As the world capitals navigate crises in Ukraine, Gaza and South China Sea, images of tanks and devastation dominate headlines every day. But beneath these visible calamities, another silent casualty suffers--our climate. While wars claim immediate lives, they also compound long-term planetary harm. If we continue to define security in narrow military terms, we may win battles but lose the climate of war.
While bombs fall and borders are redrawn, greenhouse gases rise, water systems break down, and critical climate
As the world capitals navigate crises in Ukraine, Gaza and South China Sea, images of tanks and devastation dominate headlines every day. But beneath these visible calamities, another silent casualty suffers--our climate. While wars claim immediate lives, they also compound long-term planetary harm. If we continue to define security in narrow military terms, we may win battles but lose the climate of war.
While bombs fall and borders are redrawn, greenhouse gases rise, water systems break down, and critical climate goals unravel. In a world defined by militarised insecurity, we risk overlooking a more existential threat, the climate crisis. As we move deeper into an era of multipolar tensions and climate vulnerability, the urgent question that arises: Can we honestly say we are protecting national security when our strategies leave the environment irreparably scared?
At first glance, war and the climate crisis seem to operate at different tempos--one violent and immediate, the other slow and insidious. But once you dig deeper, their feedback loop becomes clear. Environmental stressors such as drought, rising temperatures, and food insecurity often trigger conflict. In turn, war further accelerates climate degradation, often invisible.
The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict offers a disturbing case in this point. Since the invasion began in 2022, over 100 million tonnes of CO2 have been released, not just from destroyed fuel depots and bombed power plants, but from the very machinery of war itself. But the environmental toll does not stop there.
Both Ukraine and Russia are major grain exporters. War on their soil disrupted harvest and volatile grain markets. This has pushed food prices across Africa and Asia, intensifying hunger and unrest among vulnerable populations. In Gaza, destruction of water infrastructure amid escalating conflict has transformed heatwaves into lethal humanitarian emergencies. Similarly, in Sudan, Syria and Yemen, wars have poisoned rivers, dismantled irrigation systems, and forced millions into overstretched refugee camps. The critical question that arises in this situation is: Are these merely regional conflicts? Or are they early signs of global climate security breakdown?
Despite the mounting evidence, global frameworks across the world treat military and climate threats in silos. Military exercises stimulate enemy incursions, while climate scientists stimulate rising seas- but rarely do these models intersect. Worse, military emissions remain exempt from most international climate agreements, a loophole dating back to the Kyoto Protocol. This allows the world’s largest defence sectors to emit greenhouse gases with virtual impunity. Yet the climate cost of war stretches far beyond emissions. Cities rebuilt after bombings require cement and steel- two of the most carbon intensive materials on Earth. Humanitarian crises caused by war force mass migration to already be strained urban centers, putting water, sanitation, and energy systems under unbearable stress. And most devastatingly, wars divert national budgets away from climate adaptation and towards weaponisation.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military expenditure soared past $2.2 trillion in 2023. By contrast, the UN Environment Programme reports a $ 400 billion annual shortfall in climate adaptation finance. Redirecting even a fraction of defence funds could dramatically change our capacity to withstand climate shocks.
Amid this grim landscape, India’s restrained diplomatic stance stands apart, not through loud posturing, but quiet, climate conscious realism. Rather than aligning with military blocs during Ukraine war or Red Sea tensions, India prioritised energy security and climate resilience. Critics called this neutrality, but in hindsight, it was strategic pragmatism.
Instead of chasing alliances, India prioritised energy diversification, solar expansion, and green hydrogen investment- preparing for climate shocks, not geopolitical ones. Its refusal to be caught in fossil fuel volatility insulated its economy and preserved space for long term sustainability efforts. Most crucially, India emerged as a leading advocate for adaptation finance for the Global South. It recognised that countries mired in debt or conflict cannot build climate resilience. India’s focus on water stewardship, rural electrification, and climate-smart agriculture demonstrates a unique approach to national security- one rooted in sustainability, not militarisation.
On the global stage, it championed adaptation finance for the Global South, recognising that countries cannot build climate resilience while trapped in war or debt cycles. India’s water stewardship, rural electrification, and climate-smart agriculture reflect a security strategy grounded in sustainability rather than militarisation. This climate aware realism offers a compelling alternative to traditional great power posturing. It demonstrates that global influence does not require alliance politics or gunboat diplomacy but can be built through long-term investments in shared climate security.
India’s approach offers lessons to the world can no longer afford to ignore. Drawing on both global data and grounded diplomacy, four critical policy shifts must define climate security in the 21st century.
First, military emissions must no longer be exempt from global climate reporting. Integrating defence emissions into climate accords is not only essential for transparency, but also for accountability. Second, peacebuilding efforts must embed environmental restoration, from water systems to renewable infrastructure, as core priorities, not afterthoughts. Third, a modest redirection of just 10% of global military spending could bridge the adaptation finance gap, delivering critical support to the world’s most vulnerable populations. Finally, countries from the Global South including India, Kenya, Indonesia, and Brazil, must be brought to the forefront of climate diplomacy, where their pragmatic, sovereignty-conscious approaches to climate security can shape global policy frameworks.
In the 21st century the gravest threats may not come from missiles, but from microbes, rising seas and failed harvests. To define national security solely in military terms is to ignore the slow burning crises that could render entire regions uninhabitable. Today’s war may dominate headlines, but the real test of leadership lies in securing our environmental future.
India’s climate conscious diplomacy anchored in adaptation, cooperation, and restraint offers a compelling alternative. Climate security is not an add-on to national security. It is national security. It reminds us that global leadership is not measured by firepower but by foresight.
If we continue to neglect this lesson, the next great global conflict may not be fought over land and ideology- but over clean water, breathable air, and fertile soil.
This article is authored by Anusreeta Dutta, columnist and energy researcher.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website