İklim değişikliği Avrupa'nın en büyük güvenlik riski ilan edildi

Wildfires and extreme heat show climate change is now Europe’s biggest security threat

Wildfires and extreme heat show climate change is now Europe’s biggest security threat Expert comment thilton.drupal 18 August 2026 The continent is increasingly vulnerable to arson attacks, while climate disasters are diverting militaries from other threats. Policymakers must respond with a security-based approach to climate change. Climate change is now Europe’s biggest systemic security risk. As the continent faces its worst ever summer of extreme heat, drought and wildfires, no other threat is simultaneously affecting so many countries, people and critical systems. The extreme heat contributed to an estimated 10,000 excess deaths during the June heatwave, which also destroyed roughly 9 million tonnes of crops from the European harvest. Drought and wildfires have affected almost the entire continent; so far this year over 600,000 hectares of land and forests have burned, with hundreds of thousands of people forced to evacuate. The disruption extends far beyond the immediate disaster zones and across national borders. Extreme heat and water shortages are threatening water and food security, restricting river and rail transport and putting strain on health and emergency services. Homes, businesses and essential infrastructure have been damaged. Falling river levels have forced nuclear reactors to shut down due to a lack of suitable cooling water, threatening to disrupt energy supply chains. Climate terrorism Climate change is also making Europe more vulnerable to non-conventional attacks. Prolonged heat and drought can turn countries into a ‘tinderbox’, as UK prime minister Andy Burnham warned last week, before his government sent a national emergency alert over wildfires. Arson attacks are easy to carry out and difficult for authorities to prevent. In these conditions, a single act of arson can cause mass evacuations, destroy infrastructure and overwhelm emergency services. These arson attacks are easy to carry out and difficult for authorities to prevent. This makes wildfire a potentially devastating instrument of terrorism or asymmetric warfare. This year, France has arrested almost 500 people on suspicion of starting fires; as of 30 July, the interior ministry said around 70 per cent of those detained were accused of deliberate arson. Meanwhile, Russian strikes have repeatedly set forests ablaze in Ukraine. In May 2026, drone attacks caused multiple forest fires in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and Zhytomyr. Demands on militaries Climate change also affects European military readiness by damaging bases, airfields and transport networks. For example, prolonged dry conditions contributed to wildfires that began at military training grounds in the Netherlands in April. Any disruption to wider infrastructure such as electricity or transport networks can also directly undermine military operations. Europe’s armed forces must now prepare to be called upon more frequently to fight fires, reinforce flood defences, support evacuations, deliver emergency supplies and restore critical infrastructure. This will divert personnel and logistical capacity away from other security threats. This is already happening. According to the Council on Strategic Risks, militaries were deployed over 30 times in response to wildfires across Europe in June and July alone. In July, Spain deployed more than 1,200 military personnel and 400 vehicles for a single major fire. In the UK, around 200 military personnel are currently fighting wildfires in south Wales. How to respond The scale and scope of these risks require action. The NATO Science and Technology Organization’s January 2026 climate security assessment already acknowledges climate change as a ‘systemic problem’ that impacts all other security risks. It concludes that NATO’s existing Climate Change and Security Action Plan (published in 2021) should be thoroughly updated and translate climate knowledge into practical action. This should be supported by better, more institutionalized coordination between scientists, defence professionals and policymakers. Beyond NATO’s plan, a broader European security-based approach to climate change is needed. It must achieve four goals. Deal with wildfires First, it must strengthen preparedness for climate disasters that are already happening. In the case of wildfires, this means acting before they break out. This involves managing dry vegetation and landscapes, enforcing fire-safe building and land-use rules, monitoring high-risk areas and reducing preventable sources of fire. It must account for both deliberate and accidental fires. It also requires adequately staffed and trained emergency services, better specialist equipment such as ‘water bomb aircraft’, stronger early-warning and evacuation systems, and greater capacity to respond to several emergencies at once. The military has an important supporting role within this system. Armed forces will need to provide aircraft, engineering expertise, communications, logistics and personnel when civilian capacity is overwhelmed, particularly during large-scale evacuations or simultaneous disasters. But they should form part of a planned, multi-agency response rather than become a permanent substitute for underfunded fire and rescue services. Consider climate spending as security Second, governments need to consider spending on climate as a core security investment. European NATO members have committed to spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, including up to 1.5 per cent on broader investment related to defence and security, such as critical infrastructure and resilience. Despite NATO recognizing climate change as a security threat, it has not explicitly designated climate adaptation as defence-related spending. But investing in climate change adaptation can make a critical contribution to long-term resilience. Related work Preparing NATO for climate-related security challenges Likewise, investments in infrastructure, civil protection and preparedness should all be climate-resilient and future proof. These could potentially be categorized under the vaguely defined 1.5 per cent of broader security-related spending. Considering climate measures as important security investments would therefore help to focus scare resources and improve resilience, while also potentially helping members to meet their spending commitments. Address underlying causes Third, a security approach must accelerate decarbonization to mitigate climate change as the underlying cause of the escalating threat. European climate and energy policies have helped cut EU27 emissions to approximately 35 per cent below their 1990 levels, but the EU27 is still responsible for 3.2 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, or six per cent of global emissions. Europe’s decarbonization matters not only for reducing emissions but also for its global signalling effect in encouraging other countries to follow suit. Preparedness and adaptation can reduce casualties and damage, but they cannot keep pace indefinitely with worsening heat, drought, floods and fires. Europe is the world’s fastest-warming continent. Its existing policies and climate pledges will not be sufficient to adapt fully to the expected 2.4°C to 3.9°C increase in global mean temperature this century. Investment in resilience must therefore be accompanied by rapid emissions reductions and stronger political commitment to decarbonization. This is the principal way to prevent the threat from becoming progressively more severe and unmanageable. Public involvement Fourth, building societal resilience to climate shocks will depend on governments working with the public. This does not mean just issuing one-off instructions during emergencies. People need trustworthy information, practical guidance and opportunities to participate in local preparedness activities. Examples include ‘heat-health’ plans to protect people from heat-related risks, water conservation to cope with drought, and evacuation exercises and support for vulnerable neighbours. Such measures are all part of the basic infrastructure that allows society to continue functioning during a crisis. The benefits outweigh the costs What will all this cost? Assessments suggest the EU needs to invest approximately €70 billion a year in climate adaptation until 2050 to prevent the worst impacts. The UK needs to invest around £11 billion annually, according to a May report by the UK Climate Change Committee. Although these sums may appear substantial, they are modest compared with the escalating cost of inaction. Climate-related disasters caused a yearly average of €45 billion in direct EU losses during 2020–2024, while inadequate adaptation could cost the UK £60-260 billion annually by 2050. Related work Europe’s summer of fires: Burnham must centre climate adaptation in policies Many measures will pay for themselves several times over. For example, according to the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, every euro invested in protection against coastal flooding can avoid around €6.35 in damages while also saving lives and protecting other resources. The estimated costs for adaptation are small compared to the risks averted and damage avoided. Climate adaptation should therefore be understood not as an environmental expense, but as a cost-effective and necessary investment in European national security and strategic autonomy. Tune in to our upcoming episode of the Independent Thinking podcast this Friday to hear more from our experts on the challenges of climate change.