“By diversifying the energy sources, and routes, on which our Alliance depends — including through use of alternative fuels — we not only boost our operational readiness and resilience but reduce dependencies, making us stronger for the future,” said the NATO official in comments to POLITICO.
The war in Iran has exposed the risk for countries in relying on fossil fuel imports. Europe, which has limited oil and gas reserves of its own, is especially vulnerable, and the crisis has prompted the European Union to rush to speed up its switch to renewables. Even in military circles, the answer is becoming clearer: in Europe at least, going greener is key to energy independence.
But using climate friendlier tools of war goes against the administration of President Donald Trump, a skeptic of both NATO and renewable energy whose energy policy is summed up by his tagline “drill, baby, drill.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has also been an outspoken critic of what he called “climate change worship,” saying in September: “We are done with that shit.”
The NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence, based in Vilnius, Lithuania, has a different view.
“The energy supply of future military camps is facing a significant change,” said the late-January publication, coming shortly before the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran began and the subsequent choking of the Strait of Hormuz paralyzed global energy supplies. “Until today, military camps have been operated with diesel generators, which are reliable and powerful, but pose considerable logistical challenges as well as environmental disadvantages.”
Rise of green warfare
Since the war in Afghanistan exposed the problems with setting up forward operating bases in remote conditions powered by large and pricey diesel generators, murmurs within NATO have persisted that technologies like solar panels as well as biodiesel and hydrogen were more economically and logistically viable.