Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2408.16419

The Green Peace Dividend: the Effects of Militarization on Emissions and the Green Transition

Abstract

This paper argues that military buildups lead to a significant rise in greenhouse gas emissions and can disrupt the green transition. Identifying military spending shocks, I use local projections to show that a percentage point rise in the military spending share leads to a 0.9-2% rise in total emissions, as well as a 1% rise in emission intensity, depending on the economy's overall emission intensity. Using a dynamic production network model calibrated for the US, I find that a permanent shock of the same size would increase total emissions by between 0.36% and 1.81%, and emission intensity by between 0.22% and 1.5%. The empirical analysis indicates that green patenting is reduced by 10-25% following such a shock, and the model suggests that investment in renewables could be crowded out by defence spending under certain circumstances, hindering the energy transition. These effects can significantly raise climate damages and temperatures. Depending on the social cost of carbon and the composition of a military spending shock, I estimate that doubling the military spending share in the US in 2017 (equal to 3.3% of GDP) would have led to climate damages equivalent to between 0.07-2.6% of GDP per year.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Balázs Markó. 2025-02-10. The Green Peace Dividend: the Effects of Militarization on Emissions and the Green Transition. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16419

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Local Media and the Shaping of Social Norms: Evidence from the Ebola outbreak

Media's influence on norms and behavior is widely recognized. Less is known about the role played by media being local. I examine this in a high-stakes context, the Ebola outbreak in Guinea. I exploit quasi-random variation in access to radio and the timing of a public-health campaign aired on community radio. I find that 12-17% of Ebola cases could have been prevented if places with access to a neighboring community radio station had instead had their own. Impacts are driven by radio being local rather than by ethno-linguistic belonging. Local media facilitates coordination in behaviors observed and sanctioned locally.

econ.GN

Productivity Shocks and Input Misallocation: A Decomposition

This paper asks how much input misallocation productivity uncertainty generates and at which stage of input decisions it arises. I separate revenue productivity by when each component is revealed and trace each into the gap between an input's marginal revenue product and its price. In six European countries, shocks revealed after an input is committed account for 20 percent of capital gap dispersion and 5 percent of labor gap dispersion. An unanticipated one percent rise in productivity raises the capital gap by 0.92 percent and the labor gap by 0.19 percent, because most of the shock passes into the wage.

econ.GN

When Do Type-Specific Wages Buffer Distributional Incidence in TANK?

When do relative wages buffer the unequal incidence of aggregate shocks? I derive a consumption-gap decomposition and a present-value condition for partial offset in a TANK model. An extension separates wage-setting demand elasticity from substitution between labor segments and allows each segment to contain both financial types. With a zero inherited wage gap and a same-sign discounted wedge, substitution above one gives offsetting earnings reallocation; substitution below one gives amplification. The channel disappears when financial types have identical segment exposure. Numerical experiments assess these mechanisms, shock persistence, policy feedback, and aggregate-IRF matching. In the nested perfect-alignment monetary benchmark, the peak consumption gap is about two-fifths smaller under type-specific wages than under the common-wage closure. These are conditional model comparisons, not empirical effect estimates or welfare rankings.

econ.GN