When you look back at the world wars of the 20th century, the first was fought between European powers for world dominance. On one side were France and Great Britain, two colonial superpowers who were allied with Russia, the largest nation on the planet. On the other side was the German Empire, the dominant Central European power with aspirations to make its global mark while aligned with two of the older Euro-Asian empires, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Germany wanted a piece of what France and Great Britain already had: significant land and energy resources.
The Second World War of the 20th century has often been described as a war for oil dominance. On one side stood Germany, while on the other were France and Great Britain and their global colonial assets. When Germany conquered France and isolated Great Britain, it turned to the conquest of the Soviet Union, the former Russian Empire. What the Soviets had was oil. What Great Britain and France had were empires with access to oil and other vital resources. With the armies of the Second War running more on oil than on the horsepower of the First World War. When the United States joined France and Great Britain, while Japan allied with Germany, the war became a global battle to control oil resources and other strategic materials. Germany’s pursuit of Russian oil fell short at Stalingrad and the foothills of the Caucasus, while Japan’s attempt to seize the colonial empires of European nations succumbed to two atomic bombs dropped on them by the Americans. The pursuit of oil by both Germany and Japan failed, exposing an enormous logistical weakness.
Today’s militaries still exhibit that weakness as the biggest institutional users of fossil fuels on the planet. For example, the militaries of all NATO countries run on oil and, as a result, produce 5.5% of global carbon emissions. With NATO countries increasing their military budgets in the face of rising global threats, carbon emission numbers are only going to go up unless these countries militaries go green.
I am no advocate for militarism, but I recognize the necessity for nations to develop the means to defend themselves against perceived threats and aggressions. The problem, however, is that the conventional ways to fight war in the past have involved using lots of carbon-polluting fossil fuels.
So, how can armies, air forces, and navies wean themselves off fossil fuels and still defend their country’s sovereignty?
One aspect of the current Russia-Ukraine war may provide direction for what future militaries will be. Ukraine has been deploying human replacement technology since the start of the hostilities because it cannot match Russian troop numbers. Instead, Ukraine is relying on drones and other semi-to-fully autonomous killing machines. Considering the war is well into its third year, Ukraine is demonstrating that numerical advantages, to a degree, can be neutralized by technological innovation, while at the same time, these deployed technologies require a lot less carbon-emitting fossil fuel.
What should we expect to see as the remainder of the decade unfolds for militaries?
- Fewer human soldiers and more robotic semi- to fully autonomous small footprint drones and ground vehicles.
- Fewer human personnel transport systems.
- With fewer personnel, less housing and other human support logistics infrastructure.
- Fewer fighter aircraft with deployments including drone swarms.
- Fewer personnel-intensive naval ships, replaced by semi- and fully autonomous marine vessels.
Does this future ensure less carbon pollution? Not necessarily. For militaries to become green, like civilian efforts, military sites will need to switch to renewable solar, wind and geothermal energy. In field deployment, mobile solar and wind, backed up by batteries, can reduce carbon footprints.
Existing military infrastructure can be greened by upgrading buildings and by switching transportation from fossil-fuel burning vehicles to hybrid and electric. Small modular nuclear reactors similar to Canadian ones being developed at Petawawa, in Ontario, could generate sufficient baseline power to run a good-sized military encampment.
The advantage of transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables, distributed energy systems, small modular reactors and electrified transportation would mean freedom from having to source fossil fuels and protect supply lines. As the 20th-century wars show, the desperate pursuit of oil by Germany and Japan to fuel their war machine ended up being their undoing.
The sustainability of future militaries will require a transition away from oil. It will free up operations, improve energy security, and, after initial transitional investments, reduce operational costs.
Finally, it will be environmentally responsible.
In the absence of being capable of ending wars for all time, at least the militaries of the world can make a different kind of effort to save the planet by lessening their carbon footprints.
