Don’t Be Fooled By NATO’s Change In Climate Discourse

In a recent warning published in the Financial Times, EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra framed global warming not just as an environmental challenge, but as a force that could quadruple the risk of conflict over scarce resources. The positioning, while a notable turn from an EU climate chief, is hardly surprising at a time when security and defense concerns are dominating Europe’s political agenda.

NATO, too, appears to be adapting its language to maintain alignment with the Trump administration. As Politico reports, “green technologies” have been rebranded as “innovative technologies,” and “climate” has been reframed as an “operational environment.”

While this could seem like a sign of retreat, its better understood as part of a long-running pattern. Over the past two decades, climate discourse has continually morphed, shaping the political moment: from early skepticism, to moral appeals, to economic opportunity, and now to the realm of national and global security. But in today’s world, while the vocabulary may change, the issue itself has become too embedded in geopolitics to be ignored.

Climate change is here to stay, whatever words we use for it.

Climate Change Acceptance Or A “War On Coal”?

While scientific consensus on climate change has been building for decades, real climate policies took some time to catch on. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was the first binding step, but was never ratified by the US.

The European Union led the way, adopting the Emissions Trading System in 2005, one of the boldest and most ambitious climate policies of its time which put a price on carbon for polluters. The US was slower to adopt, but following growing climate activism from high profile figures like Al Gore, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued its landmark Endangerment Finding four years later. This laid the legal foundation for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States – but even then, the discourse was not clear cut.

While fuel economy standards were tightened, this was positioned as a matter of energy independence and consumer savings rather than a climate imperative. Federal programs like ARPA-E and clean energy loan guarantees were framed as economic tools, rather than a climate strategy. The Clean Power Plan, launched in 2015, further polarized the discussion. Dividing the country, it signaled a “war on coal” and regulatory overreach for many.

That same year, the Paris Agreement reframed climate not as a national issue, but as a collective global challenge.

Google Searches For Climate Anxiety Soar to 565%

COP21 commitments gave way to government action, but for a new climate-conscious generation, lack of tangible progress was felt. In 2018, Greta Thunberg began striking alone outside Sweden’s parliament. Within months, her protest sparked the global “Fridays for Future” movement. For many in this generation, this period also marked a rise in climate anxiety, with Google searches for the term increasing by 565% in 2021.

As public pressure grew, especially on the need to “green” the financial sector, the market responded. “ESG” and surrounding discussions on building a global baseline for sustainability disclosure led to a record $649 billion deployed into ESG-focused funds, up from $542 billion in 2020 and $285 billion in 2019.

Clean technologies like wind, solar and geothermal or batteries for a next generation of electric vehicles were no longer niche. It had become part of the mainstream.

Energy Crisis Hits Household Budgets

But the dual crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic followed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 saw the discourse shift again.

Rising energy costs and security became major focus points in our daily lives, in a way not experienced since the oil shocks of the 1970s. In Europe, soaring natural gas prices drove up heating bills, while in the U.S., rising gasoline costs were felt at the pump. The revival of the well-known slogan “drill, baby, drill” became a rallying cry among Republicans, symbolizing a push for energy independence through expanded domestic fossil fuel extraction.

While the energy crisis triggered a short-term uptick in fossil fuel use, the major supply chain disruption accelerated another shift in how climate was discussed. Suddenly it was central to economic strategy and geopolitical autonomy.

In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act positioned clean energy as a driver of industrial renewal and national security. In parallel, the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan framed decarbonization as key to reducing external dependencies and asserting technological leadership.

Climate policy, once siloed, was now embedded in the broader push for strategic sovereignty.

Rhetoric Shifts From Idealism To Survival

Fast forward to today, and clean tech value chains have become critical infrastructure, essential for competitive economy and energy autonomy. Governments worldwide are now racing to protect and scale domestic industry.

In the U.S., rising import tariffs have deepened political divides, with oil increasingly framed as a pillar of domestic energy security. As a result, climate policy has been further pushed to the sidelines.

Meanwhile, Europe is advancing its Clean Industrial Deal, while looking Eastward to learn from China’s clean tech scaling – carefully balancing protection with international cooperation.

But here’s the thing – despite diverging strategies and rising tensions, one constant remains: narratives drive outcomes. So even if “code words,” coupled with the new security lens on sustainability, look like a retreat, they are in fact anchoring climate action at the very heart of national interest.