Fighting a war on climate change

As a senior military officer with decades of experience, Tom Middendorp was used to thinking about the climate.
“Every military analysis starts with an analysis of weather and terrain, because weather and terrain dictates what we can do or what we cannot do,” Middendorp tells Newsroom during a visit to New Zealand.
But the former Netherlands chief of defence did not fully appreciate the linkages between climate change and security until he served as the commander of a multinational task force in Afghanistan.
There, he saw how droughts steadily eroded the water supply available to local farmers, creating tensions that were exploited by the Taliban to gain leverage in the area.
“Once we realised that this was the root cause of those tensions, and we were able to negotiate a solution on how to divide the water, it became quiet in that district centre – for me, that was kind of an eye opener.”
When Middendorp became head of the Dutch armed forces shortly afterwards, he started to think more strategically about “game changers” that would shape the country’s future defence, and it quickly became clear climate change was towards the top of the list.
“It is much more than an environmental issue: it’s of course about the environment, but it’s also about our economic, physical and social security, and I’ve seen that in many areas in the world.”
In Iraq, Islamic State militants occupied the Mosul Dam to control the distribution of water in the arid country. In Somalia, fishermen found their livelihoods threatened by warming coastal waters, driving them towards piracy or extremism. In Mali, more frequent droughts aggravated pre-existing tensions and helped spark civil war.
“We realised we were fighting the symptoms of a deeper problem, and that deeper problem was all about a changing climate,” Middendorp says.
Other underlying trends like population growth, resource scarcity, and geopolitical tensions have heightened the effects of climate change and made it harder to find solutions.
The defence chief created a stir with a 2016 speech outlining the contribution of climate change to the security environment, earning the nickname ‘the Climate General’ in the process. Since retiring in 2017, he has continued his advocacy through a book and the establishment of the International Military Council on Climate and Security, a network of military leaders set up to exchange experiences and best practice on climate and security.
There is already increased interest in the topic, Middendorp says, with the Nato alliance making it one of their priorities, but he would like to build a wider global network for action.
With their fossil fuel-powered ships and planes, as well as their complex supply chains, militaries are notoriously emissions-intensive: one piece of 2022 research estimated the total carbon footprint for the world’s militaries made up more than five percent of global emissions.
Suggesting that a military reduce its emissions often meets resistance due to fears about how it will affect their work, Middendorp says – yet that must happen if it is to be part of the solution.
“Changing that will require an approach [where] you embrace the whole energy transition that’s going on at this moment in the same pace as the civil sector is doing, which means that you can do it in a way that does not affect your operational effectiveness, because you don’t want to do that.”
An easy place to start is the defence real estate, followed by lighter vehicles, although electrification of heavier ships and planes remains some way off.
Middendorp says decarbonisation comes with strategic benefits too, allowing the military to become more self-sufficient for energy and reduce the costs and risks associated with its logistical footprint.
That doesn’t go far enough for some critics, who argue money should be diverted from the military towards climate initiatives (and other domestic priorities) rather than trying to make them more ‘green’.
“Wouldn’t that be the best solution?,” Middendorp says with a wry smile, adding he would be “the first to sign up” for a scenario in which all the world’s militaries could be abolished.
“But unfortunately, we live in a world where the less you can defend your own country, the more vulnerable you become … Ukraine is an example of that.”
Wars are themselves devastating for the climate, he says – by some estimates, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has generated the equivalent of at least 175 million tonnes of carbon dioxide – and the military has an important role to play in preventing conflict from breaking out.
“Climate efforts also need secure environments, or else they won’t work, so I think these are two sides of the same coin.”
He believes the military has a role to play in forecasting climate-related security risks and providing early warnings, as well as in adaptation and mitigation efforts, but says broader work is necessary to reduce resource dependency and revitalise multilateral organisations like the United Nations and the World Bank.
Boards and governments should place photos of their children and grandchildren in their meeting rooms, as a reminder of the future generations they need to have in mind when making decisions.
How likely is that sort of joint effort and long-term vision, in a world with multiple wars raging simultaneously?
“I’m always an optimist, or else I wouldn’t be doing this,” Middendorp says, describing himself as a firm believer in humanity’s ability to adapt. The only question is whether it will do so in time.
“We only change when we feel the need to change, and if we wait until it comes towards us, if that need is being felt, if we are being confronted with the consequences of a changing climate, we are too late.”