The intersection of military operations and the climate crisis demands urgent adaptation and strategic foresight from NATO.
The ecological and environmental impacts of military activity are often overshadowed by the immediate strategic objectives of national defense. This prioritization leads to a lack of attention and resources dedicated to understanding and mitigating environmental degradation caused by military operations.
However, as climate change accelerates, the intersection of military operations and environmental degradation poses profound challenges that cannot be ignored, particularly because said intersection can also exacerbate conflicts and hinder the very efforts towards a sustainable peace.
The NATO Climate Change and Security Impact Assessment released in July 2024 highlights the urgent need to address these issues, particularly in light of the increasing frequency of extreme weather events and their implications for global security.
One must also take into account the negative impacts and hidden costs of military activity on the environment to build a clearer picture of how the military impacts the environment and how the environment impacts the military. Military operations can damage ecosystems, disrupt habitats, and contribute to climate change through fossil fuel consumption and waste disposal. These environmental degradations can, in turn, affect military effectiveness by disrupting supply chains and increasing resource-related conflicts.
The climate-security nexus
Climate change is not merely an environmental issue; it is a significant threat multiplier that exacerbates existing security challenges. Extreme weather events — such as floods, wildfires, and droughts — are becoming more frequent and intense, placing immense pressure on critical infrastructure and resources. This strain can lead to social and political tensions, particularly in vulnerable regions where resource scarcity is already a concern, not to mention the increasing number of climate refugees, adding more fuel to the already complicated debate on migration.
The relationship between climate change and global security is complex. Environmental stressors can lead to increased conflict, instability, and violence.
2023 was marked by catastrophic floods across Central Europe and devastating wildfires in North America, which illustrated the direct impact of climate change on human security and military readiness. These extreme weather events disrupt communities, displace populations, and strain resources, leading to increased humanitarian needs and potential conflicts over scarce resources. They also test the operational readiness of military forces, which are often called upon for disaster response.
The relationship between climate change and global security is complex. Environmental stressors can lead to increased conflict, instability, and violence. As resources become scarcer, competition for water and food may escalate, leading to conflicts that could draw military forces into humanitarian crises or peacekeeping missions. All of this creates a need for fast adaptation and to include climate considerations in military planning and operations.
The impact on naval, land and aerial operations
The naval domain faces unique challenges due to climate change. Rising sea levels and increasing ocean temperatures threaten naval infrastructure, such as ports and bases. The report notes that warmer waters can affect sonar effectiveness and the operational capabilities of submarines, thereby impacting naval readiness and strategic operations. Additionally, the unpredictability of climate events necessitates greater responsiveness in disaster relief and maritime search and rescue missions, further stretching naval resources.
Land operations are equally affected by climate change. Increased frequency and intensity of wildfires threaten military installations and training areas, while extreme temperatures can hinder soldier performance and equipment functionality. The thawing of permafrost poses risks to infrastructure, potentially releasing dangerous pathogens and destabilizing operational environments.
Aerial operations are not immune to the impacts of climate change, either. Higher temperatures reduce air density, affecting aircraft performance during takeoff and landing. Increased turbulence and severe weather conditions pose additional risks, necessitating adjustments in flight planning and operations. The NATO report emphasizes that these changes could lead to higher operational costs and increased risks for personnel and equipment.
Military operations and environmental degradation: assessing the military carbon footprint
The military’s environmental footprint is substantial, and its operations often exacerbate ecological degradation, from the pollution generated by military exercises to the destruction of habitats during conflicts.
Militaries globally account for approximately 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, making them collectively the fourth largest emitter, surpassing countries like Russia. The U.S. military alone is the world’s largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons, emitting more greenhouse gases than many industrialized nations.
Moreover, military operations often require extensive resource consumption, including fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The military’s reliance on these resources not only impacts the environment but also undermines global efforts to combat climate change.
Ironically, this is a feedback process in which military activity bears significant responsibility for environmental degradation, while environmental degradation makes life difficult for military organizations by forcing them to adapt constantly, increasing the difficulty in predicting climatic phenomena and outcomes.
Military operations often require extensive resource consumption, including fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
NATO has acknowledged the need to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint and is investing in sustainable practices, yet the scale of military activity often eclipses these efforts and the efforts of a military alliance to mitigate harmful effects caused by its main activity are doubtful.
It seems obvious that efforts from NATO and the armies aligned with the organization are welcome. Military organizations and the very idea of armies are here to stay and have been for centuries, millennia even, and given the current escalation of conflicts in countries as diverse as Ukraine, Sudan, Palestine or Myanmar, it’s obvious that one must learn how to mitigate some of its worst effects rather than expect that they will simply go away.
The big question here is whether NATO is doing enough and, above all, if they can do enough or even want to. In fact, a significant portion of military emissions remains hidden or undisclosed, raising concerns about the true environmental impact of military operations. This issue is particularly relevant as NATO and other military organizations grapple with the implications of climate change on global security.
A significant portion of military emissions remains hidden or undisclosed, raising concerns about the true environmental impact of military operations.
There’s a lack of standardized reporting or framework for measuring military emissions and military operations are inherently secretive, and detailed reports on emissions may be classified and out of reach of the wider public. Above all, military operations are imagined or focused on readiness, on the actual capacity to attack or defend a territory, not on the real impact over the environment.
The role of mis(dis)information
In addition to the direct impacts of climate change, misinformation and disinformation related to climate issues poses a significant threat to NATO’s unity and effectiveness – and to any army or military organization for that matter.
State and non-state actors exploit climate-related disinformation to undermine public trust and hinder international cooperation. This manipulation complicates efforts to address climate change and its security implications, as seen in the actions of countries like Russia, which has actively disseminated misleading narratives about climate science and climate change denialism.
There is no escaping the irony of debating how to transform a war machine designed to kill into an eco-friendly machine – designed to kill.
To counteract these threats, it’s important to enhance communication strategies and foster public understanding of the climate-security nexus. Other measures are needed, although not necessarily linked to NATO or military efforts, but rather on the realm of algorithmic governance and imposing real accountability to big tech and social media.
The ecological and environmental impacts of military activity are profound and multifaceted, intertwining with the broader challenges posed by climate change. As NATO grapples with these issues, it must prioritize sustainable practices and integrate climate considerations into its strategic planning.
There is no escaping the irony of debating how to transform a war machine designed to kill into an eco-friendly machine – designed to kill. It’s a wild choice between a targeted death by, maybe, a drone strike or a ‘smart bomb,’ and total annihilation due to a tsunami or any other extreme weather phenomenon.
The future of global security depends on our ability to address the environmental consequences of military operations and adapt to the realities of a changing climate.