{"id":6454,"date":"2023-05-19T20:48:47","date_gmt":"2023-05-19T17:48:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/?p=6454"},"modified":"2023-05-19T20:48:48","modified_gmt":"2023-05-19T17:48:48","slug":"selling-war-amid-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/news\/selling-war-amid-climate-change","title":{"rendered":"Selling war amid climate change"},"content":{"rendered":"

Can war be environmentally sustainable? Many will think this question goes without answering. When I first heard of \u201cenvironmentally friendly weapons,\u201d it struck me as a mind-boggling paradox to place environmental care next to the means of war. Yet, somehow, we are. This is not a rhetorical question to policymakers, think tanks, military staff, and arms producers across Europe and North America<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As states and military alliances push\u00a0strategic \u201csustainability approaches\u201d\u00a0and military manufacturers find themselves\u00a0back\u00a0on\u00a0sustainable investment indexes, the idea that \u201cwar is greenable\u201d is becoming commonplace, swallowed whole by unsuspecting journalists, civil society organizations, and concerned citizens. The world is at a breaking point. Something has to happen, right? Surely a green(er) military is one step in the right direction. This is the self-affirming argumentative loop we have to break. The myth that military practice and climate action<\/a> can be compatible has dire consequences for realizing a \u201cjust\u201d transition based on non-military forms of care for both people and the planet.<\/p>\n

THE MAKING OF A GREEN MILITARY MYTH
\n<\/strong>Since 2020, there\u2019s been a frenzied release of military climate action<\/a> plans across Europe and North America. From climate strategies for the US\u00a0armed forces\u00a0to the UK\u00a0Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach\u00a0and the European Union\u2019s\u00a0Climate Change and Defense Roadmap, these sectors have put their military noses to the greening grindstone.<\/p>\n

Common to each agenda is how they define and fix climate change as a threat-multiplier, or \u201chyperthreat,\u201d with grave geostrategic and national security implications. This corresponds with the\u00a0climate\u00a0and\u00a0environmental security\u00a0narratives that have dominated policy approaches to climate change in recent years. In essence, these narratives reduce thinking and action around environmental crises to a concern with the \u201csecurity implications\u201d of climate<\/a> and environmental change.<\/p>\n

EVEN MORE STRIKING IS HOW THE AGENDAS NOT ONLY SUGGEST MILITARY REMEDIES TO ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES BUT ALSO POSITION THE MILITARY SECTOR ITSELF AS A CLIMATE<\/a> ACTION PACEMAKER AND A FRONTRUNNER IN THE GREEN TRANSITION.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This framing makes it possible to position the military as a necessary actor in an inevitable \u201cwar on climate change\u201d and promote military security doctrines and military-industrial solutions as natural responses to the global insecurities that are assumed to spread with worsening environmental conditions. \u201cThe threats of our modern world, made worse by rising seas, extreme weather and creeping desertification, will almost certainly lead to more conflict,\u201d writes\u00a0the general\u00a0behind the UK\u2019s\u00a0green military approach.<\/p>\n

What is particularly striking is how the agendas take for granted the dystopian worst-case scenario understandings of climate change and peoples\u2019 assumed inability to respond to environmental insecurities in nonviolent ways. This normalizes the military\u2019s response as one based on adapting to and preparing for these scenarios rather than putting all our might toward preventing them from becoming true.<\/p>\n

Even more striking is how the agendas not only suggest military remedies to environmental emergencies but also position the military sector itself as a climate action pacemaker and a frontrunner in the green transition. \u201cThe time to address climate change is now\u201d and \u201cThe Army will lead by example\u201d are promises that the\u00a0US Army Climate Strategy\u00a0makes. The British sustainability approach confirms how the military will play a \u201cleading role in supporting wider UK objectives for climate change,\u201d and NATO\u2019s Climate Change and Security Action Plan has afforded the military alliance the title of \u201ca driver of climate action.\u201d<\/p>\n

HOW TO MONETIZE SUSTAINABILITY
\n<\/strong>To make the sustainable war narrative credible, defense ministries and armed forces rely on close collaboration with the military industry to drive research and production of green military technologies. These are meant to reduce the military\u2019s reliance on fossil fuels and decrease pollution from weaponry and warfighting. Initiatives range from powering fighter jets and navy vessels with\u00a0cooking oil and algae, to developing everything from\u00a0low-carbon<\/a> laser weapons\u00a0and\u00a0speed-of-light microwave systems,\u00a0biodegradable explosives, and\u00a0lead-free bullets.\u00a0They include solar-powered\u00a0drones\u00a0and\u00a0submarines,\u00a0lithium-ion battery tanks,\u00a0toxin-reduced rockets, and solutions for turning\u00a0waste<\/a> explosives into compost.<\/p>\n

Military actors\u2019 co-option of environmental sustainability is made painfully clear by the\u00a0Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe, which defines military security as\u00a0intrinsic to sustainability. \u201cSecurity is the precondition for any sustainability,\u201d they write, to support the argument that through helping to ensure security, the European arms industry \u201cde facto makes a vital contribution to a more sustainable world.\u201d<\/p>\n

What to make of this? The green turn in military policy communicates a simple message: that such a thing as environmentally sustainable warfare exists. Evidently, there\u2019s a lot of money to be made from selling the idea that war is indeed \u201cgreenable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Needless to say, the military has to cut emissions and make progress on greener options for any of these nations to meet their climate commitments. However, the agendas make clear that these military sectors will only work toward climate action as long as this helps maintain or boost their nations\u2019<\/a> military superiority. The US Army\u00a0specifies\u00a0that climate change adaptation must align with and support the Department\u2019s warfighting requirements and the UK Ministry of Defense chirpily clarifies that \u201cDefence will seek to use the green transition to add to capabilities.\u201d<\/p>\n

By presenting war as greenable, it also becomes possible to present climate action and environmental care as compatible with military practice. What\u2019s more, it makes it possible for the military to promote itself as going green without being challenged on the fact that it is doing so only so far as a greener practice allows these nations to become better at war, not to save the planet.<\/p>\n

CENTERING THE \u201cJUST\u201d TRANSITION
\n<\/strong>We are witnessing the creation of a powerful myth that the military sector utilizes to undermine climate justice arguments that highlight the military as a primary culprit behind ecological crises. Movements like the\u00a0Climate Justice Alliance\u00a0make it clear that the kind of alternative regenerative economy that we have to work toward to stand a chance against compounding environmental<\/a> crises is based on human and ecological forms of security and practices of radical connectivity and solidarity. These stand in direct opposition to the extractive economy that is causing climate disaster and the militarism that protects<\/a> it.<\/p>\n

Green militarism thus particularly harms just transition movements that know\u00a0\u2014\u00a0from foregrounding lived experiences of\u00a0climate colonialism\u00a0and the\u00a0policing\u00a0and\u00a0militarization\u00a0of racialized communities\u00a0\u2014\u00a0that disarmament equals decarbonization equals decolonization. Rather than\u00a0military security being intrinsically linked with sustainability, the real link runs seamlessly between\u00a0demilitarization and climate justice.<\/p>\n

Continued reliance on military security doctrines, however \u201cgreen,\u201d directly worsens conditions of violence and insecurity among the global majority that are already bearing the brunt of\u00a0CO2lonialism\u00a0and militarism. Unless we resist the militarization of climate change action and environmental sustainability pathways, we will end up defenseless against the real non-military challenges posed by environmental crises.<\/p>\n

Nico Edwards<\/em>\u00a0is a PhD candidate<\/a> in International Relations at the University of Sussex, advisor to<\/em>\u00a0Scientists for Global Responsibility<\/em>, and a research associate for the World Peace Foundation\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0Revitalizing Debate on the Global Arms Trade<\/em>\u00a0program.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Can war be environmentally sustainable? Many will think this question goes without answering. When I first heard of \u201cenvironmentally friendly weapons,\u201d it struck me as a mind-boggling paradox to place environmental care next to the means of war. Yet, somehow, we are. This is not a rhetorical question to policymakers, think tanks, military staff, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6455,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6454"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6454\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6459,"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6454\/revisions\/6459"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6455"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cfwt.sua.ac.tz\/ecosystems\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}