Beyond Climate Chaos and Militarized Security at COP31

The climate crisis will not wait for geopolitics to improve. As leaders gather in Antalya, Türkiye from 9-20 November 2026 for the 31st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP31, the world enters a moment where extreme weather, energy insecurity, armed conflict, and rising militarization reinforce one another. Half measures are no longer enough. Governments must arrive with the courage to act and leave Türkiye with commitments equal to the crises already unfolding: record heat, devastating floods, mass displacement, and fragile energy systems.COP31’s agenda is demanding: accelerating the just energy transition; closing the adaptation finance gap; strengthening early-warning systems; and improving transparency in emissions reporting, including sectors long exempted from scrutiny.

A strong El Niño is developing against exceptionally warm oceans, increasing the likelihood of extreme heat, drought, floods, and disruptive rainfall. These risks translate into deaths, displacement, damaged infrastructure, food insecurity, and pressure on communities already affected by conflict and poverty. Climate inaction is increasingly a failure to protect human security.Climate Risks as Human RisksHuman security is climate security.

Climate impacts are not statistics; they are lived realities for families, elders, persons with disabilities, and communities already carrying the weight of conflict and poverty.

The climate crisis demands a redefinition of security: one that prioritizes human survival over military prestige.Over decades of work in health, disability, humanitarian action, and human security, I have learned that crises rarely arrive one at a time. For people already living with illness, disability, displacement, poverty, or insecurity, one disruption can quickly become another: Electricity fails, essential services are interrupted, mobility becomes harder, and the margin between vulnerability and catastrophe narrows.For peace and disarmament campaigners, the message is clear: The world cannot confront climate chaos while expanding military systems, fossil fuel dependence, and nuclear arsenals that deepen insecurity.

Global military expenditure reached about $2.9 trillion in 2025, the highest level ever recorded. At the same time, developing countries face a severe shortfall in the finance required to adapt to climate change. The question is not whether governments have resources, but what they choose to define as security.Military activities depend heavily on fossil fuels and generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions through aircraft, ships, vehicles, bases, procurement, and supply chains.

One major assessment estimated that the global military carbon footprint could account for about 5.5% of global emissions, while noting serious gaps in reporting. National security exemptions must not become a blind spot in climate accountability.Nuclear weapons add an even more severe dimension. Their production, testing, deployment, and potential use carry catastrophic environmental consequences. The use of even a fraction of the world’s nuclear weapons would trigger a nuclear winter scenario: global cooling, crop failure, and mass starvation.

Such an event would undo decades of climate progress and plunge humanity into a combined climate-nuclear catastrophe.Energy insecurity provides another warning. Disruption around the Strait of Hormuz has shown how dependence on concentrated fossil fuel supply routes exposes economies to geopolitical shocks and price volatility. True energy security must mean reducing dependence on vulnerable fossil fuel systems through renewable energy, efficiency, storage, and electrification.There are encouraging signs.

The Santa Marta process has brought governments together around cooperation for a fair transition away from coal, oil, and gas. The Electrify Now coalition seeks to accelerate electrification and expand renewable-powered energy systems. These initiatives show that cooperation remains possible even in a fractured geopolitical environment.But solidarity must extend further. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that developing countries may need more than $300 billion annually for adaptation by 2035, several times current international public adaptation finance.

Those who contributed least to historical emissions are often among those facing the greatest consequences. Delivering climate finance is not charity. It is responsibility and justice.COP31 also exposes a political reality: Some governments continue to resist global consensus on climate ambition, transparency, and equitable finance. Their withdrawal from collective commitments weakens global action and directly harms communities whose security depends on adaptation, resilience, and stable public services.

When governments step back from responsibility, the burden falls on the most vulnerable. This is not a policy gap; it is a human cost.

The Military Footprint in a Warming WorldFor the disarmament community, COP31 offers a critical opportunity to challenge the assumption that militarization, and especially nuclear deterrence, is the natural answer to climate insecurity. Border fortification, arms races, and competition over resources deepen vulnerability rather than resolve it. Climate stress can aggravate existing tensions, but it does not inevitably cause war. The appropriate response is cooperation, equitable adaptation, resilient public services, and peaceful management of shared resources.Nuclear weapons offer no protection against climate extremes.

They cannot stop heatwaves, floods, or droughts. They cannot rebuild destroyed infrastructure or feed displaced families. Yet they absorb enormous financial, scientific, and political resources that could instead strengthen climate resilience. Every dollar spent on modernizing nuclear arsenals is a dollar not spent on clean energy, adaptation, or public health. The climate crisis demands a redefinition of security: one that prioritizes human survival over military prestige.Climate and disarmament campaigners should therefore ask governments to make the connections visible.

Military emissions should be measured and reported transparently. Climate finance should not be crowded out by escalating military and nuclear expenditure. Investments should shift toward clean energy, public health, resilient infrastructure, adaptation, and human security. Security policy must protect people, not merely territory.Throughout decades of humanitarian and public service, one truth has remained constant: Our common future can only be secured through collective action.

As extreme weather intensifies and energy systems remain vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, the world will be watching Antalya.My years in humanitarian and public service have shown that real security begins with protecting people, not power. That is the responsibility we owe to future generations.A Turning Point for COP31COP31 must be more than another conference of promises. It should mark a political turning point where climate action, peace building, and disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, are recognized as mutually reinforcing priorities.

The time for treating these crises separately has passed. The world is already beyond the breaking point. The task now is to build a safer way forward: for the climate, for peace, and for the generations who will inherit the consequences of today’s choices.Call for Action at COP31COP31 must deliver concrete steps that reflect the urgency of the climate and human security crisis. Governments should commit to:Transparent reporting of military emissions within global MRV systems;Redirecting part of military and nuclear budgets toward climate adaptation and clean energy;Launching an international pathway to reduce the military carbon footprint; Closing the adaptation finance gap in line with UNEP estimates; andEmbedding human security in climate policy.Climate security is human security.

COP31 must be a turning point toward cooperation, responsibility, and shared survival.

The measure of COP31 should therefore not be what governments say about security, but whether their decisions leave people safer, healthier, and better able to survive the crises ahead.