'It Isn't About Money': Decoding Global Military Spending vs Development Goals

Global military spending reached a record high of $2.7 trillion in 2024, according to the new report.

Global military spending reached a record high of $2.7 trillion in 2024, according to a new report from the United Nations.

(Photo: iStock/Rui Noronha)

When you read, share, and support climate journalism, you amplify the truth. Become a member and help us do more.

"We are just learning about the Israeli attacks in Qatar. All parties must work towards achieving a permanent ceasefire, not destroying it," said United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres at a press briefing hours after the recent escalation in the region.

His remarks came on the heels of a sobering report released by the UN on 9 September that contrasts soaring global military spending with lagging investments in social development.

The report, 'The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future', found that global defence budgets hit a record high of $2.7 trillion in 2024, marking the sharpest year-on-year increase since at least 1988.

That's $334 for every person on the planet.

Over 100 countries increased their military budgets, with China, India, Russia, the US, and the EU alone accounting for over 70 percent of the total.

"Diverting critical resources towards military spending actively hinders progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)," the study reads. But can military budgets simply be redirected to social development? With rising geopolitical tensions driving up defence spending, is that even feasible? And how can countries like India bridge this widening gap in development capital?

The Quint speaks to experts to break it all down.

Military Expenditure vs Social Development: Big Points from the UN Report

The UN report notes that global military spending totalled $21.9 trillion between 2014 and 2024.

To put this into perspective, $1.2 trillion is enough to end child malnutrition globally over 10 years, and $5 trillion is enough to fund 12 years of quality education for every child in low and lower-middle income countries.

If the current trend of military spending continues, the annual military expenditure could potentially reach $6.6 trillion by 2035, according to the UN. This figure is roughly equivalent to the estimated $6.4 trillion financing gap for achieving the SDGs by 2030.

The SDGs, adopted by all UN member states in 2015, are a set of 17 development targets ranging from ending extreme poverty and hunger to ensuring quality education, healthcare, gender equality, and urgent climate action. Together, they represent a global roadmap for sustainable development.

Explaining this further, Senior Earth System Scientist, Raghu Murtugudde, tells The Quint,

“Developing and poorer countries, in particular, need these [SDGs] as they provide a framework to tackle challenges such as disaster management and other pressing issues. Progress is tracked globally, and countries also submit self-reports. There’s even an element of bragging rights involved. It's like belonging to a club that nations want to be seen in.”

But progress is lagging, largely due to inadequate financing. And it is estimated that $6.4 trillion would be needed by 2030 to meet these goals.

Of this, the cost to fully fund climate adaptation for all developing countries is estimated at just $387 billion per year—less than 15 percent of what the world spent on the military in the past year.

The report underscores that the gap isn’t due to a lack of money. The wealthiest countries are spending 30 times more on their militaries than on climate finance for the world’s most vulnerable nations.

"One thing we know is that the money exists for climate action. When we can find all this money for the military, we could, if there was political will, solve the climate crisis," Mattias Söderberg, Global Climate Lead at Danish humanitarian NGO DanChurchAid and member of the Danish Council for development policy tells The Quint.

“Redirecting even a fraction of today’s military spending could close vital gaps like putting children in school, strengthening primary health care, expanding clean energy and resilient infrastructure, and protecting the most vulnerable,” said Guterres at the press briefing.

More Military Spending Can Lead to Worse Social Outcomes

As compared to other sectors, military operations generate more than twice the greenhouse gases per dollar spent with their high emissions, notes the report.

Arms manufacturing is linked to destruction of vegetation and soils, as well as pollution through the release of solvents, heavy metals, and other toxic residues. Fuel consumption during military operations, too, remains a dominant source of carbon emissions.

"We also know that climate change further leads to conflict," says Söderberg, adding,

"When we have different climate-related incidents like droughts and floods, it creates conflict over national resources and that can escalate to bigger conflicts. This is also concerning because with more such conflict, we get more war, and with more war, we get more emissions and we have a vicious cycle."

"This is a strange contradiction we have to live with," adds Murtugudde.

It is also more difficult to quantify emissions from military activity because of secrecy and a lack of transparency, says Murtugude.

"If you have militaries, you need to keep them trained, armed, and ready. The question we need to ask is: can this be done in a more sustainable way?"

Raghu Murtugudde, Earth System Scientist

Why Diverting Funds a 'Complex' Issue

While the report is a good start, Murtugudde argues that its call to simply divert funds from military expenditure to social development is neither easy nor realistic, particularly in today’s geopolitical climate of escalating conflicts.

“Everybody is trapped in this cycle of defense. If everyone agreed to a peace settlement, we could all reduce military spending and redirect the funds elsewhere. But that sounds rather idealistic."

Raghu Murtugudde, Earth System Scientist

Söderberg agrees, adding, "There are security matters which are much higher on the agenda (of all countries). That's the reality. Most countries will prioritise security and military over long-term climate action."

"India is among the world’s top weapon exporters, ranking third or fourth, which means there is significant money to be made. The US remains the largest exporter, but countries like China are now major players as well. This is tied to what is often referred to as the ‘military-industrial complex.’ Military spending is not just about budgets; it also generates employment and drives innovation. So, it isn’t as simple as saying, 'Stop spending on the military and divert the money to development.'"

Raghu Murtugudde, Earth System Scientist

Speaking to The Quint, Abinash Mohanty, Sector Head for Climate Change & Sustainability at IPE Global, on the other hand, says it is important for nations to differentiate between essential military spending and spending more than required.

Although maintaining a strong defence is necessary, and hence, military expenditure is crucial, "overspending should not come at the cost of national development which is vital for long-term sustainability,” he explains.

Climate Finance: Can India Bridge the Gap?

In a scenario where India is among the five countries accounting for the 70 percent of the military expenditure worldwide, what can be done to bridge the widening gap in development capital?

Mohanty says one way this gap can be bridged is through blended finances. "This happens when public, private, and philanthropic finances all come together. It can't be done in silos," he explains.

Speaking to The Quint, Aravindan Srinivasan, Executive Director, Climate Action Platform at AVPN, a social impact network based in Asia, emphasises the importance of localised strategies.

He says,

“At least in Asia, it is clear that we need to mobilise plans locally. From an overall climate financing perspective, India is now receiving significant funding from development finance institutions (DFIs), and this trend is likely to continue. Private sector capital will also be a key focus.”

However, he points out a crucial divide that is likely to remain a challenge. While private investors are showing strong interest in climate mitigation projects, especially in sectors like renewable energy, where financial returns are more tangible, climate adaptation remains largely reliant on public funding.

“Adaptation projects don't offer the same financial incentives, so they continue to depend heavily on government and institutional support,” he notes.

Further, speaking to The Quint at the AVPN Global Conference for social investors and impact leaders in Hong Kong, Vineet Rai, Founder of the Aavishkaar Group, an impact investing platform, opines,

"There is no shortage of capital. India has been seeing a lot of private participation in climate funds; what we’re seeing is a shortage of ideas to channel it effectively, particularly to support young innovators. Large institutions will have to find ways to actively participate in driving this change."

Vineet Rai, Founder, Aavishkaar Group

(The Quint has reached out to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for a response and will update the story once they reply.)