The Climatic Cost of War

There are great humanitarian implications for any war, but the environmental consequences of conflict can often be overlooked. Conflicts, both large and small, have an extremely harmful effect on the environment due to the use of ammunition. More than 5% of global emissions are caused by conflicts or militaries, although the true scale of the situation remains unknown. At a time when governments around the world are trying to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in favor of an ecological transition to help combat climate change, the impact of war on the environment is getting worse. Recent studies suggest that conflict-related GHG emissions are poorly understood. To better understand the impact of the conflict on the decarbonization goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, researchers have increasingly sought to paint a clearer picture of the emissions released in connection with military operations.

The the first major attempt to understand the impact of conflict on emissions was seen following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. New methodologies were established by researchers trying to map emissions released directly related to the conflict. Calculations and a third version of the methodology from the New Initiative on GHG Accounting for War – an association of climate experts – they are expected to be published at the COP28 climate summit in November. Researchers at present credit that the emissions released from the Russia-Ukraine war could equal the annual emissions of a small country like Belgium. It is important to note that this is only one conflict and similar high levels of emissions can be produced from other wars around the globe.

While the climate impact of war cannot replace humanitarian costs, it is important to understand how many GHG emissions are produced by war to help meet international climate commitments. Military activities are often viewed as exempt from emissions restrictions because they are necessary for national security. Few countries report their military emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), meaning there is a lack of information vital to understanding the environmental impact of these emissions. Currently, researchers suggest that militaries around the world may be responsible for approx 5.5% of global GHG emissions.

When measuring conflict emissions, sure considerations military activities are taken up, including land, marine and aviation fuels, marine and aviation fuels, extending to urban and landscape fires and damaged energy infrastructure fires for emission estimation. Other things to consider include changing energy production and demand on the ground, such as increased use of diesel generators. Certain emission levels may decrease during wartime, especially those related to industry and economic activities that no longer occur due to conflict. However, it is also important to understand the potential carbon cost of post-conflict reconstruction, which could lead to significant increases in emissions. In the case of Ukraine, the government of Ukraine and The World Bank aim to harness wartime emissions for reparations in a novel approach to reconstruction.

Researchers are increasingly analyzing the environmental impact of other conflicts in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine case. Recent studies suggest that during the first two months of Israel’s invasion of Gaza in Palestine, the carbon footprint was estimated to be greater than that of 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations. About 99 percent of the 281,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide released during this period came from Israel’s aerial bombardment and the ground invasion of Gaza, according to a the first analysis of this kind.

About half of the emissions measured in the analysis came from US cargo planes flying military supplies to Israel. Meanwhile, rockets fired by Hamas into Israel during the same period generated about 713 tons of CO2according to the work. The analysis focuses on a specific range of activities associated with the conflict – such as the manufacture and detonation of bombs, artillery and rockets – suggesting that the emissions estimate is likely to be much lower than the reality. It also does not account for the methane produced from these activities, which necessitates a more detailed analysis to fully understand the impact of war on the environment.

Benjamin Neimark, co-author of the paper, he stated“This study is only a snapshot of the war’s larger military footprint … a partial picture of the massive carbon emissions and broader toxic pollutants that will linger long after the fighting is over.” Neimark added: “The military’s environmental exceptionalism allows them to pollute with impunity, as if the carbon emissions spewed from their tanks and fighter jets don’t matter. This has to stop, to tackle the climate crisis we need accountability.”

While there are often larger concerns associated with conflict, such as humanitarian suffering, at a time when governments around the world are trying to reduce GHG emissions to combat climate change, it is important to understand the environmental implications of war. As the International Energy Agency and other bodies measure current climate commitments against the global energy landscape, rising emissions associated with conflict should not be overlooked. Greater transparency and reporting on military emissions could contribute to international analyzes of carbon emissions and provide a better forecast of decarbonisation for the coming years.

By Felicity Bradstock for OIlprice.com

More top reads from Oilprice.com