In light of current geopolitical tensions, a debate is going on over whether Europe should divert resources from net-zero projects to reinforce its defense apparatus. It confronts the immediate necessity of safeguarding borders while preserving momentum against climate change.
Europe’s net-zero goals, aiming for climate neutrality by 2050, are a cornerstone of the EU’s policy framework, backed by significant investments like the €4.8 billion Innovation Fund for clean tech projects in 2024 and a pledge of 30% of the EU budget until 2027 for climate action. These efforts have driven emissions down – 33% below 1990 levels by 2022, with an additional 8% drop in 2023 – showing tangible progress. However, funding gaps persist. The European Court of Auditors has warned that current investments fall short of the estimated needs for 2030 targets, with member states and private sectors expected to cover 90% of the shortfall, yet plans remain vague.
Meanwhile, defense spending is under intense pressure. Russia’s war in Ukraine and uncertainties about U.S. support under a potentially isolationist administration have pushed European leaders to rethink military readiness. Estimates suggest Europe needs an additional €250 billion annually to deter Russian aggression without U.S. backing – potentially raising defense spending from 2% to 4% of GDP. Germany alone would need to boost its budget by €60 billion yearly, while the EU collectively faces a €500 billion defense investment need over the next decade. Current pledges, like Germany’s €100 billion special fund, are faltering – by early 2023, not a euro had been spent from it.
A new article in the UK newspaper The Telegraph goes deeper into whether or not Europe should abandon net-zero goals to fund defense. Let’s have a look at what is being discussed.
Defense Over Net-Zero Goals
In the article it is argued that scrapping net-zero targets could free up resources. Abandoning climate mandates could redirect funds to rearmament, especially since energy-intensive industries (e.g., steel production) have been hamstrung by high costs and green regulations. Europe’s deindustrialization – partly linked to net-zero policies – has left it with limited capacity to rebuild militaries. Critics say this self-imposed constraint weakens Europe against adversaries with abundant resources.
Supporters of shifting net-zero budgets toward military expenditure warn that Europe’s security climate demands prompt and substantial investment. The European Commission’s plan to mobilize €800 billion, including €150 billion in borrowed funds for member states, exposes this urgency. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stressed the need to bolster air and missile defense capabilities in response to fast-evolving threats.
Some policymakers maintain that hefty financial commitments for net-zero plans could be steered toward upgrading military readiness. They argue that concentrating funds on defense is vital for protecting Europe’s sovereignty and responding to pressing security challenges.
Upholding Net-Zero Ambitions
On the flip side, abandoning net-zero could backfire. Climate policies aren’t just about emissions – they’re tied to energy security. The 2022 gas crisis, triggered by Russia’s export cuts, boosted heat pump adoption and renewables, reducing reliance on hostile powers. Ditching these efforts might lock Europe into fossil fuel dependence, undermining long-term resilience.
Economically, green tech is a growth sector – diverting funds could stall innovation and jobs. Politically, it risks fracturing EU unity, as climate action enjoys broad support, while defense spending varies widely.
Environmental advocates therefor caution against rolling back climate initiatives. They also point out that global warming presents a looming threat, and delaying net-zero efforts could unleash irreversible damage. Investments in renewable energy, efficiency programs, and sustainable tech are essential to curb carbon emissions and moderate the risks of climate disruption.
They also point to the economic upsides of net-zero commitments, including surging job creation in the green sector, innovative breakthroughs, and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. Upholding climate targets solidifies global leadership they say and aligns with international obligations like the Paris Accord.
The Middle Way
A middle path might be more practical: scale back the most costly or unproven net-zero projects (like some speculative carbon capture schemes) while preserving energy security gains, and fund defense through joint EU mechanisms – like a proposed Sovereignty Fund or defense bonds. Studies from Bruegel and Kiel suggest splitting the €250 billion defense hike between national budgets and EU debt, leveraging Europe’s €37 trillion in household savings. This avoids gutting climate goals entirely.
It’s not a zero-sum game – both are existential priorities. But the tension is real: Europe’s current trajectory underfunds defense while overpromising on climate without secured resources. Prioritizing defense might mean tempering climate ambition, not killing it. The question is whether Europe can afford both – or neither. History suggests betting against pragmatism in a crisis is risky.
Organizations like the Institute for European Environmental Policy and the European Council on Foreign Relations have put forward the feasibility of merging climate and security priorities. They argue that both goals can reinforce each other when militaries adopt clean energy and efficient procurement. This coalition of defense analysts and environmental advocates urges Europe to stay on course with its net-zero commitments while bolstering its defense posture.
This vision weaves sustainability into military protocols, focusing on energy-efficient hardware and reducing the defense sector’s carbon footprint. Harmonizing security and environmental aims allows Europe to address imminent threats without sidelining its climate fight.