Overview:
War always destroys human lives and greatly disrupts global stability. They also damage or eradicate habitats, ecosystems, and species. Fires at oil and gas refineries accelerate climate change. Pollutants left by bombings, missile attacks, and spent ammunition on land, surface water, and sea threaten the health of all creatures. In addition, local conflict can lead to species decline and extinction where conservation efforts have been curtailed. These gross, unpredictable upheavals cause damage at all levels of the environment, including not only human populations, but natural ecosystems as well.
|
What is Happening Today?
Any war in the twenty-first century wreaks havoc on the Earth for all of its inhabitants by excessively degrading environments. These environmental aspects of war are rarely portrayed in the media and are always ignored by those waging war. War ramps up environmental degradation and species loss much more than most people realize.
In peacetime the world’s armies produce a larger carbon footprint than all but three countries, according to Oxford University’s Neta Crawford, who also emphasizes that the world’s largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases is the US Department of Defense. In times of war, this carbon footprint expands to greatly accelerate climate change. In four years, the Ukraine War has released more than 311 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent—exceeding Spain’s annual greenhouse gas output. In the first two weeks of the Iran War, an estimated 5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions were released. These emissions have increased global temperatures affecting every living creature on the planet.
With respect to the current conflict in the Mideast, which produces nearly a third of the world’s oil and one-fifth of its natural gas, one of the largest oil refineries in Raz Tanura, Saudi Arabia, and numerous oil-carrying vessels near the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf have been threatened. As a result of the bombing of oil depots in Tehran, black smoke and black rain engulfed parts of that city of more than nine million. This black rain took its color from the carbon it contained as well as carcinogens and metals, such as lead and mercury. These environmental toxins will linger for decades affecting all forms of life in these areas.
Perhaps more important with regards to impacts on habitats and biodiversity are the local effects on animal and plant populations, especially endangered species, during times of conflict. For example, from research conducted in Princeton University’s Pringle Lab it has been shown that "Over decades, armed conflict has reduced animal populations in Africa more than any other factor.” This is because in times of war 1) increased poached bushmeat is needed to feed troops, local peoples, and refugees, 2) valuable biological resources, such as ivory and rhino horn, are used to fund the struggle and therefore put more animals at risk, and 3) arms and ammunition become more widely available resulting in a general breakdown of law and order which makes poaching and species decline more common. The concept of protecting nature in war zones and conflict regions is all but forgotten during these events. Understandably most international and national conservation organizations often retreat and wildlife patrols are curtailed when the battles begin.
It should be recognized, as stated by the same researchers who assessed the damage caused to animal populations by wars in Africa, that many habitats can recover after these upheavals. Although wildlife populations will decline, species and natural habitats almost always persist even at very low levels and can rebound when given the chance as effective conservation measures return. This rebound is not always the case. However, such a response has been shown in Mozambique’s Gorongosa National Park in Africa where a devastating civil war caused tremendous damage to natural habits and local species. When calm was reestablished, a concerted effort at wildlife restoration was able to allow the natural ecosystems and populations to return to nearly pre-war levels.
This effect may also apply to the impact of war on fossil fuel use. Conflicts warn countries that long-term solutions require greater independence from foreign sources of fossil fuels and resultant severe global price hikes. Some observers argue that dramatic increases in oil and natural gas prices will hasten the shift to renewables, such as solar and wind. China, the world’s largest consumer of imported oil, may speed its already rapid development of renewable energy and EVs in order to protect its economy and national security from fossil fuel shortages. In the US the Iran War is altering the debate over renewables. The Trump administration has sought to reverse the Biden administration’s investments in green energy. However, voters may question the wisdom of endlessly clinging to fossil fuels if the war continues.
The long-term consequences of the impact of current and future wars on our natural environments, habitats, species, and use of renewable energy remain unclear. In the meantime, the world braces for an escalation of wars that will place our troops as well as civilians in harm’s way and certainly continue to degrade and destroy the environments in which these people - and all creatures - live.
The way to stop environmental damage from war is to not start one. Those who begin wars and those who defend themselves against aggressors, never calculate environmental damage as part of their decision. Environmentally, the negative externalities of war are huge, but they are always discounted or denied. It is time to reassess the rationale for war.
|
