The Ukraine war is a tragedy of tragedies, catastrophic for the Ukrainian people, a disaster for the global economy and a real setback for global peace and stability. The fog of war is such that most commentary is about who wins, who loses and who is right or wrong. The inconvenient truth is that perhaps we (humanity and the planet) will all lose, with little upside unless we start de-escalating everything. The war has swept aside concerns about the pandemic, with its intense focus on how to defeat the enemy. The speed and ferocity of the war caught almost everyone by surprise, so we have few clear-headed assessments of the comprehensive short- and long-term implications on the global economy, finance, trade and development. Those who care about climate warming, as I do, would like to think through what the war means for the fragile agreement on climate action decided at the Glasgow COP26 summit last November. The late American futurist Richard Buckminster Fuller, who died in 1983, pictured “Spaceship Earth” – a term he helped popularise in the 1960s – following an existential critical path between nuclear war and global warming. Since then, the world has witnessed the end of the Cold War and a peace dividend that enabled nearly three decades of relative peace when we grew increasingly aware of climate warming as an existential threat. Unfortunately, with the return of great power conflict in 2014 and the eruption of war in Ukraine this year, the world’s attention will be diverted away from climate change and towards preparing for war. Make no mistake – there is a direct connection between military spending and carbon emissions. In 2020, the world’s total military expenditure was nearly US$2 trillion. Last year, military expenditure for Nato alone reached an estimated US$1.2 trillion, up 24.9 per cent since 2014. The US accounted for 69 per cent of the Nato total, or an estimated US$811 billion. Brown University’s Watson School of International & Public Affairs said in 2019 that the US defence department is “the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest institutional producer of greenhouse gases in the world”. “In 2017, for example, the Pentagon’s total greenhouse gas emissions (installations and operations) were greater than the greenhouse gas emissions of entire industrialised countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and Portugal,” it added. In short, increased defence expenditure will accelerate energy and non-renewable material consumption, absorb the best talent in war efforts, increase carbon emissions, and thus divert scarce resources away from climate action. How urgent is the climate disaster? UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called 2021 the “make it or break it year” for global climate action. He quoted scientists to say the world must cut global emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, compared with 2010 levels, to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. But with war in Ukraine, the UN is now focused on raising US$1.7 billion in emergency funds to deliver urgent humanitarian help to the country, including to an anticipated more than 4 million Ukrainian refugees. The scale of new natural disasters related to climate warming is frightening. According to Nature magazine, the ongoing US mega drought, which started in 2000, may be the worst since the 800s. We are witnessing bush fires in California and Australia , flash floods in India and Indonesia, and volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that are unprecedented in scale and intensity. On top of all this, Russia accounted for 10 per cent of the world’s oil supply and together with Ukraine produced 29 per cent of global wheat . The price of oil has risen to about US$140 per barrel, and wheat and palm oil prices are at record highs. Countries hoping to cut fuel subsidies will now have to cushion the energy shock, while coping with higher defence expenditures and increasing social spending to alleviate the poverty already worsened by the pandemic. All these in the midst of the surge in inflation and slowing global trade, disrupted by supply chain choke points and war. Last year, scientists across the world banded together to issue a warning about the global climate emergency, highlighting six areas in need of urgent action: energy, atmospheric pollutants, nature, food, population and the economy. They said the world “must accelerate collaborative actions across scales, in different cultures and governance systems, while maintaining adequate social, economic and political stability”. Unfortunately, war has torpedoed collaborative efforts because political stability is being disrupted. Realistically, the 17 UN sustainable development goals are very high- level goals that require detailed design, implementation and action on hundreds of thousands of environmental, social and corporate governance projects and programmes at the local level. World needs a Marshall Plan to cut emissions and avert climate disaster Most emerging markets lack the talent, funding and capacity to implement these effectively. It is easy to call for a global Marshall Plan for civilisation, but with war, it is likely that Europe will prioritise a Marshall Plan for the restoration of the Ukrainian economy first. Who will fund climate action by developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America? Like all crises, war has divided the world into those who are rich and protected, and those who are poor, vulnerable and insecure. This is no longer a zero-sum game, but a vicious downward spiral of conflict, failing governance and climate-driven natural disasters. Before the war gets too hot, we need cool heads and warm hearts to reflect on why we need de-escalation for peace and the survival of all humanity. Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective