In 2030, Denmark will become the first country in the world to impose a carbon tax on agriculture a historic move that cements its role as a global leader in climate policy. In parallel, the Danish government plans to convert 10% of its national territory into forest and nature by 2045, in line with broader EU biodiversity and climate goals.

These are ambitious steps for addressing the climate crisis.

But they also raise an increasingly urgent strategic question:

What happens when environmental ambition collides with national resilience?

Climate targets in a strategic age

Across Europe, environmental policies are entering a new phase. The EU’s “Green Deal” and “Fit for 55” package push nations to decarbonize rapidly, including sectors such as agriculture and heavy industry.

Yet while sustainability is paramount, we now find ourselves navigating a dramatically different geopolitical context: war in Europe, strained supply chains, energy volatility, and growing concern over strategic dependencies. From pandemic-era disruptions to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, recent events have forced Western nations to rediscover the fundamentals of national preparedness; not only in military terms, but in food, fuel, and industrial resilience.

Food Security: the strategic blind spot

Food security has long been treated as a development issue or logistical afterthought is now returning to the strategic agenda. Not just as a humanitarian concern, but as a core element of national stability.

Reduced domestic agricultural production, a shrinking base of active farmers, and rewilding initiatives may align with long-term environmental goals. But when layered onto climate volatility, global fertilizer scarcity, and geopolitical conflict, these trends expose new vulnerabilities in Europe’s ability to feed itself.

Resilience is not only about emissions or efficiency. It’s also about redundancy, adaptability, and national capacity.

In a crisis, the question is not only how “green” your food system is but how sovereign it is.

A new strategic dilemma

Denmark’s agricultural tax is not an isolated case. Similar discussions are unfolding in the Netherlands, Ireland, and across the EU. Agriculture is being asked to do more with less: to lower emissions, protect biodiversity, and reduce nutrient runoff, all while feeding growing populations and staying globally competitive.

This is not a critique of climate action. It’s a call to widen the lens.

In early 2024, the European Commission approved a €724 million Danish scheme to reduce the carbon tax burden on heavy industries deemed at risk of relocation, such as chemical and metallurgical sectors. The rationale was to prevent carbon leakage and safeguard industrial competitiveness.

Yet the move highlights a deeper dilemma: while certain sectors are shielded in the name of economic continuity, others, like agriculture, are being asked to transform at speed, often without similar buffers. If resilience truly matters, then strategic sectors must be assessed not only by their emissions, but by their role in national endurance. National defence today extends beyond troops and technology; it includes the staying power of industrial and agricultural systems.

The green transition is not unfolding in isolation. It’s unfolding in a world of great power competition, fragile alliances, and multi-domain threats. As national security experts, we must assess policies not just on environmental merit, but on how they affect strategic depth, societal cohesion, and operational readiness.

If we reduce domestic capacity too far, we may become reliant on imports from less stable or less climate-conscious suppliers. That creates strategic exposure and diminishes our ability to project autonomy.

In a fragile geopolitical landscape, the ability to feed your population is part of national security.

Toward a dual transition: green and resilient

So where does that leave us?

Europe needs a dual transition: one that is climate-smart and security-minded. We must develop frameworks that allow for decarbonization without undermining food sovereignty or agricultural viability.

This will require:

  • Innovation: in precision farming, low-emission livestock systems, and regenerative practices that maintain yields.
  • Strategic foresight: to model cascading risks from food disruptions, trade blockades, or climate shocks.
  • Balanced metrics: that measure sustainability not only in emissions avoided, but in strategic capacity retained.
  • Stronger alliances: between defence planners, food system actors, and climate ministries. The silos between these domains can no longer be sustained.

Questions we must ask

As defence and security thinkers, we must start engaging more deeply with the food-energy-climate nexus. The following questions should guide our assessments:

  • Can nations reduce emissions from agriculture without losing food autonomy?
  • What level of domestic food production is strategically necessary in a crisis?
  • Are current climate policies stress-tested against scenarios involving trade disruption or global conflict?
  • Should food system resilience be treated as a component of civil defence?

Conclusion

We are entering an age where soft power is more than values: it’s also about capacity. The credibility of Western democracies will rest not only on what they believe, but on what they can deliver under pressure. Feeding your own population is not just a humanitarian duty. It’s a strategic imperative. And as we reshape the contours of a green Europe, we must ensure that the foundations of resilience; including in food and farming are not sacrificed in the process. Because the next crisis may not wait for us to finish the transition and when it comes, resilience will matter as much as ambition.

The author is an economic historian and founder of Anday AB, advising on strategic networking and stakeholder engagement across politics, defence, and international affairs.