The world mustn’t keep looking away from the environmental costs of war

As a climate researcher observed, “Wars do have significant emission footprints, not just from the explosives being used, but also from the entire military supply chains that are extremely energy intensive… and the process of reconstruction also has large emission implications."

In 2023 alone, the world recorded 170 armed conflicts and the displacement of nearly 120 million people. This is tragic, of course. So, too, is the ecological impact of war.

Also read: Is the Ukraine war stoppable?

In the modern era of warfare, World War I was extremely damaging, given its use of trench fighting, which not only destroyed vast grasslands, plants and animal habitats, but also eroded ground soil through heavy tree-felling. Then, in World War II, aerial bombardment smudged landscapes with chemical contamination, while taking a toll on flora and fauna.

The 1960s’ Vietnam War turned this country from a once-pristine habitat to what has been described as “an almost apocalyptic state" through the use of chemical deforestation techniques. The 1990s’ Gulf War was responsible for huge greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as oil wells were targeted, with vast oil spills in the sea hurting almost every marine species.

The first two years of the Russia-Ukraine war are estimated to have resulted in over 175 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent of extra emissions. Even though we have no proper evaluation of the Gaza conflict, it could have added at least another 50 million tonnes, as per available reports.

While the Gaza hostilities involve a much smaller area and Israeli aircraft sorties burn much less fuel, the US has been flying materiel to Israel. Moreover, Gaza has experienced a near complete degradation of its soil and water, even as countless tonnes of debris with unexploded ordnance, asbestos and other hazardous substances pose its people serious health risks.

During the first three months of the conflict, 179,000 cases of acute respiratory infection and 136,400 cases of diarrhoea had been reported among the children under five.

According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, “Military activities account for an estimated 5.5% of global GHG emissions. But, if the full impacts of the warfare activities, including manufacturing of weapons, iron and steel production and supply chains, rebuilding and reconstruction are included, it goes up to about 29% of the emissions."

Unfortunately, countries are not duty-bound to report emissions from military activities, either under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol or the 2015 Paris Agreement. This data can be kept secret under a veil of ‘national security.’

Also read: Making love not war in the Middle East

A study on the macroeconomic impact of climate change by Adrien Bilal of Harvard and Diego Känzig of Northwestern University finds that a world that has already warmed by more than 1° Celsius since pre-industrial times means 12% less global gross domestic product (GDP) as a result and a shrinkage in wealth that matches the financial losses of a “continuing permanent war."

A further rise to 3° Celsius is a possibility at the current rate of emissions, which would cause “precipitous declines in output, capital and consumption of more than 50%," according to the study.

This year’s CoP-29 at Baku failed to negotiate a climate finance goal of $1.3 trillion per year, as the developed world committed only $300 billion dollars annually by 2035 to help developing countries transition to clean energy, decarbonize their economies and secure people from the impact of climate change.

In the meantime, several small Pacific island nations, threatened with the prospect of disappearing under rising sea waters, have gone to the International Court of Justice to hold the world’s major polluting nations accountable for it on the ‘polluters pay’ principle.

Regardless, the world’s major economies continue to support warring countries. The US, the world’s biggest economy, has spent $60.7 billion on military assistance to Ukraine (as per the US Bureau of Political Affairs) and at least $17.9 billion on aid for Israel in the past two-and-a-half years (Brown University data).

Some European countries followed suit, with the UK having spent £12.8 billion, Germany $61.1 billion, Denmark $7 billion and the Netherlands $5.5 billion to equip Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal weaponry. The US-led Nato alliance has allotted a minimum of €40 billion annually in military aid to Ukraine from 2025 and the EU has so far allocated €11.1 billion.

As for Russia, it has gone for a record defence budget of $126 billion in 2025, almost 32.5% of its government expenditure for the year. Iran is reportedly also set to triple its military spending.

Also read: The carbon emissions of war put humanity’s right to exist at risk

Donella H. Meadows, a noted environmental scientist, had proposed that human well-being should be measured through a genuine progress indicator (GPI), a yardstick that values air quality, food security and environmental sustainability. This would give us a clearer view of the actual toll of war.

To avert an “ecological collapse" because of “misuse of power," as prophesied by Yuval Noah Harari, it’s time for the world to work seriously towards a “more socially and financially equitable society that operates within ecological limits," in his words.

The author is a former director general, Doordarshan and All India Radio; and former press secretary to the President of India.