Article content
For years, Europe treated green energy as a climate or competitiveness issue. Since the full-scale war in Ukraine, attention has rightly shifted to defence. But these agendas are not separate. In 2025, sustainability is national security. A state that can power itself − cleanly, affordably, and flexibly − is harder to coerce and quicker to recover.
The opening months of the war exposed a painful flaw. As Russian pipeline gas receded, prices spiked and markets convulsed. Europe learned, abruptly, that concentrated supply is a strategic vulnerability, regardless of how some past policy choices are still defended today. Diversifying into wind, solar, and hydro isn’t just climate policy; it’s a stability policy that reduces exposure to weaponised fuels and price shocks.
There’s another lesson Estonia already understands from the digital world: decentralised is safer − distributed systems − whether data or electricity − limit single points of failure. Applied to energy, that means many sources like solar, on- and offshore wind and hydro, backed by storage, flexible demand, and smart grids. If one node is hit, others carry the load. This is how you build resilience into the system’s DNA.
Centralisation, by contrast, can become a strategic liability. Estonia has historically depended on shale oil, and as discussions about distancing ourselves from this source became more prominent, some have suggested a power plant as an alternative. Not a bad idea, but let’s learn from Zaporizhzhia. The occupation turned historically dependent on shale oil, and as discussions about distancing Europe’s largest nuclear plant from a persistent safety risk, with repeated losses of external power. One massive asset became a hostage to events—an energy and security nightmare no country wants. “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is not just folk wisdom; it’s an operational doctrine. The occupation turned historically dependent on shale oil, and as discussions about distancing Europe’s largest nuclear plant from
We also have to confront our overshoot. As Mikk Vainik from Rohetiiger put it to me: we are living over our means. Earth Overshoot Day shows how quickly we burn through nature’s annual budget; for high-consumption countries, it comes alarmingly early − Estonia’s falls around March. Fixing our legacy energy systems and driving renewables to at least 90% wouldn’t only cut emissions; it would “give nature back at least three or four months.”
Public attitudes matter. It’s easy to dismiss “being green” as sorting waste or to say individual choices don’t matter while the ultrarich fly private and heavy industry pollutes. The frustration is understandable. But in today’s geopolitical context, going greener is more than virtue − it’s sovereignty. Efficiency at home, demand response, community energy, rooftop solar, electric vehicles that can stabilise the grid: these microactions aggregate into macroresilience.
Estonia is well placed to lead. We have cleantech firms, regulatory agility, and a track record of testing new ideas. And with a neighbour known for testing resilience, we have yet another reason to build a distributed, digitally ready energy system that remains stable even if cables, pipelines, or single plants fail.
Breaking free from legacy energy is not a “nice to have.” It is a defence investment − one that pays back in stability, affordability, and a livable future.
