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.
Germany’s Defence Policy: Security Challenges and Adjusted Evolution
German defence policy has been in turmoil in recent weeks. On 16 January, Christine Lambrecht, then-Defence Minister, announced her resignation from Chancellor Olaf Scholz's cabinet, marking both the end of her controversial and much-criticised tenure and the start of a crucial week for the German government in terms of defence policies, particularly with regards to its military involvement in the war in Ukraine. Later, on 25 January, Scholz announced unexpected news to the public: Germany will supply Ukraine with 14 Leopard 2 battle tanks, after a long reluctance to do so.
Lambrecht, who had no previous experience in defence or international affairs, had held the post of defence minister since 8 December 2021, following the inauguration of Scholz’s administration. At the time, the official view and subsequent foreign policy priorities of the new government were those that ensured “continuity” with the compromises adopted by its predecessors, especially those of Angela Merkel; defence and military-related issues were no exception. Prior to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, analysts suggested that Berlin would once again fail to meet the NATO target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.
Nonetheless, the emergence, escalation, and prolongation of the conflict on the Ukrainian territory led to some significant deviations from Scholz’s original plans. Only a few days after the Russian invasion, the chancellor announced his decision to spend €100 billion on military investments in 2022, roughly doubling the funds allocated to this purpose in 2021 (€47 billion), in order to meet NATO’s annual defence spending target. This decision is remarkably striking, considering that, according to a 2019 pledge by Merkel, German compliance with the latter could only be expected after 2030.
In February 2022, Scholz’s statements mentioned the need to “invest more in the security of our country to protect our freedom and democracy” and introduced a pledge to provide further assistance to Ukraine in terms of “anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles, and ammunition” after the country’s reluctance to send weapons to conflict zones. Several articles referred to a “revolution” or “U-turn” in the country’s defence policy. At the time, the Chancellor himself introduced the German concept of Zeitenwende (a turning point) to describe what the Russian invasion of Ukraine meant for Europe.
In this context, several challenges emerged for the then-Minister of Defence, given the strategic, logistical, and operational aspects of the German government’s new defence policy and its commitments to support Ukraine’s war efforts. On several occasions, Lambrecht has been questioned on her role as minister after a series of “blunders” and “missteps.” The criticism mostly focused on her management of the Bundeswehr (German armed forces), especially on matters related to their modernisation. However, other scandals intensified public objections to her. Lambrecht reportedly used a military helicopter for a private trip with her 21-year-old son in mid-April 2022. She also recently posted a “tone-deaf” video on her social media in which she discussed the "war raging in the middle of Europe" as fireworks rang out behind her during New Year’s celebrations in Berlin.
For Chancellor Scholz, the timing of her resignation was critical: that same week, representatives and senior defence officials from 51 countries were due to meet at the U.S. Ramstein Air Base, in the German province of Rhineland-Palatinate, following an official visit to Berlin by U.S. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin.
On 17 January, just one day after Lambrecht stepped down from her role as defence minister, Scholz disclosed his choice for her successor: Boris Pistorius, who had, until then, served as interior minister of Lower Saxony. Upon his nomination, the German head of government emphasised Pistorious’ “experience, competence, and assertiveness” in a statement posted on Twitter, eloquently expressing his confidence in him, as he had done with Lambrecht when she was in office. However, Pistorius has “no defense experience, has never held senior federal office, and is not well known outside Germany.”
Pistorius officially took office on 19 January, one day before the Ramstein conference, while facing mounting international pressure to end the country’s reluctance to provide Ukraine with German-made Leopard 2 tanks. Despite comments by a senior U.S. defence official indicating that Washington would press Germany on the issue, given the possibility of a Russian spring offensive, the Ramstein talks yielded no clear results.
Notably, the hopes of several Western allies for a policy shift after the arrival of a new minister were quickly shattered. It was Chancellor Scholz himself who had repeatedly refused to allow his country and others to export Leopard tanks to Ukraine. Among his arguments was the consideration that supplying arms could potentially draw NATO into a wider conflict with Moscow.
Nevertheless, expectations remained high. On the one hand, on 20 January the government had not yet ruled out supplying Ukraine with Leopard 2 tanks. On the other hand, the Scholz administration had signalled on 23 January that it would not block other countries’ efforts to deliver these tanks, following statements by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock indicating that Germany would not “stand in the way” should Poland decide to supply Ukraine with its national fleet of Leopard 2s.
The commitment not to interfere with other countries’ willingness to assist Kyiv by supplying tanks not only meant a compromise with the allies who demanded greater German involvement on the matter, but it was also a first sign of a change in Berlin’s posture. Eventually, Scholz announced his decision to supply Ukraine with 14 Leopard 2 battle tanks on 25 January. He did so alongside Joe Biden, who in turn announced a donation of 31 Abrams tanks. With this announcement, both countries have significantly asserted their stance on the war, as the tanks represent the most powerful direct offensive weapon provided to Ukraine so far. Given the scope of this decision and the implications it could have for German national security, it could be said that Scholz took this step reluctantly and in response to the pressures he and his cabinet have been under from several NATO members in recent weeks. Conversely, Russian officials have announced that bilateral ties with Berlin have been irreparably damaged and that this move has changed the nature of the war.
All in all, since Scholz’s Zeitenwende speech, Germany has provided €2 billion in aid to Ukraine, including border protection vehicles, reconnaissance drones, ambulances, tents, clothing, meals, and mine clearing systems, among others. Moreover, the country is expected to supply a further €2.2 billion in 2023 for security capacity building. The 14 Leopard 2 tanks also contribute to this effort.
Nevertheless, Germany’s foreign and defence policy has many aspects of continuity, even after undertaking a “U-turn”. Scholz has balanced his approach with a strong commitment to maintaining other German traditions in these policy areas. These key elements are encapsulated in the post-Cold War efforts to support international cooperation, European integration, and a rules-based international order, while remaining deeply committed to international institutions such as the UN and even the North Atlantic Treaty.
In the words of U.S. scholar Hal Brands, the German approach has been “evolutionary rather than revolutionary.” The concept of the Zeitenwende, even after the recent decisions on battle tanks, might actually be better understood as a 'turning point' in the speed of decision-making in public policy, in this case defence and security, rather than as a complete and unambiguous revolution. In addition, further obstacles to major change are likely to emerge when it comes to modernising the German military. According to Judy Dempsey, a Carnegie Europe non-resident Senior Fellow, the Ministry of Defence is affected by “deep structural issues”, such as “its bureaucracy, lack of a strategic military doctrine, and reluctance to embrace modernization.”
Meanwhile, several issues that pertain to German national security remain unresolved. Some are closely linked to the war in Ukraine, such as the question of energy supply. Beyond the dependence on Russian gas, which has officially ended according to Finance Minister Christian Lindner, a deeper crisis affecting the whole region has fueled local demand for candles, coal, and wood. Other pressing issues relate to relations with China: China's ambassador to Germany, Wu Ken, recently expressed concerns that the emergence of a new “ideology-based” German strategy towards Beijing could hamper bilateral cooperation and strain diplomatic ties.
Besides some of the novelties that the German defence policy has displayed, the traditional channels and means of shaping its direction remain in place. The Scholz-Macron meeting on 21 January was a public display of the chancellor’s and its counterpart's commitment to European unity and cooperation. Such demonstrations might reassure those concerned about Germany’s geopolitical position in a post-Ukraine war scenario, and might even reassure domestic stakeholders about the future stability of a responsible and timely implementation of the €100 billion Zeitenwende pledge.
Landslides in Venezuela: Climate Refugees and Increased Political Risk
Throughout the month of October, Venezuela’s northern cities of Maracay and Las Tejerías were severely impacted by continuous and heavy rainfall. As a result, landslides and inundations affected both towns and their surroundings. Located less than 100 kilometres away from the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, the region is facing not only significant infrastructural damage, but also considerable human losses: more than 55 people have lost their lives, and at least eight remain missing. Moreover, local authorities estimate that 1,160 families have been directly or indirectly impacted, contributing to a potential group of displaced people that could amount to approximately 3,770 individuals.
Although some news websites have exclusively associated the heavy and abundant rainfall with the natural weather phenomenon La Niña, a “climate pattern that describes the cooling of surface ocean water along the tropical west coast of South America”, according to National Geographic, other sources have drawn attention to climate change and its impacts. It is suggested that intense rainfall events and other extreme weather events are directly linked to climate change. In addition, reports of heavy rainfall and severe flooding in Venezuela from 2015, prior to La Niña, seem to indicate that climate pattern is not the only factor at play. It is worth noting that, according to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), “all naturally occurring climate events now take place in the context of human-induced climate change.” In this sense, the current La Niña event has become the first “triple-dip” of the century, lasting for an unusually long period, from 2020 to 2022. A cautious and nuanced approach to the matter would lead to the conclusion that both natural weather events and human-induced climate change are responsible for natural disasters as severe as those that occurred in Maracay and Las Tejerías.
The landslides in Venezuela and their aftermath highlight an often overlooked phenomenon that links climate change and the current climate emergency with political risk and security threats. In particular, there are several ways through which climate change can operate as a threat multiplier. One of them is the emergence of climate migrants and, subsequently, climate refugees, which involve migration, displacements, and mass movements of people as a by-product of climate-related disasters.
Data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) shows that the number of people displaced by such disasters since 2010 amounts to 21.5 million worldwide, indicating that this is an urgent issue. Furthermore, Venezuela is currently facing a major migrant and refugee crisis: more than 7 million have been displaced from their homes as a consequence of critical political, economic, security, and social conditions. According to USA for UNHCR, “rampant violence, inflation, gang-warfare, soaring crime rates as well as shortages of food, medicine, and essential services have forced millions to seek refuge in neighboring countries and beyond”, resulting in an 8,000% increase in the number of Venezuelan refugees since 2014.
In this context, climate change-related disasters and severe weather conditions are likely to have a twofold negative impact on Venezuela’s current state of affairs. Firstly, these events have the potential to significantly increase the number of migrants, especially internally displaced populations. As mentioned, on this occasion alone, more than a thousand families have partially or totally lost their homes and have therefore been forced to relocate, sometimes even abandoning the area completely. Secondly, such weather conditions worsen the already vulnerable and highly exposed situation of the groups that have been displaced or are migrating due to other concerns, be they political, economic, or otherwise. Whether living under precarious conditions as internally displaced populations or migrating to neighbouring countries to formally leave Venezuela, there is an increased risk of serious injuries, illness, and even death due to extreme weather events.
Beyond the direct consequences affecting the safety of displaced populations, other issues are likely to arise. As seen in several cases in Western Europe, a sharp increase in foreign migrant and refugee flows can negatively impact the political landscape of host countries, by fostering political polarisation and facilitating the rise of far-right politicians. The social trends underlying such political developments contribute to the destabilising potential of refugee crises, manifesting in the adoption of reactionary discourses and hate speech, the regular occurrence of episodes of harassment and discrimination, and the rise of hate crimes. In this context, it is worth noting that large migrant influxes and refugee crises are considered to aggravate and expose already existing problems in a country, rather than creating them directly. By potentially increasing the number of displaced people and deteriorating the livelihoods and living conditions of migrants, climate change intensifies political risk in this sense, as it does in many other ways.
Particularly, the recent landslides in Venezuela and the subsequent displacement of people are of great concern given that the country is already experiencing an acute refugee crisis. The 2022 Refugee and Migrant Needs Analysis (RMNA) published by the Interagency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants (R4V) suggests that, of the 7.1 million Venezuelan refugees aforementioned, 4.3 million face difficulties in accessing food, housing, and stable employment. In other words, more than half of the refugees and migrants from Venezuela struggle to access basic services in Latin America and the Caribbean, making it “difficult for many to rebuild their lives and integrate into host societies.” While Colombia has received the largest number of Venezuelans (1.8 million), Peru, Ecuador, Chile, and the United States have also taken in large numbers of refugees. These countries, as well as others in the region, are already facing their own socio-economic and security challenges, mostly related to growing inequalities, unemployment, and soaring crime rates. Thus, a larger inflow of migrants due to difficult climatic conditions is likely to exacerbate existing social tensions in the receiving countries. In 2018, the Colombian government expelled 18 Venezuelan migrants from refugee camps after some caused unrest by fighting over food and others stole from a van. Examples like this feed into the “overall rising levels of xenophobia and discrimination [which] continue to pose barriers to refugees’ and migrants’ access to rights and services, influencing overall social cohesion in host communities”, as stated in the RMNA. Additionally, even though the Venezuelan economy is now showing signs of slow but steady recovery, difficult living conditions and food shortage persist. Such violent episodes are also likely to occur among internally displaced groups.
Immediate and timely response from the local and national authorities is necessary, but not sufficient. Further critical scrutiny of the effects of climate change becomes decisive, including an assessment of the specific manifestation of climate change in each regional context as extreme weather events and an evaluation of how structural and/or systemic deficiencies might make local populations vulnerable to them. Even more pressing is the formulation of an evidence-based strategy to tackle the already well-known contributing factors to climate change, on the one hand, and to reduce the risk posed by the resulting severe weather conditions, on the other.