From the response to climatic disasters to the growing competition in the rapid calculation Arctic, the military are exposed to climate change and cannot let them become a strategic “blind spot”, say security experts.
Recently, concerns have grown that climate action is leaving aside as Europe refers to the United States of the allies and their green commitments. But defense departments have already stressed that a heating planet poses important national security challenges, and the military must adapt to respond to these evolutionary threats.
“You can’t escape this. The weather doesn’t care who the president or his political objectives is at this time,” said Erin Sikorsky, director of the Climate and Safety Center with headquarters in Washington. “It approaches and the military must be prepared,” he said.
In the United States, where the administration of President Donald Trump has scrubbed the global warming of government websites, the last evaluation of intelligence threats did not mention climate change.
Sikorsky said that this leaves crucial strategic gaps, particularly when it comes to the Chinese renewable energy superpower and the career for supremacy in the Arctic, where the loss of sea ice is opening shipping lanes and access to resources. “What worries me, like some who worked in national security for a long time, is this blind point at risk of the United States,” he said.
In Europe, the invasion of Ukraine in Russia caused fears of energy security and accelerated the ambitions of renewable energies of many countries. But in recent months, countries have reduced international development aid, doubting climate budgets as expense priorities resort to defense and trade.
Last month, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock recognized the “extremely challenging” geopolitical situation, but insisted that climate action remained a “higher security policy.”
New
Le Monde application
Take advantage of your experience: download the application to enjoy Le Monde in English anywhere, at any time
Discharge
The country plans an expense of half trillion of dollars “Bazuca” for military and infrastructure, along with 100 billion euros for climatic measures.
Disaster of ‘Weapon’
“Anyone who thinks about security should also think about the climate. We are already living in the climatic crisis,” said an evaluation in charge of the Minters and defense of Germany in February.
He said that climatic challenges were emerging over “the entire range of military tasks”, with greater risks that include large -scale crop failures, conflict and instability.
In a September report, the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense said that the impact of humanity on the climate and the environment “continues to have long -range congresses, exerting significant pressure on societies and economies and threatening the very existence of some states.”
The military are being called more and more to the next floods, storms and forest fires, which stretches the capacity of some forces, said Sikorsky, whose organization has tracked more than 500 emergency responses of those emergencies in the world since since it has been “state” to “it has” been “has” been “to” it has “been” to “it has been” “” Have “” “have” “” have “” “have” “is” “is” “is” “is” “ha” “Climate disasters, he said.
Last year, torrential rains unleashed by the storm Boris caused mass floods in Poland that swept the bridges and destroyed homes and schools. But as the soldiers helped evacuate residents and clear debris, the government said it faced a 300% increase in Russian online misinformation, pointing to the effort of help.
Sikorsky said that China used the same “play book” in the sequelae or mortal floods in Valencia, Spain, which also saw thousands or deployed soldiers.
Self -heating also has important operational implications. Extreme temperatures can risk the health of soldiers and simply reduce the amount of load that airplanes can carry, Sikorsky said.
Energy vulnerabilities
It is not required that the military do not denounce their greenhouse gas emissions, so their direct contribution to global warming is not known precisely. But a 2024 report from the European Union estimated the “carbon boots” or the world’s armies could be 5.5 percent of global emissions.
The Pentagon only produced more emissions than nations like Portugal or Denmark, said the “green armies.”
The armies concerned with the dependence of fossil fuels long before climate change became a priority: the Conerns date back to the oil crisis in the 1970s, said Duncan Depledge of the University of Laughborough, who studies the climate before the military.
According to a 2019 study, the US Army. Uu. It consumed approximately a gallon or fuel per soldier per day in World War II. Duration The Gulf War of 1990-91 was around four gallons, and in 2006 it had increased to about 16 gallons in US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A great dependence on fossil fuels creates “significant vulnerabilities” in combat, said the EU report. Fuel convoys are an easy goal for road bombs, which represented almost half of US deaths in Iraq and about 40% in Afghanistan, he said.
Renewable energy could help avoid thesis risks, according to the report, but acknowledged that technology “was not yet proper for combat.”
Depledge said that a faster global energy transition to avoid “climatic catastrophe” would raise challenges for armies, probably raising Conerns about its use of fossil fuels. “At the address of the management, the military no longer have an option about the fact that they will operate in a world very different from what they do today,” he said.
]
