Skip to main content

NATO calls for greater role in disaster response while accusing Russia of spreading climate disinformation

#59 of 69 articles from the Special Report: Climate of denial

Meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the level of Heads of State and Government - Washington Summit. Photo via NATO/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Climate change is increasing the risk of armed conflict as the environment and economies are destabilized. Now, NATO says its militaries will also have an important role in their home countries, countering disinformation and responding to extreme weather emergencies.

Last year was a year of fire with 93,000 hectares burning in northeastern Greece, Hawaii fires killing 99 people, and at least 2,200 military personnel deployed to fight wildfires in Canada as 235,000 people were evacuated.

In a report published this month analyzing the effect of climate change on NATO’s strategic, operational and tactical planning, the world’s most powerful military alliance described profound changes on the horizon as the climate crisis deepens. According to the alliance, rising temperatures and corresponding changes to the environment will impact its capabilities on land, in the sea, in the sky, in cyberspace and outer space.

NATO outlines the physical threats from climate change, like extreme heat buckling roads and rails complicating its ability to conduct ground warfare, rising sea levels threatening satellite launch stations, and changing ocean salinity affecting the sonar capabilities used by submarines.

“Although the relationship between climate change and armed conflict is complex, a growing body of authoritative research and analysis notes that climate change has the potential to contribute to higher levels of conflict, instability, and violence,” the report reads. “Indirect impacts of climate change, such as climate-induced instability, large-scale population movements, and disruptions of global supply chains, are likely to alter the strategic environment in the medium to long term.

“In addition, ‘tipping point’ climate events – such as abrupt changes in key oceanic currents, or the collapse of agriculture systems – could fuel a rapid escalation of instability and displacement in regions already experiencing climate stress.”

[HMS Prince of Wales and other NATO Allies sail in concert with HMCS Charlottetown as part of a joint task force during EX STEADFAST DEFENDER 24, in the North Sea, on 24 February 2024. Photo via Canadian Armed Forces.]

At the NATO summit hosted in Washington D.C. in mid-July, the alliance published its “Washington Summit Declaration,” outlining its priorities. The statement focuses on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, accuses China of enabling Russia’s invasion and attempting to “divide” NATO, acknowledges climate change is a threat, and calls on countries to exceed the 2 per cent of GDP target to be spent on military set a decade ago.

At the summit, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Canada would reach the 2 per cent target by 2032. For Canada, which hosts NATO’s climate change research office in Montreal, the rapidly warming Arctic is a top concern.

NATO says Russia and China have pushed disinformation and outright conspiracy theories in the West to undermine climate action and sow division. Skeptics note there's plenty of domestic disinformation that's likely far more influential.

In particular, the NATO climate change and security report notes the North Warning System (an early warning radar system stretching from Alaska to the Atlantic coast in Labrador) is vulnerable to the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw resulting in ground instability, and increased wildlife risk as the Arctic warms.

Domestic climate disaster response

NATO warns that increasing extreme weather events can “overwhelm” national resources, necessitating an international response. In 2023, there were at least 29 international military deployments to 14 countries, according to the Council on Strategic Relations military responses to climate hazards tracker. Since 2022, the tracker has recorded 317 deployments to 82 countries.

Former General Wayne Eyre told a House of Commons defence committee in 2022, the Canadian military is increasingly called on to respond to natural disasters, but the Canadian Forces should only be the last resort.

Similarly, in an interview with the CBC last year, the Canadian military’s top operations commander, Vice-Admiral Bob Auchterlonie, said the military spent 141 days responding to wildfires and helping with evacuations. While the evacuation of Yellowknife was an example of the military playing a crucial and relevant role, he said the military was being called on too much and was used as a stand-in when other agencies could help.

The argument for militaries responding to disasters like floods and wildfires is that troops are stationed across the country and can be deployed relatively quickly to help.

But “militaries are notoriously expensive for doing anything,” and troops aren’t specifically trained for emergency response, said Andrew Heffernan, a political science professor at the University of Ottawa, specializing in climate change, mis/disinformation and international relations, in an interview with Canada’s National Observer

“I totally agree with the fact that NATO and all militaries around the world probably need to be better prepared to respond to these kinds of things… but I also don't think they're the best response,” he said, suggesting “purpose built” organizations could be set up and funded accordingly.

[Members from the 41 Canadian Brigade Group (CBG) alongside The Alberta Wildfire and the local firefighters, participate in fire prevention operations in Drayton Valley, Alberta, on May 15, 2023, in support of Operation LENTUS 23. Photo via Canadian Armed Forces.]

Dimitri Lascaris, a Montreal-based lawyer and prominent NATO critic who placed second in a bid to lead the Green Party of Canada in 2020, said the military shouldn’t be used for natural disasters.

“The reason why, I think, we keep assigning the military to perform disaster relief is: A) it's really good PR for the military; and B) it's another excuse to give more money to the military,” he said.

For Lascaris, increasing military spending to help deal with the climate crisis is precisely the wrong thing to do for a variety of reasons. First is the high level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the military, as well as contaminants and pollutants resulting from warfare. But beyond warfare, more military spending means less money for reducing emissions and adapting to warming already locked in, he said.

“In order for us to deal responsibly with the climate crisis, we have to achieve an unprecedented level of international cooperation,” he added. “Militarism is an obstacle to that level of cooperation.”

In other words, as NATO increasingly puts Russia and China in its crosshairs, as it did in its recent “Washington Summit Declaration,” cooperation between Western countries and Russia and China on climate change becomes more difficult because of increased geopolitical tension.

Who pushes disinformation anyway?

NATO says Russia and China have pushed disinformation and outright conspiracy theories in the West to undermine climate action and sow division.

The alliance says it has observed increased Russian-linked disinformation in Europe relating to renewable energy investments, Russian-linked social media accounts vilifying climate activists and exploiting the devastating Hawaii wildfires with a social media campaign and slogan, “Hawaii, not Ukraine.” NATO accuses China of spreading a similar conspiracy theory, suggesting the Hawaii fires were “a deliberate result of a secret ‘weather weapon’ testing by American intelligence agencies.”

Heffernan says it’s difficult to determine which disinformation campaign is linked to who. It’s easy for NATO to say “actors like Russia and China” are behind the campaigns, “but it's also far too simplistic to suggest Russia is doing all of this, or China is doing all of this,” he said. “There is a lot of grey area, with a lot of different actors doing this for a lot of different purposes.”

For instance, researchers from Carleton University, McGill University’s Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy, and Climate Action Against Disinformation found right wing influencers spread disinformation as last year’s wildfires blanketed much of Canada in smoke. The disinformation pushed conspiracy theories that the wildfires were a result of “eco-terrorists, left extremists, and governments” to advance a climate agenda — a conspiracy theory Alberta Premier Danielle Smith fed into.

Far-right Canadian media outlet The Rebel similarly advanced conspiracy theories relating to the Hawaii wildfires over a series of reports called “The Truth About Maui,” which cast doubt on climate science, and platformed Calgary based climate change denial organization Friends of Science, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry.

As previously reported by Canada’s National Observer, disinformation has been spread by pro-natural gas groups and Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre to mislead Canadians in an attempt to foment outrage against the federal Liberal Party.

Given disinformation can come from domestic sources, including the fossil fuel industry and supportive politicians, Lascaris said it’s good to be skeptical of NATO’s claims that Russian and Chinese disinformation is sowing division in Western countries.

“The idea that Russian disinformation is more influential in the West than American disinformation is laughable,” he said. “How many people in Canada, the United States or any other Western country get most of their news or information… from Russian sources? How many of them get it from the United States primarily? Or from other Western based corporate media?”

Comments