Carbon Costs of Conflicts: Ukraine to Gaza…..

For those 'lucky' enough to somehow survive the conflict/war, and return home, Gaza or parts of Ukraine, they face a potential slow death as (contaminated) air, (brackish) water, (spoiled) soil, (overflowing) waste, etc., are part of the new normal environment. 

The purpose of this comment is not to divert attention away from the extreme human suffering, be they civilian deaths or kidnapped hostages, caused by conflict/war. The humanitarian cost of war gets amplified by its climate impact locally/regionally. 

Wars do damage the environment, ‘occupations may be relatively short-lived, or can last decades. While states have an obligation to protect the occupied population, their environmental obligations are less well defined…Deforestation often increases during conflicts…Human displacement is common to many conflicts. Camps for refugees and internally displaced peoples can have large environmental footprints,  waste management… Systems often break down during conflict leading to increased rates of waste dumping and burning impacts on the environment as sustainable development in reverse, and may set countries back years…’ How does war damage the environment? - CEOBS 

Do war ‘victims,’ Ukrainians against Putin government or Palestinians against Netanyahu government, have recourse? Are there grounds for charges of ecocide against the aggressor and those supplying the military weapons? 

‘In 2021, a panel of criminal and environmental lawyers from around the world created a legal definition for "ecocide" as the basis of a push to criminalize mass damage and destruction of ecosystems. The definition was made available for states to consider and is part of an ongoing effort by NGO Stop Ecocide to add environmental damage to the list of international crimes at the International Criminal Court.’ What is ecocide and which countries have made it law? | World Economic Forum

Military Carbon-Footprint

Today, on the one hand, there is a concerted global movement on reduction of carbon emissions, from climate activism to major conferences to focus/subsidies on renewable energy to electric vehicles to low carbon footprint consumerism, but, on the other hand, the global militaries are exempted on the national security basis.

‘The total military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions [or more than the aviation and shipping industries combined, and it may be underreported, World’s militaries avoiding scrutiny over emissions, scientists say]. If the world’s militaries were a country, this figure would mean they have the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world – greater than that of Russia (US, China and India)...’ Estimating the Military’s Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

As ‘...defense forces are not bound by international climate agreements to report or cut their carbon emissions, and the data that is published by some militaries is unreliable or incomplete at best…That's because military emissions abroad, from flying jets to sailing ships to training exercises, were left out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gasses - and exempted again from the 2015 Paris accords - on the grounds that data about energy use by armies could undermine national security. Insight: World's war on greenhouse gas emissions has a military blind spot | Reuters 

‘The attention of the media is often drawn to the destructive explosions caused by bombs, drones or missiles [powered by fossil fuel…diesel for ships, tanks, etc.]. And the devastation we have witnessed in cities like Aleppo, Mosul, Mariupol and now Gaza certainly serve as stark reminders of the horrific impacts of military action. However, research is increasingly uncovering broader and longer-term consequences of war that extend well beyond the battlefield. Armed conflicts leave a lasting trail of environmental damage, posing challenges for restoration [unsafe air, soil, water, waste management, etc] after the hostilities have eased.’ Warfare ruins the environment – and not just on the front lines

“Ran Peleg, Israel’s director of Middle East economic relations, told the Guardian that the question of calculating greenhouse gas emissions from IDF operations – current or previous – had not been discussed. “This is actually the first time this issue has been raised, and I’m not aware that there are any ways to count these kinds of things.” Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian 

And ‘a growing narrative has argued that the climate crisis is a national security threat that demands military investments. But while a deteriorating environment does, in fact, threaten people, few things fuel the crisis quite like war, which props up the global fossil fuel industry by locking in oil, gas, and coal demand, according to the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS)’  How War Impacts Climate Change and the Environment  

Ukraine (Charge of Ecocide?)

‘The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused catastrophic loss of life, widespread displacement, and a growing global food crisis. Warfare in (Ukrainian) urban areas causes extensive damage to buildings, roads, and infrastructure, which can fill the air with debris and rubble, making it much harder to breathe. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also featured attacks on facilities that process dangerous chemicals such as ammonia, which has threatened the safety of nearby communities. 

‘The conflict has also extensively harmed Ukraine’s natural environment, highlighting the many ways in which war devastates biodiversity and contributes to the climate crisis.  Advocates and organizers within Ukraine have documented hundreds of environmental crimes that together, they argue, warrant the charge of ecocide by international courts. These crimes include attacks on industrial facilities that contaminate groundwater supplies and airways and the deliberate bombing of wildlife refuges and other important ecosystems.’ How War Impacts Climate Change and the Environment 

[‘Even in peacetime, militaries consume extreme amounts of dirty energy. The US Department of Defense’s 566,000 buildings, for example, account for 40% of its fossil fuel use. [‘If the US military were itself a country, it would have the 47th highest emissions total worldwide, greater than the countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Portugal overall.’ How the world's militaries hide their huge carbon emissions]. These include training facilities, dormitories, manufacturing plants, and other buildings on the department’s nearly 800 bases worldwide. In countries like Switzerland and the United Kingdom, defense ministries similarly consume the most fossil fuels among government agencies. Other countries with massive militaries like China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Israel do not report their emissions totals, but the pattern is expected to be the same.’ ] 

Gaza

‘The Israel-Gaza conflict, and its climate dimensions, were closely monitored at the recent UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) 28 [UN Climate Change Conference - United Arab Emirates | UNFCCC]  meetings in Dubai by delegates and civil society organizations. Prompted by the hosts, the links between conflict and climate change were included on the UNFCCC agenda for the first time…[to] provide ‘snapshots’ of carbon emissions from the Israel/Gaza conflict across three distinct time horizons. 

Immediate 

‘In the first two months of the war, the total emissions from the activities… run to 281,315 tCO2e. This includes combined emissions of bombs, rockets and artillery, flight time for bomb raids, and the delivery of materiel (for Israel) via cargo jet [Up to Dec 4, there were around 200 cargo flight carrying 10,000 tones of supplies from the US to Israel...total emissions for cargo flights are therefore estimated at 133,000 tCO2e..] This is roughly the equivalent of 75 coal-fired power plants operating for a year…Hamas fired around 9,500 Qasam rockets; the total carbon pollution from those rockets is at least 713 tones of CO2e.

Intermediate (Gaza Tunnels & Iron Wall) 

'The Gaza Metro, or the subterranean tunnel network spanning Gaza, is made up of roughly 500 kilometers of concrete and iron…(assumptions) that the tunnels are 2 meters tall, 1 meter wide and have a thickness of 10 centimeters… calculated … the total of 176,000 tCO2e emissions resulting from tunnel construction.’

The Iron Wall ‘designed to monitor movement and deter Hamas fighters from entering Israel…It runs along most of the border between Israel and Gaza for around 65km…Emissions [above ground and underground as of the wall] is estimated at 274,232 tones of CO2 equivalent.’

Long Term (Reconstruction)

‘Intense bombing of Gaza has significantly damaged infrastructure, including apartment buildings, roads, water treatment plants, sewer networks and water wells... It is estimated [from online sources] that roughly about 100,000 buildings [residential, commercial and industrial]  have been destroyed in Gaza…’The new research calculates that the carbon cost of rebuilding Gaza’s 100,000 damaged buildings using contemporary construction techniques will generate at least 30m metric tones of warming gasses. This is on a par with New Zealand’s annual CO2 emissions and higher than 135 other countries and territories including Sri Lanka, Lebanon and Uruguay.’ A Multitemporal Snapshot of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Israel-Gaza Conflict.

Conclusion

For military conflicts, in an environment of nation-states military expenditures increasing, where there are no mandatory emissions reporting requirements and national security often cited as a reason for not publishing data,  governments must start taking seriously concepts such as green military conflict, This US military base says it is ready for any enemy — including climate change, and green warfare, "Green Warfare: An American Grand Strategy for the 21st Century" by Colin Crawford and Green War: An Assessment of the Environmental Law of International Armed Conflict.    

Suggestions from the EU study include international diplomacy to ‘reduce international tensions, and improve arms control and disarmament treaties, as well as a stronger focus on using resources to achieve ‘human security’ goals. All of these could lead to reduced armed deployments. → Unlikely!

‘Less carbon intensive military technologies – these include energy efficiency improvements, switching to non-fossil fuel energy sources or procurement programs to reduce carbon emissions in the supply chain. → plausible 

‘Environmental management options at military sites – this includes land management, energy efficiency improvement, switching to renewable energy suppliers, installing on-site renewables, using electric vehicles and development of synthetic fuels.’ —> plausible. the carbon footprint of Europe's military sectors: a scoping study

In Palestine, climate impact includes rising sea levels, heat and drought aggravating and endangering food security and water availability. For example, in Gaza much of the water sources and agricultural land is contaminated and energy grids are destroyed, and the health implications (for the day after) are measured in decades. As of this comment,  Between 36% and 45% of Gaza’s buildings – homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, shops – have so far been destroyed or damaged.

The Biden Administration, with its pro environmental policies, President Biden’s Environmental Record,  should ALSO be focusing on its carbon conflict footprint, maybe look at EU approach PLUS carbon offsets in rebuilding Gaza.