**2. Theoretical Arguments**

This study is driven by the impulse to understand how energy use in defense production is harmful to the environment by determining the links between environmental degradation, defense expenditures, and energy consumption. Countries are bound by climate change-related reports and agreements, and the awareness of citizens of carbon emissions and environmental pollution has forced countries to be more environmentallyfriendly in energy production and use. Although there has been a decrease in energy production and consumption due to the COVID-19 pandemic over the last three years, the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere has increased from 280 to 415 ppm over the last thirty years, and CO2 emissions due to energy consumption increased by 4.8% in 2021 [14].

The unprecedented pace of rapid industrialization since the Industrial Revolution has led countries to endeavor to dominate energy resources. In this context, the 20th century has witnessed power struggles in the international security system to ensure energy supplies. Jorgenson [17] links this fact with the concept of "military coercive power", which has two main strands. The first strand mainly addresses the ability and desire of countries to allocate budgetary resources to militarization. Even though the share of the public budget used military expenses tends to increase in wartime, during peacetime, countries may upgrade defense systems and military structures. The augmentation of these systems and structures not only requires more budgetary allocations, but also require more energy resources [18]. For instance, the US Department of Defense (Pentagon) is the world's largest consumer of petroleum-based energy, and its overall emissions of waste, fossil fuels, and other greenhouse gases are more than the sum of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal [19]. According to the European Defense Agency, the defense institutions of the EU member states make significant use of energy within the Union and are seeking sustainable energy models, as the majority of those countries are overwhelmingly net importers [20]. Despite the introduction of cutting-edge technologies in the arms industry, the demand for energy is continuously growing. Although sustainable renewable energy models are being widely discussed in all countries, especially in the UN and NATO, there is no way for countries to realize these models in the short term except for their own military bases and personnel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, a military mission within the UN structure usually takes between six months and a year, while it takes up to five years to cover the costs of relatively expensive renewable energy elements [21]. Thus, short-term analyses do not work efficiently for planning energy and military elements. In addition, Jorgenson argues that another strand of military coerciveness stems from the level of military technology, which is captured by military spending per soldier [17]. Higher military spending per soldier is an indication of military technology, which is associated with research and development activities and procurement of military defense products despite the larger ecological footprint [17,22–24].

Indeed, militarization is among the most important anthropogenic factors causing environmental degradation [25] due to the destruction of forest areas to construct military bases, the adverse impacts on ecosystems associated with military demonstrations, and ammunition and personnel waste, along with pollution stemming from the deployment and shipment of military personnel and assets. These examples illustrate the sociology-based "treadmill of destruction" theory and great portion of the studies in this field draw attention to the high-intensity and causal relationship between militarization and environmental degradation, e.g., [26–32]. According to this theory, the dynamics of militarization in themselves can harm nature, and countries that want to become stronger damage the environment in many different ways by spending more on their militaries and defense [27]. Larger bases and production areas also require more natural resources, causing more damage to ecosystems [29]. In the struggle to be stronger, there is no need to harm the environment. An asymmetric study on warfare conducted on 126 countries between 2000 and 2010 predicted that extensive carbon emissions and environmental degradation is associated with higher militarization [32]. The destruction caused by militarization can occur not only through war, personnel, and armaments, but also through economic effects caused by production, international trade, and/or institutions; see [31,33]. The economic effects, especially those triggered by war, form depending on capital-intensive technology and cause multiple and joint negative effects on the environment, such as diminution of natural resources, augmentation of waste, and the release of toxic substances [26]. While the direct environmental effects of militarization such as bombing and destruction manifest themselves in the short term, effects such as the reduction in forests, pollution of soil and water, decreases in production, and waves of migration manifest themselves in the long term. Since climate change is a long-term phenomenon, its relationship with militarization should be evaluated in the long term.
