Militaries should limit war impact on climate

The gory images of war victims in Gaza, Yemen, Sudan and Ukraine and other nations traumatise, as brothers rise against brothers and cities are reduced to heaps of rubble.

Shelling has claimed innocent lives, some too young to comprehend the conflicts. The negative effects of the military conflicts may however be well beyond immediate and most visible devastation, with critical questions being the environmental impacts touching global carbon emissions, and subsequent worsening of the climate crisis.

Carbon emissions from the current conflicts, with military activities such as airstrikes, transportation of troops, and manufacturing of weapons may be significantly fanning global warming and worsening the climate crisis.

In January, “A Multitemporal Snapshot of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Israel-Gaza Conflict,” a study that was not yet peer reviewed as at then, analysed carbon emissions from the Israel-Gaza conflict across three key periods, one being the first 60 days of the Hamas attack on Israel and the retaliation that ensued, characterised by heavy bombing.

The researchers focused on direct emissions from Israeli air and ground operations and Hamas’ rocket launches. They established that the carbon emission in the first two months of the war in Gaza alone was equivalent to more than “the annual emissions of 26 individual countries”.

This was a good follow-up to the Dubai COP28 climate talks in December 2023, which had included the Gaza war in its agenda, and enabled conversations on effects of war on the climate crisis and what should be done about it.

The researchers, including Dr Benjamin Neimark, a Senior Lecturer at Queen Mary University of London, and Dr Patrick Bigger, a Research Director of the US-based Climate and Community Project, recommended mandatory reporting of the military emissions through the UNFCCC, as a means of reducing their contribution to the global warming through GHG emissions, which many studies have estimated at 5.5 per cent globally. A lot of emissions attributed to militaries are through their vehicles’ heavy fuel consumption (tailpipe emissions) and industrial processes in manufacturing of bombs and missiles. The airstrikes and ground battles also lead to massive deforestation, as people cut down trees for fuel.

The aftermath of bombings, especially in densely populated areas like Gaza, is usually infrastructure destruction, which causes release of trapped carbon into the atmosphere when the rubbles decompose.

Fires ignited by explosions cause the destruction of biodiversity and their habitats, interfere with the ecosystem and limit carbon sequestration.

With more conflicts globally, the cumulative carbon emission through military action must not be overlooked in climate action. Specific to militaries is that even as knowledge increases and more sophisticated weapons emerge, adopting greener practices, energy-efficient technology, and renewable energy rather than fossil fuels is a good start. Militaries must reduce their carbon footprint.

Finally, those key global treaties must ensure monitoring of conflict zones for environmental damage, and holding countries responsible for conflicts accountable for killings, maiming and environmental destruction. Once peace is restored, rebuilding should prioritise green practices and restoration of ecosystems to alleviate long-term environmental damage and build resilience.

There is never really a winner in a warfare. The environmental costs make it harder for war survivors to thrive. It is an extension of warfare, sometimes so saliently. Let’s prioritise diplomacy, promote green military practices where war must occur and ensure sustainable post-conflict recovery that creates more resilient communities and ecosystems that can better withstand future climate and other challenges.

-The writer advocates for climate justice.