This time, our five questions go to Katharina Rogenhofer, Director of the Kontext Institute for Climate Issues. We spoke to the climate policy expert about the security policy consequences of the climate crisis for the EU.
Ms. Rogenhofer, the climate crisis is closely linked to security policy aspects. To what extent does the climate crisis pose a concrete threat to Austria’s security policy stability?
Firstly, there are the extreme weather events: In the fall of 2024, Austria was hit by the third flood of the century in 22 years. The floods caused damage of at least 1.3 billion euros, destroyed residential areas, important transport routes, critical infrastructure and large areas of agricultural land. The probability of such extreme weather events increases with every tenth of a degree of global warming.
However, dependence on energy and raw material imports is a challenge in terms of both climate and security policy. The dependence on fossil fuels in particular towards Russia is serious for Austria. While other European countries have been forced to take action after the start of the war of aggression against Ukraine (-> Latest news from the war in Ukraine) stopped or at least significantly reduced gas imports from Russia, Austria continued to do so for a long time. As a result, more than 12 billion euros have flowed into Russian energy imports since the start of the war – and thus indirectly into financing the war.
A third growing security policy risk is the spread of disinformation. It deepens social division and destabilizes democratic processes. Alongside Russia’s war of aggression and Covid-19, the climate crisis has become the central target of disinformation. This also leads to delays in political decisions with security-relevant consequences.
An important aspect in combating the climate crisis is the expansion of renewable energies. To what extent does this expansion in Austria and the EU contribute to security policy resilience – particularly with regard to geopolitical dependencies?
The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has shown the security risk associated with dependence on fossil fuels for Europe and Austria. It makes us vulnerable to blackmail through potential supply freezes, which can be linked to political or economic demands. At the same time, price shocks, such as the one after the start of the war, also fuel general inflation – a threat to social and political stability. Last but not least, import dependency on fossil fuels also entails considerable costs and thus competitive disadvantages.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Renewable energies can be produced in large quantities and all year round on our doorstep. Using them would not only permanently reduce energy costs, making life more affordable and the economy more competitive. It would also free us from the blackmail of dubious exporters and reduce the risk of inflation. It would give us energy freedom. At the same time, we would reduce CO2 emissions and thus contribute to the fight against the climate crisis.
“In terms of water and food security, Europe is in a robust position compared to other countries.”
Climate change underlines the importance of security-relevant resources (e.g. water, food, energy). How vulnerable is Europe in terms of resources such as water or food in an international comparison – and is this being taken seriously enough in terms of security policy?
In terms of food and water security, Europe is still fundamentally robust by international standards, although there are regional differences between northern and southern Europe, for example. However, the climate crisis is also exacerbating the situation here. Extreme weather events and droughts are leading to crop failures and water shortages.
This requires climate adaptation measures, such as more efficient irrigation technologies or saving water and recycling in agriculture. More drought-resistant plants can also improve security of supply. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any public debate about these risks and countermeasures, especially in a security policy context.
The EU is dependent on imports for many important raw materials and can therefore be blackmailed. Lithium, for example, is imported in large quantities. Can a consistent circular economy actually contribute to decoupling the EU from raw material imports in terms of security policy – or is this more of a political pipe dream?
The best remedy against blackmail is alternatives. That sounds banal. But the more self-sufficient we are, the less dependent we are and the less susceptible we are to blackmail. In this respect, the circular economy is of great importance even if it does not lead to complete decoupling.
It just needs to be implemented consistently. This directly includes, for example, export restrictions on and a strengthening of the EU internal market for raw material waste and the development of a market for secondary raw materials as well as investments in the processing of critical raw materials in particular. In general, however, circular business practices must prevail – and the EU, but also Austria, could incentivize these with green lead markets. In other words, prescribing circularity and sustainability as criteria in public procurement, for example.
“However, the necessary political measures rarely follow.”
Is the connection between the climate crisis and security already being strategically considered in Austrian and European policy – or is there still a lack of awareness and implementation?
Both the Austrian security strategy and the risk picture (-> Risk picture 2025: “Europe is already at war”), the consequences of the climate crisis are cited as a threat to security. However, the necessary political measures rarely follow. In recent years, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic have drastically revealed the risks with regard to energy and raw material dependency (keyword: global supply chains).
As far as the political awakening to this new reality is concerned, there are some good approaches: The circular economy plays a major role both in the current government program in Austria and in the EU’s Clean Industrial Deal, and explicit reference is made to its relevance in terms of security policy. There is also certainly a greater awareness of our dependence on Russian gas. However, too little is happening here. A decisive switch from oil, coal and gas to renewable energies, the expansion of grids and storage and the electrification of all sectors would be necessary – for climate and security.
Here for the other articles in our “5 questions to” series and here for another article on the topic: The consequences of the Gaza war.
