Environment vs Arms

Forest and Bird, Volume 21, Issue 1, 1 February 1990, Page 6

Environment vs Arms

THREE of the world’s top environmental problems could be solved if just 9 percent of the world’s annual military spending was channelled into saving the environment, according to the Worldwatch Institute. This would amount to $US774 billion, and should be spent on protecting soil from erosion, deforestation and energy efficiency/renewable energy. The independent Worldwatch Institute says governments need to reassess their view of security. It points out that military power costs so much that it drains resources needed to protect the environment and may dramatically reduce national security. Ethiopia is a good example: $50 million a year spent in the 1970s to offset desertification would have headed off the 1985 famine, which in the end cost $500 million in relief measures. Meanwhile the Ethiopian government was spending $275 million a year on its war against secessionist movements in Eritrea and Tigre. The Institute looked at a number of trade-

offs between military and environmental spending. One of the most telling is the money that should be spent to stop Third World desertification ($4.8 billion over 20 years). That's the equivalent of two days of global military spending.