Greenwashing as a Security Strategy: Clever Shortcut or Hopeless Mistake?
The concept of “greenwashing” — understood as a marketing technique involving the spread of false, unsubstantiated, or outright misleading statements or claims about the sustainability of a product, service, or even an organisation — is now part of the current lexicon that both experts and the general public utilise when discussing climate change mitigation and environmental concerns. Interest in the term has rapidly grown since the early 2000s, being featured not only in academic papers but also in social media posts.
First coined in 1986 by environmentalist Jay Westerveld, greenwashing has traditionally been related to the corporate world. As previously stated, it is often described as a business strategy for marketing a specific product or service. However, the term does not elude other organisations or institutions. In fact, states can also be responsible for greenwashing, and they can even be so deliberately, undertaking such deceitful efforts as a part of their security policy.
As a result of the intensification of global warming and climate change and the ever-accelerating occurrence of natural disasters associated with that trend, the perception of a rising worldwide security threat has consolidated. Accordingly, the international community and its cornerstone institutions have implemented a series of systems and agreements destined to generate incentives for those state actors that commit to becoming environmentally sustainable. Unlike several individual countries, which have themselves enforced policies such as green taxes within their respective jurisdictions, international bodies cannot possibly impose any robust instrument to punish states that harm the environment through their greenhouse emissions. However, there are mechanisms aimed at generating positive incentives for policy reform favoring climate change mitigation. For example, the World Bank has set an Environmental and Social Framework, as approved by its Board of Directors in 2016, which among other things, sets environmental and social requirements for borrowers through the Environmental and Social Standards (ESS).
Additionally, those countries which have implemented environmental policies have become publicly recognised in news media with a predominantly positive framing. Conversely, leaders who have disregarded or even downplayed concerns related to climate change have received substantial negative coverage, while others who have neglected sustainability efforts have been widely criticised. Such is the case of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Notably, the indifference of his administration toward the environment was so blunt that leaders from the European Union refrained from signing a trade deal with its Southern Cone counterpart, the MERCOSUR – a free-trade zone encompassing not only Brazil but also Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina – until Bolsonaro committed to tackling Amazonian deforestation following a record number of fires in 2019.
Furthermore, while it seems apparent that the pursuit of climate change mitigation actions carries significant benefits, it might also imply several costs, at least initially, most of them related to the efforts needed to replace traditional sources of non-renewable energy and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, most countries face incentives to portray themselves as “green” before the international community without bearing the associated costs, thus leading to greenwashing practices at the state level.
At a more superficial level, states might sign international treaties and protocols on topics related to the environment and climate change without an intention to comply with them or even ratify them. Such was the case of the United States with the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and Iran with the 2015 Paris Agreement. Moreover, states might engage with greenwashing corporations or local governments, condoning or supporting their misleading practices. An example of “state-sponsored greenwashing” is denounced by The Australia Institute in a 2022 report. The authors suggest that “the Australian Government doesn’t just turn a blind eye to dubious net zero commitments by corporations, it also actively endorses them through its policies and programmes.”
A further and much more unsettling instance of greenwashing at the state level is closely related to national security. As explained by Naomi Klein in her “Greenwashing a Police State” article, authoritarian regimes can undertake greenwashing strategies to improve their international image by deviating attention from human rights violations and political oppression tactics towards environmental pledges and policies. The case of Egypt hosting the COP27 Summit in November 2022 is a clear example of the latter. While climate activists and political opponents were arbitrarily imprisoned, with a 2019 NGO Law enforcing a ban on transparent and facts-based reporting on the environmental situation of Egypt for considering the topic “too sensitive,” and after it has become “impossible” to work in the field for local environmental groups due to political constraints, leaders from all over the world traveled to Sharm el-Sheikh. There, President Al-Sisi was praised for his role in the Summit, as values such as “transparency” and “justice” were proclaimed.
Besides strategic and reputational benefits, material advantages can also be derived from greenwashing practices. In the case of Egypt, this concentrates on key sectors for national security, such as energy, transportation, and water management. Even prior to the COP27, the German giant Siemens Mobility announced a “historic” multibillion-dollar contract to build electrified high-speed trains across Egypt, and the government-backed British International Investment (BII) disclosed a $100m investment to support local startups. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Summit, it was reported that Egypt secured $2.24bn in funds for sustainability projects, including a grant from the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) for the Nile Delta Water Management Program project.
Finally, the often divorced topics of national security and environmental policy interweave when considering the impact of armed forces and the military industry's greenhouse gas emissions. Dr. Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of the organisation Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), estimates that “the carbon emissions of the world’s armed forces and the industries that provide their equipment are in the region of 5% of the global total”. This figure, however, does not include the carbon emissions of the impacts of war – covering sources such as fires, deforestation, health care for survivors, and post-conflict reconstruction. A 2022 SGR report highlights how the international instruments that underpin the efforts for climate change mitigation, such as the Paris Agreement, often bypass this concern by making military emissions reporting a voluntary rather than a mandatory action. Even some countries that have presented themselves as avid participants of the “green agenda,” such as Canada, seem to have purposely sidelined the issue of the impact of security forces, assets, and exercises on climate change.
Notably, these “legal loopholes” and “information gaps” might not be the byproduct of a lack of interest in climate change by defence policy officials. The case of the United States illustrates the awareness and deep strategic knowledge that the military establishment often has regarding climate change as a critical issue. According to Alejandro de la Garza for TIME, the U.S. military “has been talking about climate change for a long time, even as the issue has fallen in and out of political favor.” However, it has done so in tactical terms, focusing on “climate adaptation — finding ways to protect military installations like Navy bases from rising seas and extreme weather — or on a changing geo-strategic landscape — like new theaters of conflict in newly opened Arctic waterways.” As also shown in a NATO publication from July 2022 titled “Environment, Climate Change, and Security,” the securitisation of climate change and its associated risks is also a concerning possibility.
Interestingly, some emerging initiatives from the Army and the Air Force have considered incorporating “green technologies,” proposing a win-win approach for fighting ability and reducing carbon emissions. Nevertheless, de la Garza sustains that “the military isn’t interested in emissions reductions that run counter to its broader aims.”
Greenwashing might be a deliberate security-driven action, although it might not likely be the sole component of a country’s national strategy. Moreover, it is unlikely that greenwashing efforts at the state level stem exclusively from security preoccupations: financial considerations and domestic policy calculations might also be prominent factors to consider. The most distressing thoughts come to mind when considering the missed opportunities and the misused time spent advancing such greenwashing tactics instead of conceiving meaningful and legitimate plans to tackle climate change, which is undoubtedly an urgent matter.
This becomes even more striking when considering that several assumptions that underpin greenwashing as an effective alternative can be seriously challenged. As an example, the cost of renewable energies remained competitive in the international markets in 2022, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). According to the Agency, the costs for renewables have been falling since 2021 amid a fossil fuel crisis caused by supply chain challenges and rising commodity prices. A study from Oxford University also suggests that, for these reasons, switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world as much as $12tn by 2050. Moreover, a 2018 study from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates that every dollar spent on reducing pre-disaster risk, which includes community climate action, saves between $6 and $13 in damages. The often widespread notion that expects greenwashing to be a more accessible, cheaper, and savvier strategy becomes questionable at best and senseless at worst.