The EU’s Security-Climate Conundrum: Guns, Green Goals, and the Fragile Mandate of COP30

Green Deal and rearmament goals: The EU dilemma

In 2019, the European Union launched a plan targeting the development course of the entire continent and beyond and bringing fundamental changes to the European economy, energy, transport, and industries. Legally bound by the European Climate Law, the Green Deal targets a 55% emissions reduction by 2030 to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, underpinning the EU’s credibility in the international arena as one of the architects of a sustainable future for the entire world.

However, as the continent gets swept up in escalating conflicts that pose new threats to Europe’s self-reliance and security, the scales of EU identity are beginning to tip. The urgent need for enhanced defense and rearmament, fueled by NATO commitment, is forcing Europe to increase spending on the arms sector, often at the expense of environmental goals. “Our overriding goal is and remains the preservation of peace,” says the spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defence, as part of their comment on growing concerns.

Destroyed Russian military equipment in Ukraine overgrown with blue and yellow flowers (Photo Credit: uainfo.org)

Still, the price for security remains difficult to define.

Despite having some of the world’s strictest environmental standards that target the civilian industry, military emissions continue to be a longstanding blind spot in the EU’s climate action plan. Despite being exempt from mandatory reporting, available estimates suggest that, if combined altogether, the world's militaries could surpass Russia as the world’s fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for at least 5.5% of the world’s annual emissions. The challenge of reducing those lies not only in the inability to apply civilian technological advancements to military operations but also in the lack of transparency while setting clear reduction goals. Out of 30 European countries, including 27 EU member states, only two have a net-zero military emissions target, and only a third of the European militaries actually know their carbon footprint. The failure to apply climate discipline to one of the most crucial sectors, which simultaneously receives a huge financial boost, reveals an internal tension that can undermine the EU’s position in the eyes of international strategic partners. 

Analysing Europe’s dramatically increased military spending between 2021 and 2024, experts confirm that the urgency of meeting rapid defence production timelines may further compromise environmental targets. A study by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) found that with each additional $100 billion spent on the defence sector, global annual emissions rise by 32 million tonnes of CO2, leaving the leaders of the world’s green transition to face a brutal conundrum. With every additional euro spent on defence, potentially diverted from green infrastructure, does the EU put itself in even greater danger by prioritizing short-term security at the expense of long-term goals? And if so, are they ready to face the consequences? 

COP30 Outcomes: What does it mean for EU Green and Security goals?

The outcomes of COP30 in Belém served as a harsh mirror, reflecting the global community’s high expectations for the EU while simultaneously exposing the fragility of its external contradictions.

Adre Correa do Lago, the president of the COP30 climate conference (Photo Credit: energyworld.com)

The two-week-long climate conference was scheduled to end on the 21st of November, but blew past the deadline as negotiations continued late into Friday night. The initial goal of bringing nations together to reassure global climate cooperation and consolidate further agreement on a broad range of issues, including the future of fossil fuels, had to be put on hold as the rifts between participants escalated deeper into the conference. 

COP30 concluded, with the adoption of the Belém Package, a deal that, despite securing the initial commitment to keep the 1.5°C limit within reach, was overall considered as divisive and fragile. The EU delegation, in its role as a hardliner, threatened to block a weak deal, which pushed negotiations into overtime. A draft of an agreement, released by Brazil before dawn on Friday, contained no reference to shifting away from fossil fuels, to which the EU objected and stated that it is ready to ‘move beyond its comfort zone’ on financing transition in energy, but only if the text’s section meets the required transparency on dealing with global-warming-causing emissions. Ironically, the EU’s external demands for global ambition and transparency only further exposed the European internal accountability gap. The key takeaway from the summit for Europe, echoed by experts, is clear: the 1.5°C goal cannot be met while military emissions remain uncounted, despite securing previous agreements and constant reassurance. 

The loophole of military pollution creates a systemic blind spot that undermines the integrity of the entire global climate roadmap, which the EU claims to defend. A decision, adopted by more than 80 countries despite the petrostates' opposition, to address the main cause of the climate crisis and commit to the failed mandate on fossil fuels, is a sign of deep concern. Political pressure from international allies to address defense emissions, not as a separate matter, but as a part of Europe’s climate change resistance, will, therefore, continue to escalate.

Tank next to EU flag (Photo Credit: Martin Bergsma/Adobe Stock; epthinktank.eu)

The EU Dilemma: Updated 

The path of reconciling guns and green goals requires a strategic pivot that reframes climate action as a defence multiplier, not as an obstacle. This approach is highly popular among experts and can be translated into clear policy recommendations.

Several studies contribute to the arguments above, addressing the lack of transparency and credibility among countries when it comes to emissions reporting. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change obliges some states to report on their GHG emissions every year. But because reporting military pollution is voluntary, data is often absent or incomplete. The Military Emission dataset tracks and analyzes the gap between what the top 60 military spenders, at least 6 of which are major EU countries, report to UNFCCC, and what they are expected to emit. The main trend in this year’s update, which is based on 2023 data, is as follows: while military spending and emissions are rising, official reporting(or, rather, the lack of it) has not changed dramatically. The lack of transparent emissions data not only obscures their true scale but also undermines efforts to understand and tackle the climate crisis. Exempting the military sector should no longer be an option. The EU must lead the way by applying the same transparency standards it imposes on the civilian industry to its own defence ministries. Therefore, the most crucial policy implementation would be adopting mandatory reporting of all military emissions to the UNFCCC as a non-negotiable standard. Such a move would address the ‘military emission gap’ directly, setting the ground for further implementations.

Figure 1. General government total expenditure on defence. (Photo Credit: Eurostat (Accessed: 28 November 2025))

In addition, the 2025 European Defence Fund (EDF) is focused on driving technological advancements in energy storage, renewable integration, and hydrogen technologies that have significant dual-use potential. This means that they benefit both military resilience and civilian energy systems, thus merging the EU’s energy security with sustainability. EDF is a funding programme for research and development projects that aim to deliver innovative defence technologies, contributing to Europe’s technological advancement and competitiveness. One of the many examples of a potentially dual-use innovation includes investments in the adoption of Sustainable Aviation/Maritime Fuels(SAF/SMF) for defence aircraft and vessels. The idea is that it’s going to help to offset the military’s rising carbon footprint, as well as facilitate the decarbonization of the civilian aviation and maritime sectors. While the EU continues to maintain its target of 90% emissions reduction by 2040, formally demonstrating its long-term climate commitment, experts highlight a need for economic sustainability to fund climate actions globally. Aligning rearmament goals with the green transition can arguably contribute to strengthening European strategic autonomy and climate policy impact. By investing in advanced energy technologies that serve both sectors, the EU can reduce its reliance on external energy sources, expand its industrial base, and lead the transition towards a more sustainable and secure future.

Bibliography

Al Jazeera (2025). COP30 cannot meet the 1.5C goal while military emissions stay uncounted. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/11/20/cop30-cannot-meet-the-1-5c-goal-while-military-emissions-stay-uncounted (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

CEOBS (2025). New data reveals the Military Emissions Gap is growing wider. Available at: https://ceobs.org/new-data-reveals-the-military-emissions-gap-is-growing-wider/ (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

COP30.br (2025). COP30 approves Belém Package. Available at: https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/cop30-approves-belem-package1 (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Earth.org (2025). 83 Countries Join Call to End Fossil Fuels at COP30. Available at: https://earth.org/83-countries-join-call-to-end-fossil-fuels-at-cop30/ (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

European Commission (2025a). The EU at COP30. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/climate-action/eu-cop/eu-cop30_en (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

European Commission (2025b). Commission unveils the Sustainable Transport Investment Plan: a strategic approach to boost renewable and low-carbon fuels for aviation and waterborne transport. Available at: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/commission-unveils-sustainable-transport-investment-plan-strategic-approach-boost-renewable-and-low-2025-11-05_en (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Gómez, F. (2025). Energy security & sustainability in defence: dual-use innovations in EDF 2025. Available at: https://euro-funding.com/en/blog/energy-security-sustainability-in-defence-dual-use-innovations-in-edf-2025/ (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Harvey, F. (2025). Cop30 draft text omits mention of fossil fuel phase-out roadmap. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/21/cop30-countries-threaten-block-resolution-unless-roadmap-to-fossil-fuel-phase-out (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Investing.com (2025). COP30 climate summit deadlocked as EU rejects draft deal. Available at: https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/cop30-host-urges-unity-as-summit-heads-for-final-showdown-over-fossil-fuels-4373566 (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Kinney, E. (2022). New estimate: global military is responsible for more emissions than Russia. Available at: https://ceobs.org/new-estimate-global-military-is-responsible-for-more-emissions-than-russia/ (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Niranjan, A. (2025). Only two European states have net zero military emissions target, data shows. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/31/only-two-european-states-have-net-zero-military-emissions-target-data-shows (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

OSW Centre for Eastern Studies (2025). The EU in the face of China’s growing role in global and European climate policy. Available at: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2025-11-07/eu-face-chinas-growing-role-global-and-european-climate-policy (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Parkinson, S. (2025). Military spending rises and greenhouse gas emissions. What does the research say? Available at: https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-09/SGR_MilEx_GHGs_WEB.pdf (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Sustainability Online (2025). Increase in military spending represents a ‘critical threat’ to the climate. Available at: https://sustainabilityonline.net/news/increase-in-military-spending-represents-a-critical-threat-to-the-climate/ (Accessed: 28 November 2025).

Unfccc.int (2020). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | UNFCCC. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change (Accessed: 28 November 2025).