For a long time, the German coal phase-out came under suspicion: Carbon credits from decommissioned coal-fired power plants could potentially be used for emissions elsewhere in Europe. We have investigated how the German government intends to prevent this “waterbed effect.” This week’s Climate.Table looks at Uganda and its ambitious targets as another example of how the energy transition and genuine climate action can work in other countries.
But there is also this news: Hurricanes have become so destructive that researchers propose a new way of calculating their wind speeds. And the Atlantic current and the Amazon rainforest appear to be approaching their dangerous tipping points.
Because all this is so much and so important, we aim to keep you even better informed: Starting next week, you will receive Climate.Table twice a week: On Tuesday and, as usual, on Thursday. That means you will receive analyses, background information, news, charts, interviews, opinions and profiles on climate issues in Germany, Europe and worldwide twice a week.
We are looking forward to providing you with even more important news. Stay tuned for more!
Germany is removing all carbon credits from the market that are no longer being used by power plants after they have been decommissioned following the country’s coal exit. These credits are now temporarily stored in the EU Emissions Trading System’s “Market Stability Reserve” (MSR). According to the German government, however, they will no longer return to the market. This means they cannot be used elsewhere in Europe’s carbon trading system. The German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) has confirmed this to Table.Media.
One year after the conflict surrounding the evacuation of the village of Lützerath and the compromise on an early coal phase-out in the Rhineland coalfield, this move by the German government also aims to counter political accusations against the effectiveness of its climate policy. This is because the so-called “waterbed effect” in the European emissions trading system means that carbon credits not used in one country could be used elsewhere for carbon emissions. This was the impression given by German Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) in November. He questioned the 2030 coal phase-out and explained: “This date won’t do anything for the climate anyway, as the carbon emissions saved in Germany may also be incurred in Poland, for example, due to European regulations.” That is now ruled out.
This is because even in the unlikely event that the credits return to the market from the MSR at some point, Germany has requested the EU to delete them at the end of 2023. “In this way, national deletion prevents a waterbed effect,” explained a ministry spokesperson. The ministry led by the Green Party had already announced a year ago that it would ensure that the credits from the phase-out would disappear from the market.
At the same time, the German government forgoes revenue by permanently retiring these credits. Depending on the number of credits and their price at current auctions, the credits would otherwise flush money into Germany’s Climate and Transformation Fund. The exact amount is unclear. In 2022, 6.8 billion euros from all auctioned credits flowed from the ETS into the fund. Following the Constitutional Court’s ruling from November 15, the fund is about 60 billion short for the coming years.
According to the BMWK, German power plants with a total capacity of 414 MW were decommissioned in 2022 as part of the German coal exit. According to a Green Budget Germany (GBG) study commissioned by the green electricity operator Green Planet Energy, eight hard coal-fired power plant units and six lignite-fired power plant units with a total capacity of around 6.5 GW were shut down in 2021.
It is disputed how many carbon allowances have to be deleted after the decommissioning of the plants. The EU and Germany used different calculation methods for a long time, and the deletion criteria were unclear. The EU calculates a power plant’s carbon emissions using an average value from the last five years. Germany, on the other hand, calculated how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere would actually be saved by decommissioning and applied this amount.
Because the EU and Germany disagreed on a calculation method, Germany was unable to have its credits deleted by the EU for 2021 after the coal exit. An agreement has now been reached and Germany has adopted the EU criteria. And according to the BMWK, the credits freed up in 2021 will not be available to the market, but will instead be stored in the MSR and deleted later.
The MSR is intended to serve as a backup buffer in the ETS if credits become unexpectedly scarce and prices rise rapidly. If fewer than 400 million credits are on the market, additional credits can flow back into the market from the MSR. However, if more than 400 million credits are in the MSR, they are automatically and permanently deleted – and this MSR sum has currently grown to around 1.1 billion, meaning that deletion is practically certain. According to the German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt), Germany receives 92 million carbon credits annually from the EU. In 2022, Germany received a total of 6.8 billion euros from auctioning these credits.
According to the GBG calculation, the 14 power plant units decommissioned in 2021 emitted around 118 million tons of CO2 between 2016 and 2020. The report criticizes that deleting these credits, which was impossible in 2021 due to the disagreements between Germany and the EU, would have reduced all EU credits by this amount. However, the BMWK states that they have been placed in the MSR and will be deleted later.
According to the GBG, Germany generated a total of 9.6 billion euros by auctioning these credits. However, this contrasts climate-related damages of 23.3 billion euros, which, according to calculations, were caused by the additional 118 million tons. However, due to the complex MSR calculation methods, the BMWK does not consider the “pure emission volumes of the decommissioned power plants to be a viable reference point for estimating any auction revenues.”
Uganda has joined other African countries like Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya to launch an energy transition plan (ETP). The plan unveiled at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, sets out an ambitious yet feasible pathway to achieve universal energy access by the end of the decade and a peak in emissions by 2040.
However, the plan’s success depends on many variables. For example, on whether the state and foreign donors raise enough money for the annual investments of eight billion US dollars. Another decisive factor will be whether the government and authorities plan effectively and how major energy projects are implemented. These include, for example, the development of a nuclear industry with Russian help or the realization of the controversial EACOP oil pipeline.
According to the ETP and the national climate plan NDC, Uganda’s energy-related greenhouse gas emissions will reach around 20 million tons by 2030 and about 23 million tons of CO2 equivalents by 2040 in the best-case scenario – and with foreign help. “In a scenario where Uganda did not take further action, energy-sector emissions would reach 30 Mt CO2-eq in 2030 and would not be on course to peak even in 2050.”
Uganda’s new plan sets out a robust pathway to meet economic growth and development objectives in a secure, affordable and sustainable way. The report noted Uganda will be able to reach net zero emissions from its energy sector by 2065.
The country’s growth and development also depend on the increasing utilization of modern energies. Electricity consumption is expected to grow by 14 percent per year. It is expected to climb from just under 80 kWh per capita today to around 1,750 kWh per capita in 2050, which is higher than the current level in Egypt. The demand for oil is expected to triple due to traffic growth.
However, Ugandan oil production and a refinery in Hoima in Western Uganda are only expected to cover part of this demand. Crude oil production is expected to peak at around 230,000 barrels per day by the end of this decade. Consequently, demand will stay higher than production and Uganda will continue to depend on fuel imports.
Uganda’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Development, Ruth Nankabirwa Ssentamu, said the plan marks a huge step forward in the country’s efforts to ensure every person in Uganda has access to secure, affordable and sustainable energy. However, the ETP also states that “we remain energy poor, have little access to electricity and clean cooking facilities and are among the countries with the lowest per capita consumption of modern energy in the world.” Around 90 percent of Uganda’s energy needs are still covered by solid biomass such as wood and charcoal. This is not sustainable, nor is it an option to fuel future growth in Uganda,” the report states.
For Richard Kimbowa, Programme Manager of the Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development, “The key question here is how the Government is committed to the attainment of a renewable energy future in the long run.” A “steady allocation of public finance alongside private inflows” is needed to meet the renewables targets by 2050. “The purchasing power of households remains very low.” Large revenues from electricity are not to be expected.
Climate activist Moses Mulindwa told Table.Media that the plan’s success also depends on its “adaptability.” Climate change “is dynamic, and a robust strategy should include contingencies for unforeseen challenges.” Another critical factor is the involvement of the public and interest groups. “Transparency in reporting and monitoring mechanisms is vital for accountability,” said Mulindwa. “Collaborations with international experts and organizations can further enhance the plan’s credibility, fostering an environment of shared knowledge and expertise.”
According to the ETP, “strong partnerships” are also officially the key to realizing the plan. The goal of net-zero emissions by 2065 will require annual investments in clean energy of eight billion US dollars. Uganda also requires yearly investments of around 850 million US dollars by 2030 to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals of “universal access to electricity” and “clean cooking.” This will require many sources of funding. Richard Kimbowa considers the realization of large parts of the ETP and NDC dependent “on international support.” Climate action “cannot be divorced from energy-related issues in Uganda.” For Moses Mulindwa, the plans also hinge on financial and technological support from developed countries.
Uganda also plans the construction of its first nuclear power plant. As part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) “milestone programme” this will require “a cumulative 6 billion US dollars from 2030 to 2040, and a further increase of 18 billion in the subsequent decade.” By 2050, the country wants to “expand its nuclear capacity to 5.9 GW” with the goal of supplying 20 percent of the country’s electricity.
Climate activist Mulindwa believes that Uganda’s nuclear program, which could involve cooperation with the Russian company Rosatom, must be carefully evaluated. The decision would depend on energy security, cost efficiency and environmental impact.
According to Mulindwa, “the financial aspects are crucial” for a potential cooperation with the Russian state-owned company Rosatom. “Nuclear projects often involve significant upfront costs, but they may offer long-term benefits in terms of consistent power generation.” However, “A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis should compare nuclear expenses with investments in renewable energy.”
The country’s first oil production will also require significant investment from 2025: The ETP expects an annual requirement of one billion US dollars for oil and gas infrastructure between 2026 and 2030. This amount is expected to fall significantly once the Hoima oil refinery is completed.
For Mulindwa, the planned East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) brings a complex dynamic to Uganda’s emissions reduction plan: “If the EACOP adheres to strict environmental standards, it can make a positive contribution by providing a reliable source of energy for the region while minimizing environmental impact.”
The EACOP is controversial among environmental and climate activists. The approximately 1,500-kilometer-long pipeline will connect the oil fields in the country’s west with the Tanga port in Tanzania. The project company is two-thirds owned by the French oil company Total Energies. The oil from the pipeline will produce around 380 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the next 25 years. Reports suggest that the project will temporarily or permanently displace about 100,000 people from their homes. Protests are sometimes suppressed by the police.
Activist Moses Mulindwa warns: “However, if EACOP is not managed carefully, it could jeopardize Uganda’s emissions targets. The risks include land use conflicts, deforestation and water pollution.” Only strict regulations, environmental impact assessments and community involvement can “ensure that the pipeline is in line with Uganda’s broader sustainability goals.”
When former Lieutenant General and Chief of Defense People Richard Nugee, proposed a report on climate change and the army to the Ministry of Defense in 2020, his proposal was initially rejected. There was no need for it, they said.
Today, just four years later, things are different: When important representatives of governments, armed forces and other security institutions meet at the Munich Security Conference this weekend, the climate crisis will be present. Richard Nugee has made a significant contribution to this.
Back then, four years ago, Nugee didn’t let up. He eventually wrote the report. In it, he made clear how climate change will negatively affect the work of the military. For example, he describes how warships will no longer be able to rely on seawater for cooling because the ocean’s surface temperature is too high. He also explains how water shortages in countries such as Iraq or Somalia will lead to more conflicts.
Nugee’s report illustrates why an army that is prepared for climate change can better defend a country. This military perspective has helped the issue to be taken seriously, says Nugee. In the past, showing the military the extent of their emissions had too often provoked defensive responses.
Because military greenhouse gas emissions are enormous. It is hard to tell how high exactly. At the beginning of the year, the Guardian found that many countries did not report their military emissions to the UN. However, there are estimates that the military accounts for around 5.5 percent of all global emissions, which is about twice as much as global aviation.
Richard Nugee also sees this aspect. However, he says this is not the right communication strategy to bring climate change closer to military representatives. The military is often convinced that climate action is an idea of left-wing anti-military circles. That is why he believes the best way to reach them is to explain how climate change affects security. “Climate change leads to conflict and threatens the security of the UK, Europe, NATO – and also the concept of Western democracy,” says Nugee.
He identified three strategies with which armies can respond to climate change.
There has been progress regarding climate change and security, says Nugee today. Many military personnel are now aware of the impact of the climate crisis on their operations. But they often do not do enough to respond to it.
His grandfather, who fought in both world wars, inspired him to pursue a military career. Richard Nugee served in numerous conflict zones during his long military career, including Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. From 2021 to 2022, he headed the Ministry of Defense Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach at the British Ministry of Defense. The 60-year-old is now retired but continues to work on climate issues, for example, with the research project “Climate change and (in)security” at the University of Oxford.
He lives in the South West of England with his wife and three dogs and has two adult sons. When he is not speaking at public events about the consequences of climate change for the military, he enjoys tending to nature right on his doorstep. He has planted around 1,000 trees on his land. He raises a few dozen more in his own small tree nursery. “It gives me enormous pleasure to watch the trees grow,” he says. His charity organization, “The Scar Free Foundation,” also supports research into healing wounds without scars. Lisa Kuner
For a long time, the German coal phase-out came under suspicion: Carbon credits from decommissioned coal-fired power plants could potentially be used for emissions elsewhere in Europe. We have investigated how the German government intends to prevent this “waterbed effect.” This week’s Climate.Table looks at Uganda and its ambitious targets as another example of how the energy transition and genuine climate action can work in other countries.
But there is also this news: Hurricanes have become so destructive that researchers propose a new way of calculating their wind speeds. And the Atlantic current and the Amazon rainforest appear to be approaching their dangerous tipping points.
Because all this is so much and so important, we aim to keep you even better informed: Starting next week, you will receive Climate.Table twice a week: On Tuesday and, as usual, on Thursday. That means you will receive analyses, background information, news, charts, interviews, opinions and profiles on climate issues in Germany, Europe and worldwide twice a week.
We are looking forward to providing you with even more important news. Stay tuned for more!
Germany is removing all carbon credits from the market that are no longer being used by power plants after they have been decommissioned following the country’s coal exit. These credits are now temporarily stored in the EU Emissions Trading System’s “Market Stability Reserve” (MSR). According to the German government, however, they will no longer return to the market. This means they cannot be used elsewhere in Europe’s carbon trading system. The German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) has confirmed this to Table.Media.
One year after the conflict surrounding the evacuation of the village of Lützerath and the compromise on an early coal phase-out in the Rhineland coalfield, this move by the German government also aims to counter political accusations against the effectiveness of its climate policy. This is because the so-called “waterbed effect” in the European emissions trading system means that carbon credits not used in one country could be used elsewhere for carbon emissions. This was the impression given by German Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) in November. He questioned the 2030 coal phase-out and explained: “This date won’t do anything for the climate anyway, as the carbon emissions saved in Germany may also be incurred in Poland, for example, due to European regulations.” That is now ruled out.
This is because even in the unlikely event that the credits return to the market from the MSR at some point, Germany has requested the EU to delete them at the end of 2023. “In this way, national deletion prevents a waterbed effect,” explained a ministry spokesperson. The ministry led by the Green Party had already announced a year ago that it would ensure that the credits from the phase-out would disappear from the market.
At the same time, the German government forgoes revenue by permanently retiring these credits. Depending on the number of credits and their price at current auctions, the credits would otherwise flush money into Germany’s Climate and Transformation Fund. The exact amount is unclear. In 2022, 6.8 billion euros from all auctioned credits flowed from the ETS into the fund. Following the Constitutional Court’s ruling from November 15, the fund is about 60 billion short for the coming years.
According to the BMWK, German power plants with a total capacity of 414 MW were decommissioned in 2022 as part of the German coal exit. According to a Green Budget Germany (GBG) study commissioned by the green electricity operator Green Planet Energy, eight hard coal-fired power plant units and six lignite-fired power plant units with a total capacity of around 6.5 GW were shut down in 2021.
It is disputed how many carbon allowances have to be deleted after the decommissioning of the plants. The EU and Germany used different calculation methods for a long time, and the deletion criteria were unclear. The EU calculates a power plant’s carbon emissions using an average value from the last five years. Germany, on the other hand, calculated how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere would actually be saved by decommissioning and applied this amount.
Because the EU and Germany disagreed on a calculation method, Germany was unable to have its credits deleted by the EU for 2021 after the coal exit. An agreement has now been reached and Germany has adopted the EU criteria. And according to the BMWK, the credits freed up in 2021 will not be available to the market, but will instead be stored in the MSR and deleted later.
The MSR is intended to serve as a backup buffer in the ETS if credits become unexpectedly scarce and prices rise rapidly. If fewer than 400 million credits are on the market, additional credits can flow back into the market from the MSR. However, if more than 400 million credits are in the MSR, they are automatically and permanently deleted – and this MSR sum has currently grown to around 1.1 billion, meaning that deletion is practically certain. According to the German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt), Germany receives 92 million carbon credits annually from the EU. In 2022, Germany received a total of 6.8 billion euros from auctioning these credits.
According to the GBG calculation, the 14 power plant units decommissioned in 2021 emitted around 118 million tons of CO2 between 2016 and 2020. The report criticizes that deleting these credits, which was impossible in 2021 due to the disagreements between Germany and the EU, would have reduced all EU credits by this amount. However, the BMWK states that they have been placed in the MSR and will be deleted later.
According to the GBG, Germany generated a total of 9.6 billion euros by auctioning these credits. However, this contrasts climate-related damages of 23.3 billion euros, which, according to calculations, were caused by the additional 118 million tons. However, due to the complex MSR calculation methods, the BMWK does not consider the “pure emission volumes of the decommissioned power plants to be a viable reference point for estimating any auction revenues.”
Uganda has joined other African countries like Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya to launch an energy transition plan (ETP). The plan unveiled at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, sets out an ambitious yet feasible pathway to achieve universal energy access by the end of the decade and a peak in emissions by 2040.
However, the plan’s success depends on many variables. For example, on whether the state and foreign donors raise enough money for the annual investments of eight billion US dollars. Another decisive factor will be whether the government and authorities plan effectively and how major energy projects are implemented. These include, for example, the development of a nuclear industry with Russian help or the realization of the controversial EACOP oil pipeline.
According to the ETP and the national climate plan NDC, Uganda’s energy-related greenhouse gas emissions will reach around 20 million tons by 2030 and about 23 million tons of CO2 equivalents by 2040 in the best-case scenario – and with foreign help. “In a scenario where Uganda did not take further action, energy-sector emissions would reach 30 Mt CO2-eq in 2030 and would not be on course to peak even in 2050.”
Uganda’s new plan sets out a robust pathway to meet economic growth and development objectives in a secure, affordable and sustainable way. The report noted Uganda will be able to reach net zero emissions from its energy sector by 2065.
The country’s growth and development also depend on the increasing utilization of modern energies. Electricity consumption is expected to grow by 14 percent per year. It is expected to climb from just under 80 kWh per capita today to around 1,750 kWh per capita in 2050, which is higher than the current level in Egypt. The demand for oil is expected to triple due to traffic growth.
However, Ugandan oil production and a refinery in Hoima in Western Uganda are only expected to cover part of this demand. Crude oil production is expected to peak at around 230,000 barrels per day by the end of this decade. Consequently, demand will stay higher than production and Uganda will continue to depend on fuel imports.
Uganda’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Development, Ruth Nankabirwa Ssentamu, said the plan marks a huge step forward in the country’s efforts to ensure every person in Uganda has access to secure, affordable and sustainable energy. However, the ETP also states that “we remain energy poor, have little access to electricity and clean cooking facilities and are among the countries with the lowest per capita consumption of modern energy in the world.” Around 90 percent of Uganda’s energy needs are still covered by solid biomass such as wood and charcoal. This is not sustainable, nor is it an option to fuel future growth in Uganda,” the report states.
For Richard Kimbowa, Programme Manager of the Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development, “The key question here is how the Government is committed to the attainment of a renewable energy future in the long run.” A “steady allocation of public finance alongside private inflows” is needed to meet the renewables targets by 2050. “The purchasing power of households remains very low.” Large revenues from electricity are not to be expected.
Climate activist Moses Mulindwa told Table.Media that the plan’s success also depends on its “adaptability.” Climate change “is dynamic, and a robust strategy should include contingencies for unforeseen challenges.” Another critical factor is the involvement of the public and interest groups. “Transparency in reporting and monitoring mechanisms is vital for accountability,” said Mulindwa. “Collaborations with international experts and organizations can further enhance the plan’s credibility, fostering an environment of shared knowledge and expertise.”
According to the ETP, “strong partnerships” are also officially the key to realizing the plan. The goal of net-zero emissions by 2065 will require annual investments in clean energy of eight billion US dollars. Uganda also requires yearly investments of around 850 million US dollars by 2030 to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals of “universal access to electricity” and “clean cooking.” This will require many sources of funding. Richard Kimbowa considers the realization of large parts of the ETP and NDC dependent “on international support.” Climate action “cannot be divorced from energy-related issues in Uganda.” For Moses Mulindwa, the plans also hinge on financial and technological support from developed countries.
Uganda also plans the construction of its first nuclear power plant. As part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) “milestone programme” this will require “a cumulative 6 billion US dollars from 2030 to 2040, and a further increase of 18 billion in the subsequent decade.” By 2050, the country wants to “expand its nuclear capacity to 5.9 GW” with the goal of supplying 20 percent of the country’s electricity.
Climate activist Mulindwa believes that Uganda’s nuclear program, which could involve cooperation with the Russian company Rosatom, must be carefully evaluated. The decision would depend on energy security, cost efficiency and environmental impact.
According to Mulindwa, “the financial aspects are crucial” for a potential cooperation with the Russian state-owned company Rosatom. “Nuclear projects often involve significant upfront costs, but they may offer long-term benefits in terms of consistent power generation.” However, “A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis should compare nuclear expenses with investments in renewable energy.”
The country’s first oil production will also require significant investment from 2025: The ETP expects an annual requirement of one billion US dollars for oil and gas infrastructure between 2026 and 2030. This amount is expected to fall significantly once the Hoima oil refinery is completed.
For Mulindwa, the planned East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) brings a complex dynamic to Uganda’s emissions reduction plan: “If the EACOP adheres to strict environmental standards, it can make a positive contribution by providing a reliable source of energy for the region while minimizing environmental impact.”
The EACOP is controversial among environmental and climate activists. The approximately 1,500-kilometer-long pipeline will connect the oil fields in the country’s west with the Tanga port in Tanzania. The project company is two-thirds owned by the French oil company Total Energies. The oil from the pipeline will produce around 380 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the next 25 years. Reports suggest that the project will temporarily or permanently displace about 100,000 people from their homes. Protests are sometimes suppressed by the police.
Activist Moses Mulindwa warns: “However, if EACOP is not managed carefully, it could jeopardize Uganda’s emissions targets. The risks include land use conflicts, deforestation and water pollution.” Only strict regulations, environmental impact assessments and community involvement can “ensure that the pipeline is in line with Uganda’s broader sustainability goals.”
When former Lieutenant General and Chief of Defense People Richard Nugee, proposed a report on climate change and the army to the Ministry of Defense in 2020, his proposal was initially rejected. There was no need for it, they said.
Today, just four years later, things are different: When important representatives of governments, armed forces and other security institutions meet at the Munich Security Conference this weekend, the climate crisis will be present. Richard Nugee has made a significant contribution to this.
Back then, four years ago, Nugee didn’t let up. He eventually wrote the report. In it, he made clear how climate change will negatively affect the work of the military. For example, he describes how warships will no longer be able to rely on seawater for cooling because the ocean’s surface temperature is too high. He also explains how water shortages in countries such as Iraq or Somalia will lead to more conflicts.
Nugee’s report illustrates why an army that is prepared for climate change can better defend a country. This military perspective has helped the issue to be taken seriously, says Nugee. In the past, showing the military the extent of their emissions had too often provoked defensive responses.
Because military greenhouse gas emissions are enormous. It is hard to tell how high exactly. At the beginning of the year, the Guardian found that many countries did not report their military emissions to the UN. However, there are estimates that the military accounts for around 5.5 percent of all global emissions, which is about twice as much as global aviation.
Richard Nugee also sees this aspect. However, he says this is not the right communication strategy to bring climate change closer to military representatives. The military is often convinced that climate action is an idea of left-wing anti-military circles. That is why he believes the best way to reach them is to explain how climate change affects security. “Climate change leads to conflict and threatens the security of the UK, Europe, NATO – and also the concept of Western democracy,” says Nugee.
He identified three strategies with which armies can respond to climate change.
There has been progress regarding climate change and security, says Nugee today. Many military personnel are now aware of the impact of the climate crisis on their operations. But they often do not do enough to respond to it.
His grandfather, who fought in both world wars, inspired him to pursue a military career. Richard Nugee served in numerous conflict zones during his long military career, including Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. From 2021 to 2022, he headed the Ministry of Defense Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach at the British Ministry of Defense. The 60-year-old is now retired but continues to work on climate issues, for example, with the research project “Climate change and (in)security” at the University of Oxford.
He lives in the South West of England with his wife and three dogs and has two adult sons. When he is not speaking at public events about the consequences of climate change for the military, he enjoys tending to nature right on his doorstep. He has planted around 1,000 trees on his land. He raises a few dozen more in his own small tree nursery. “It gives me enormous pleasure to watch the trees grow,” he says. His charity organization, “The Scar Free Foundation,” also supports research into healing wounds without scars. Lisa Kuner
