War and Warming: Environmental Adaptions in Modern Defense Strategies

The climate has always been changing. However, unlike previous changes, the current one is described as highly threatening to us because it is intensifying at an unprecedented rate. Extreme weather changes, rising sea levels and loss of biodiversity are just some of its consequences. The rapid onset of this climate crisis is driven by the excessive production of greenhouse gases (GHGs) which is tied to power industry, industrial combustion and processes and transportation. To protect the environment around us, we need to solve this crisis or at least mitigate it. It is known that burning of fossil fuels highly contributes to this crisis and unfortunately GHGs do not stop existing at the industrial companies borders or the national borders which means that reducing them requires active participation of multiple actors and at various levels at the same time. For instance, individual countries can implement strategies by which they want to become more environmentally sustainable, at the regional level the European Union has already adopted the Green Deal and at the international level this issue is addressed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Most of the countries that are situated in North America and Europe came up in the early 2020s with long-term strategies that aim to reduce the negative environmental impact of their own military activities. It may sound somewhat paradoxical that armed forces that indirectly (but mostly directly) harm the environment in which they operate are now striving to become more “environmentally friendly.” This step automatically raises the question: how can armed forces contribute to the fight against climate change?

The Military-Climate Nexus

Based on available data, it is estimated that militaries in general are responsible for approximately 5,5 % of GHGs emissions. So if the world’s militaries were considered as a single country it would rank as the 4th largest emitter, right between India and Russia. It is just an estimate because it is important to acknowledge that only certain countries are obligated to publish annual reports on the national GHGs emission including those specifically resulting from its military activities. Some of them do it voluntarily, while others do not report at all or they do have the data but they just do not publish it. For example, countries like China, India, Israel and Saudi Arabia, which have massive military budgets, do not publish those reports on their own. The 5,5 % share is made primarily due to extensive fuel consumption which is required for the function of aircraft, tanks or naval vessels during military operations. Furthemore, the use of a wide range of weaponry leaves behind heavy and soft metals that contaminate the soil and the affected regions by armies must deal with their devastating impacts for years.

However, just as the military affects climate change, climate change negatively affects the functionality of military equipment. On multiple occasions it has been reported that rising temperatures prevented certain aircraft from taking off or that the accumulation of microorganism in sea on ship hulls slowed its speed. Furthermore, it is estimated that if global temperatures rise by 3 °C by the end of the 2100, it will make drones and smaller helicopters unusable and ocean warming will alter underwater wave patterns which would complicate the detection of enemy submarines. Therefore, integrating more sustainable and environmentally friendly principles into military strategies is not merely an ethical step but also a practical necessity to maintain the operations effectiveness.

Military operations consist of several phases and its duration depends on their purpose, intensity and complexity. The implementation of new methods also applies to military routines in peacetime activities as well such as planning, unit training, survey of the territories, troop and equipment movements, their support, rotations and withdrawals. Implementing environmentally sustainable practices throughout their phases allows for more responsible resource management. Additionally, these measures can indirectly influence diplomatic relations by improving the military’s reputation in the foreign region where it operates. It is also important to note that armies are not solely used for warfare but also play a crucial role in peacekeeping operations (particularly in situations where assistance to civilians is required. This often includes the time when some region is in post-conflict reconstruction or it was affected by a natural disaster). In such cases, deployed military units can provide essential logistical support, remove unexploded mines or restore critical infrastructure. Due to global warming that causes an increase of droughts, floods and other natural disasters, the military will inevitably need to adapt its equipment and prepare for a growing demand for rapid and effective deployment in such emergencies.

Climate-friendly defense sector in practise

NATO

NATO, currently comprising 32 member states, stands as one of the strongest and most powerful military alliance in the world and has advocated the need to establish green and resilient armed forces for a long time. It is also a highly specific actor in the international system. Although NATO lacks its own standing military, it coordinates the military forces of its individual member states. These forces operate based on the principle of collective defense, and in situations that require deployment, troops from member states are brought together under a unified command structure. This unique model automatically raises the question if it is even possible to “green” its military sector when it does not have any army of its own? It might come as a surprise that NATO has been addressing the intersection of security challenges and environment protection for many years. As early as 1969, it officially recognized the need to tackle issues such as air pollution and the disposal of hazardous waste. Since then, it has pursued the topic of environment security through scientific activities, building on the necessity to respect and implement certain ecological principles and policies.

NATO responded to the emerging climate crisis by adopting the Climate Change and Security Action Plan following the summit held on June 14 in Brussels in 2021. This plan for example requires member states to map GHGs emissions resulting from their military activities and facilities. NATO’s former Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, also announced at the time that allies would need to reduce their emissions by at least 45 % by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Let’s see how some countries, like the USA and the UK, are taking steps to achieve these ambitious goals.

United States of a America

The US military is the largest in the world and also the biggest polluter of the environment. While the Department of Defense, specifically the Pentagon, does not disclose any detailed information about its units, it is estimated that it owns over 750 military bases abroad, spanning approximately 80 countries. Furthermore, its total military expenditures account for nearly 40 % of global military spending and it emits more carbon than 140 individual countries. A great example of US long-term impact on the climate crisis is the comparison of fuel consumption per average American soldier – during World War II, the figure was 3,5 liters per day, whereas several decades later, during the Iraq invasion, it exceeded 80 liters per day.

Currently, the US defense sector aligns with NATO’s position that the time to deal with climate change is now. Secretary of Defense, Loyd Austin, shortly after taking office in 2021, emphasized the urgent need for measures to integrate climate considerations into military activities, citing the fact that climate change is reshaping the geostrategic landscape and posing a direct threat to security. The military itself has faced significant challenges due to extreme weather events. In recent years, for example substantial costs have occurred to rebuild naval bases which were damaged by hurricanes. As part of its newly implemented strategy, the military is working to view this threat as an opportunity, committing to significant investments in modernizing its forces in a way that can also serve as an example for other nations.

As a part of its Climate Strategy from 2022, the US Army outlined three goals: achieve a 50 % reduction in net Army GHG emissions by 2030 (compared to 2005 levels), reach net-zero Army GHG emission by 2050 and proactively address the security implications of climate change by integrating these consideration into its strategy, planning, acquisition, supply chain and other processes. For each of these goals, the Army has developed a detailed list of tasks. To accomplish these goals, it will adhere to three key “lines of efforts” which focus on installation, acquisition (and logistics) and training.

Currently, the Army manages over 13 million acres of land worldwide, making it essential to balance the needs of its infrastructure with the environmental impact on the regions where it operates. So, as a part of the first line of efforts, the Army decided to focus on “greening” its infrastructure and collaborating with communities in areas where it owns land, plans to build new bases or intend to deploy its units. The second line of effort emphasizes improving operational capabilities while reducing maintenance demands. This includes initiatives to decrease fossil fuel consumption by incorporating electric vehicles for at least emergency operations. Additionally, the Army aims to reduce its reliance on a long supply chain, thereby cutting emissions that are associated with logistics. This effort aligns closely with the newly introduced “Buy Clean” policy, which prioritizes the procurement of sustainable building materials. The final life of effort is focused on updating training and education programs. This for example includes expanding knowledge about the relationship between military and climate and increasing the use of online training modules. A significant shift will come with the reevaluation of training methods. By 2028, the Army plans to redesign all operational and strategic exercises and simulations to incorporate climate threats and risks as a standard consideration.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is one of the few countries that consistently and transparently publishes data on its emissions (including those from its military sector). For example, the carbon footprint of its defense forces from April 2022 to 2023 amounted to 3,1 million tons of CO₂ equivalent. This figure reveals that emissions from military activities accounted for 1 % of the UK’s total emissions. Currently, the UK is striving to integrate its environmental goals into areas such as defense, seeking a balance between ecological sustainability and maintaining effective national security. The nation has set an ambitious goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Like other states, the UK has strategic motivations for pursuing this target. For example, the RAF (Royal Air Force), which contributes the largest share of emissions within the defense sector, is advancing the development and testing of synthetic fuels. This initiative not only aims to reduce carbon emission but also to decrease dependence on expensive imported petroleum-based fuels.

The UK aims to achieve its carbon neutrality goal by fulfilling specific tasks in three phases. The first phase, spanning from 2021 to 2025, primarily focuses on identifying methods to reduce emissions in collaborations with suppliers and developing a comprehensive database which is going to be crucial for setting detailed plans in the other two phases. The second phase, covering the period from 2026 to 2035, prioritizes emission reduction through the efficient use of existing technologies that the army already owns and also thorough review of defense expenditures to determine how they can be utilized more effectively in the future. In the final phase that concludes in 2050, the UK plans to start using newly developed technologies which are capable of operating without unnecessary increases in emissions while enhancing the military’s resilience. During this last phase is to also ensure full alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The UK’s Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach provides the most detailed roadmap for its initial phase. The foundation of this phase involves a thorough analysis of the current and projected impacts of climate change on its defense sector. To achieve this, a new team will be established whose job will be to monitor the military’s carbon footprint and develop specific analytical plans for the future. Closely related to this is also the need to revise training and healthcare plans to better anticipate climate-induced trends and their effects on military operations. Another key objective includes formulating policies for the construction of new facilities to ensure their operations achieve net-zero emissions. Additionally, the UK aims to reduce its built infrastructure by at least 30 % and initiate partnership with tenants (farmers) to improve its land management practices. A particularly ambitious goal is to become a widely respected actor in the international system in this area. This involves a plan forming a coalition with other military forces to collectively advance environmental protection and bolster resilience against the climate crisis. A critical step will be transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources. These transitions will involve fostering collaborations between the government and industry, leveraging new trade agreements and motivating the suppliers to adopt sustainable manufacturing practices.

Challenges and recommendations

This analysis highlights various strategies and plans that certain militaries have developed to fight climate change. However, the successful achievement of these goals will and do require careful considerations of various factors. For example, states are aware of the fact that China has significant influence in the military sector due to its mining and processing of rare earths by which provides 98 % of Europe’s supply and it also dominates in the production of green energy sources such as solar panels. So the interest of all other countries is to avoid replacing one dependency with another. Another critical factor is that the new green technologies are not yet fully matured for combat applications. For example, for lithium-ion batteries it takes a lot of time to charge, they are heavy and most importantly their performance decreases under extreme temperatures. The use of hydrogen is expensive and biofuels are highly limited resources for which there is also strong demand in the civilian sector.

Any state or organization seeking to adapt their military operations to address climate change should prioritize investments in research and development of new technologies to ensure a smoother transition. At the same time, they should focus on updating their own long-term security strategies, aligning them to withstand potential economic pressures from states like China or other important suppliers.

 

Sources

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environemnt (2022). Unites States Army Climate Strategy. February 2022 (https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/about/2022_army_climate_strategy.pdf, accessed December 9, 2024).

Cempírek, Miroslav – Komár, Aleš – Vincenec, Vladislav (2013). The Basics of Environmental Security in Military Operations. Czech military review 22 (54), s. 89-99.

Council of the European Union (2024). Greening the armies. Is a sustainable approach to national defence possible? January 2024 (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/69607/art-greening-the-armies.pdf, accessed December 17, 2024).

De Lorenzo, Daniela (2024). The defence sector is among the world’s biggest polluters. But it’s invested in getting greener. Euronews. December 8, 2024 (https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/12/08/the-defence-sector-is-among-the-worlds-biggest-polluters-but-its-invested-in-getting-green, accessed December 11, 2024).

Defence Sciene and Technology Laboratory (2024). Climate change and defence: a Dstl biscuit book. Gov.uk. January 10, 2024 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate/reduce-impact-of-defence-on-climate-change, accessed December 14, 2024).

Forces News (2023). Nato: What is i and how does it work? April 4, 2023 (https://www.forcesnews.com/news/nato-what-it-and-how-it-works, accessed December 14, 2024).

Charita Česká republika (2024). Jak válečné konflikty ničí životní prostředí a přispívají ke změně klimatu? April 4, 2024 (https://svet.charita.cz/aktuality-svet-charita/jak-valecne-konflikty-nici-zivotni-prostredi-a-prispivaji-ke-zmene-klimatu/, accessed December 8, 2024).

Karlin, Samuel (2021). The U.S. Military Is Driving Environmental Collapse Across the Planet. Left Voice. August 19, 2021 (https://www.leftvoice.org/the-us-military-is-driving-environmental-collapse-across-the-planet/, accessed December 19, 2024).

Kaufman, Ellie (2022). US Army releases first climate strategy with goal to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emission by 2050. CNN Politics. February 8, 2022 (https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/08/politics/us-army-climate-strategy/index.html, accessed December 10, 2024).

Kertysova, Katarina (2023). Implementing NATO’S Climate Security Agenda: Challenges Ahead. NATO Review. August 10, 2023 (https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/08/10/implementing-natos-climate-security-agenda-challenges-ahead/index.html, accessed December 17, 2024).

Larsen, Kristian Knus (2015). The NATO Green Defence Framework. Centre for Military Studies. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep05270.5.pdf, accessed December 14, 2024).

Mallinder, Lorraine (2023). ‘Elephant in the room’: The US military’s devastating carbon footprint. Al Jazeera. December 12, 2023 (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/12/elephant-in-the-room-the-us-militarys-devastating-carbon-footprint, accessed December 9, 2024).

Meyer, Charlotte (2024). Climate Change, The Silent New Enemy of Armed Forces Everywhere. Worldcrunch. October 16, 2024 (https://worldcrunch.com/green/military-and-climate-change, accessed December 18, 2024).

Ministry of Defence (2021). Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach.  March 2021 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973707/20210326_Climate_Change_Sust_Strategy_v1.pdf, accessed December 14, 2024).

NATO (2021). NATO Climate Change and Security Action Plan. (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230710-climate-change-best-practices.pdf, accessed December 16, 2024).

NATO (2022). Climate Change & Security Impact Assessment. (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/280622-climate-impact-assessment.pdf, accessed December 16, 2024).

NATO (2022). NATO releases its Climate Change and Security Impact Assessment. June 28, 2022 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197241.htm, accessed December 16, 2024).

NATO (2023). NATO Secretary General: our armed forces must be both green and strong. June 21, 2023 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_216227.htm, accessed December 14, 2024).

NATO (2024). Environment, climate change and security. July 18, 2024 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_91048.htm, accessed December 14, 2024).

PBS (1989). Use of the Military in Humanitarian Relief. November 1989 (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cuny/laptop/humanrelief.html, accessed December 11, 2024).

Scientists for Global Responsibility (2020). The Environment Impacts of the UK Military Sector. May 2020 (https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-05/SGR-DUK_UK_Military_Env_Impacts.pdf, accessed December 14, 2024).

Slayton, Nicholas (2022). These European armies are giving a glimpse at how militaries will adapt to climatae change. Task&Purpose. July 24, 2022 (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/these-european-armies-are-giving-a-glimpse-at-how-militaries-will-adapt-to-climate-change/, accessed December 14, 2024).

Total Military Insight (2024). Enhancing Sustainability in Military Practises for the Future. August 1, 2024 (https://totalmilitaryinsight.com/sustainability-in-military-practices/, accessed December 9, 2024).

Weir, Doug – Neimark, Benjamin – Belcher, Oliver (2021). How the world’s militaries hide their huge carbon emission. The Conversation. November 9, 2021 (https://theconversation.com/how-the-worlds-militaries-hide-their-huge-carbon-emissions-171466, accessed December 14, 2024).

Weir, Doug (2024). The climate costs of war and militaries can no longer be ignores. The Guardian. January 9, 2024 (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/09/emission-from-war-military-gaza-ukraine-climate-change, accessed December 8, 2024).

Williamson, Bryan C. (2018). Choosing Between Guns and the Environment. The Regulatory Review. October 8, 2018 (https://www.theregreview.org/2018/10/08/williamson-choosing-guns-environment/, accessed December 8, 2024).

Source of the picture: https://caneecca.org/eng/press-release-dealing-with-military-and-conflict-related-emissions-under-the-unfccc/

 

Written by Michaela Konopásková

16