competition, and increase long-term vulnerabilities to climate change.

The costs of these environmental damages extend far beyond the immediate emissions. Reconstruction in war-torn regions such as Ukraine is estimated to require tens of billions of dollars, while environmental remediation costs—addressing landmines, toxic waste, and chemical spills—add further strain. Conflicts also disrupt global food supplies, as seen in the Ukraine-Russia war, indirectly driving up environmental costs as other regions expand agricultural production at the expense of natural habitats. Military activities remain one of the largest unacknowledged contributors to climate change, with the US Department of Defense ranking among the top global emitters. Additionally, sanctions in countries like Iran have forced overuse of local resources, exacerbating environmental degradation and long-term climate vulnerabilities.

While it is difficult to quantify the precise financial and ecological toll of wars, cumulative losses likely run into hundreds of billions of dollars globally. Organizations like the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have called for stronger policies to mitigate these impacts, including mandatory reporting of military emissions and integrating climate resilience into humanitarian responses. However, access to conflict zones for detailed environmental assessments is often limited, making it harder to address the full scope of the damage.

As of late 2023, the US had allocated approximately $113.4bn in aid to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in Feb 2022. This funding includes $62.3bn for Department of Defense activities, such as weapons, ammunition, and training, and $46.1bn for humanitarian and economic support. Similarly, since the escalation of the Gaza conflict in Oct 2023, the US has committed at least $22.76bn, including $17.9bn in direct military aid to Israel—the largest such package in US-Israel relations. These figures underscore the substantial financial resources directed toward war, which contrasts sharply with the nation’s climate investments.

Ironically, amidst fears of Donald Trump’s return to power—given his vocal opposition to climate policies—there is speculation that his promised focus on ending wars could inadvertently mitigate some of the environmental destruction caused by military activities under the Biden administration. Trump’s previous dismissal of climate change as a hoax has positioned him as a significant threat to global climate efforts. Yet, if his anti-war rhetoric materializes into action, it may reduce the emissions and ecological damages associated with ongoing conflicts.