From responding to weather disasters to facing rising competition in the fast-warming Arctic, militaries are increasingly exposed to climate change and cannot afford to let it become a strategic "blind spot," security experts say.
Concerns have grown recently that climate action is being sidelined, as Europe bolsters its defense and the United States retreats from alliances and green commitments.
However, defense departments have already emphasized that a warming planet poses major national security challenges—and militaries must adapt to respond to these evolving threats.
"You can't escape this. Climate doesn't care who's president or what your political goals are at the moment," said Erin Sikorsky, director of the Washington-based Center for Climate & Security.
"It is coming, and militaries need to be prepared," she said.
In the U.S., where President Donald Trump's administration scrubbed global warming references from government websites, the latest intelligence threat assessment made no mention of climate change.
Sikorsky said this omission leaves crucial strategic gaps—particularly in relation to renewable energy superpower China and the race for supremacy in the Arctic, where the loss of sea ice is opening up shipping lanes and access to resources.
"What I worry about, as someone who worked in national security for a long time, is this blind spot puts the U.S. at risk," she said.
In Europe, Russia's invasion of Ukraine sparked energy security fears and accelerated many countries' renewables ambitions.
But in recent months, countries have slashed international development aid—throwing climate budgets into question as spending priorities shift to defense and trade.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock last month acknowledged the "extremely challenging" geopolitical situation but insisted that climate action remains a "top security policy."
The country plans a half-trillion-dollar spending "bazooka" for military and infrastructure, coupled with 100 billion euros for climate measures.
'Weaponizing' disaster
"Anyone thinking about security needs to think about climate as well. We are already living in the climate crisis," said an assessment commissioned by Germany's foreign and defense ministries in February.
It said climate challenges were emerging across "the entire range of military tasks," with increased risks including large-scale crop failures, conflict, and instability.
In a September report, the UK's Ministry of Defence said humanity's impact on the climate and environment "continues to have far-reaching consequences, putting significant pressure on societies and economies and threatening the very existence of some states."
Militaries are increasingly being deployed following floods, storms, and wildfires—stretching the capacity of some forces, said Sikorsky, whose organization has tracked more than 500 such emergency responses worldwide since 2022.
There have also been efforts to "weaponize" climate disasters, she said.
Last year, torrential rains unleashed by Storm Boris caused massive flooding in Poland, sweeping away bridges and destroying homes and schools.
As soldiers helped evacuate residents and clear debris, the government reported a 300 percent increase in Russian online disinformation targeting the relief effort.
Sikorsky said China used the same "playbook" after deadly floods in Valencia, Spain, which also saw thousands of soldiers deployed.
Warming itself also has major operational implications.
Extreme temperatures can endanger soldiers’ health and even reduce the amount of cargo planes can carry, Sikorsky noted.
Energy vulnerabilities
Militaries are not required to report their greenhouse gas emissions, so their direct contribution to global warming remains unclear.
But a 2024 report by the European Union estimated the carbon "bootprint" of the world's armed forces could account for 5.5 percent of global emissions.
The Pentagon alone produced more emissions than countries like Portugal or Denmark, the Greening the Armies report stated.
Armies have been concerned about fossil fuel dependence long before climate change became a global priority—going back to the oil crises of the 1970s, said Duncan Depledge of Loughborough University, who studies climate’s impact on military operations.
According to a 2019 study, the U.S. Army consumed about one gallon of fuel per soldier per day in World War II. During the 1990–91 Gulf War, it rose to around four gallons, and by 2006 had surged to some 16 gallons in U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This heavy reliance on fossil fuels creates "significant vulnerabilities" in combat, said the EU report.
Fuel convoys are easy targets for roadside bombs, which accounted for nearly half of U.S. military deaths in Iraq and nearly 40 percent in Afghanistan, it noted.
Renewable energy could help reduce these risks, the report said, though it acknowledged that current technologies are "not yet entirely suitable for combat."
Depledge added that a faster global energy transition to avoid "climate catastrophe" would pose operational challenges for militaries, likely raising questions about their fossil fuel use.
"Whichever direction you go, militaries no longer have a choice—they will be operating in a very different world than they do today," he said.
By Kelly Macnamara / AFP
Comments