Renewable energy investment should come from defence budgets, say retired military leaders

"Nato members have pledged to spend 3.5% of GDP on their armed forces, weapons and other core items of defence spending, plus a further 1.5% on critical infrastructure, such as civil preparedness. Low-carbon energy should be included in the 1.5% pledge, the group of military experts argued in a letter to European heads of government seen by the Guardian."

"We must end our dependence on foreign oil and gas, they wrote. A reliance on fossil fuels makes our countries less secure. It leaves us susceptible to huge price spikes during times of conflict as we saw when Russia invaded Ukraine."

"Retired Lt Gen Richard Nugee, one of the signatories of the letter, told the Guardian that investing in renewable energy was more secure than seeking more gas supplies, as some have urged, because wind turbines, solar panels and other forms of renewable energy are more dispersed and thus less vulnerable to attack. To have a strong military deterrence, we need a resilient homeland, he said. If we want to build a resilient country, low-carbon energy is a very important component."

A group of retired senior military personnel called for renewable and low-carbon energy investment to be counted under NATO's 1.5% critical-infrastructure defence pledge alongside 3.5% GDP core defence spending. The group framed the climate crisis and fossil-fuel dependence as direct national security threats that increase vulnerability to price shocks and foreign coercion, citing Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The group urged redirecting spending to unlock investments for energy sovereignty and to stop transferring billions to the Kremlin. Senior officers argued that dispersed renewables are less vulnerable to attacks and that resilient low-carbon power underpins a strong military deterrent and homeland resilience.

Read at www.theguardian.com