Climate change got the shaft at NATO Summit. Or did it?

Climate change doesn't care if you don't invite it to your party

I unpack how climate change makes our world weird one take at a time, so you don’t have to!

---

Heeelllooo fellow globetrotters! 👋

Welcome to the first edition of Globetrottin’, where I blab at length about the Reconfiguration, one take at a time!

It’s hard to ignore the events of the past few weeks, especially with respect to Israel and Iran’s 12-Day War. But I will try my best. Instead, let’s set our sights to the Hague, where the NATO Summit took place last week.

Per usual, the summit was a who’s who list of world leaders, coming together to discuss the latest in Geopolitics and reach agreements that will hopefully keep the Atlantic Treaty relevant and able to deal with challenges on the horizons (Russia, i’m looking at you 🔎👀).

Host Extraordinare Mark Rutte (aka the Trump Whisperer) invited anyone who’s anyone, including Ukranian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who even put on a suit!

Not on the invite list? Climate ❌

yeah i swear that was the doorman

No Climate No Cry

Ok, yeah, Climate Change wasn’t on the agenda. I mean, who has time to deal with trees and coral reefs when Russia is at your doorstep?!

That’s an understandable sentiment. It’s also misguided.

For the past several years (before and after the Russian invasion into Ukraine), NATO has acknowledged, through different means, the importance of Climate Change:

• Recognition that Climate Change is a threat multiplier that exacerbates conflict

• Creation of several climate-focused frameworks, like CCSIA and CCASCOE, which both recognize Climate security

• Ongoing inclusion of climate change into NATO announcements, studies and proclemations

Security isn’t just about tanks and things that go boom anymore. Now it’s about keeping the lights on, the trains running, and grandma’s meds delivered—even when the world’s on fire (sometimes literally). NATO itself has been writing about the topic for the past few years, consistently.

And yet, this year climate change has seemingly been left to hang outside.

In through the backdoor?

Has NATO given up on climate change?🤔

The Summit’s key achievement is the member states’ commitment to spend 5% of their GDP on defense:

• 3.5% on core defense (things that go boom)

• 1.5% on… other stuff (dual use investments, mostly)

There is some guidance on what the 1.5% target includes, but it’s kinda flexible, and no one is quite sure what counts and what doesn’t. But one thing is clear: energy and critical infrastructure are included.

If you’ve been following the literature, you’d find quite a lot of overlap between energy security and resilience and climate and decarbonization. For example:

• Europe needs to ween itself off Russian fossil fuels (how’s that going? not so great), and Renewables are a prime candidate

• Modernizing grid infrastructure enables both reducing emissions and driving more efficiency and resilience in face of overload and threats

In fact, energy resilience is ClimateTech’s favorite rebranding strategy. And, with Europe’s bent towards decarbonization and climate-friendly disposition, it wouldn’t be a surprise if many of NATO’s member states decide to invest their 1.5% in renewables, grid modernization software and all that jazz.

Look surprised

Investments in energy resilience/security/independence are critical to making sure NATO member states are able not only to power their defense and weapons systems, but also to allow their homefronts to continue and function properly in times of crisis.

Some might say that NATO virtually ignoring this critical topic, just as it seems climate change is getting worse, is a missed opportunity. I think, however, that while climate is gone in rhetoric, in practice it’s still there.

The evolving notion of what counts as national security is taking place at a time where the world is experiencing dramatic shifts in the geopolitical landscape, moving towards times that are considered by many as turbulant, at best. The Reconfiguration of our planet is taking place in the middle of a period of increased geopolitical tensions, and will in all likelihood continue to play the proverbial “threat multiplier” as NATO originally foretold.

The 1.5% framework gives member states the ability to continue to deal with this multiplier, without picking a fight with The Donald. This wiggle room is a blessing in disguise. After all, no one wants to find out their power is out thanks to a heatwave when they’re trying to repeal a Russian offensive on their borders. Duh 🤦‍♂️

So, who should care?

There are plenty of people who should care about this wiggle room:

• Everyone with a light switch: Your future grid might get a glow-up ⚡

• Infra nerds and lobbyists: Time to dust off your best PowerPoint and go get that Public-Private Partnership 🏭

• Techies: NATO’s shopping for shiny new toys—bring your best pitch 💸

• Investors: Infrastructure is the new gold rush.

• Pundits: You’ll have enough material to last a decade (you’re welcome) 📺

Who knows, there may be a tidal wave of infrastructure coming in the next few years, so make sure you’re on it 🏄‍♂️🏄‍♀️

---

That’s it for this week

As always, stay tuned to Saturday’s edition of “Re-Cap-Figured”, where I tell you what 5 things you should care about this week, as well as our Crazy Market Idea (stay tuned!).

See you on Saturday, and next week with a brand new take!

Don’t forget to subscribe 🔽