Can the Armed Forces be strengthened in a climate-friendly way? – the defence sector’s climate budget 2025

Can the Armed Forces carry out the military buildup in the “Defence Pledge” long-term plan while cutting greenhouse gas emissions? If strong climate measures are not implemented, emissions will more than double during the long-term planning period. However, with robust measures, much of the increase can be avoided, even as the Armed Forces grow significantly.

Climate change is a serious threat to the Armed Forces and NATO, so the Armed Forces have a vested interest in reducing emissions as much as possible. Moreover, climate measures can contribute to increased combat capability and improved adaption to future combat environments – if done correctly. For example, climate-friendly energy and fuel technologies may enhance the Armed Forces’ energy and supply security. At the same time, it must be assessed whether new vulnerabilities and risks arise. Climate-adapted defensive forces could save operational costs related to fuel and climate taxes, especially in the long term. However, that path may be more expensive in the short and medium term. Therefore, thorough assessments of possible climate measures in the Armed Forces are needed, where climate impact, economics, and operational capability are considered together. A climate budget can support this.

A climate budget is a management tool for cutting emissions. It is reminiscent of a financial budget, but instead of money, it deals with emissions – and how to reach specific climate goals. The Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) has been tasked with developing a climate budget for the defence sector, and this report documents our initial results.

However, creating such a climate budget is not enough. The knowledge FFI has gathered here – and will continue to gather in the coming years – will only contribute to a real green transition if followed up with decisions and actions.

In this report, we have modelled the Armed Forces’ future greenhouse gas emissions. Both direct and indirect emissions could increase significantly if no measures are taken. We have thus examined three initiatives to reduce these emissions: 1) the introduction of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), 2) climate assessments in the concept phase, and 3) zero-emission technology on new standard vessels. All three measures can lead to significant emission reductions, and we recommend the sector proceed with them. Nevertheless, these will not be sufficient to meet the sector’s own climate goals. Additional measures will be needed.

We also present a selection of success criteria for implementing a climate budget in the defence sector. These include integrating climate efforts more closely into investment and budgeting processes, creating ownership and anchoring, ensuring sufficient resources and organization, and building competence and communication.

Finally, we point to areas that require further work. The projections can be improved. There is a need to develop tools that make it easier to use the climate budget in practice. FFI is planning a study on how SAF can strengthen supply preparedness, and we aim to delve deeper into climate-economic issues that may be relevant for the defence sector.