Environmental Costs of War: From Kuwait to Gaza and Beyond
-
Editor
- . September 16, 2024
- . Update: September 16, 2024 8:40 pm
During the first Gulf War, when 700 of Kuwait’s oil fields were set ablaze, one of the most stunning illustrations of the environmental expenses of war took place. An estimated 11 million barrels of crude oil leaked from this disastrous catastrophe into the Persian Gulf, producing an enormous smoke plume covering about 800 kilometers. The damage didn’t stop there; around three hundred oil lakes developed inland on the surface of the desert, poisoning the ground for years to come. This catastrophe established a precedent for next wars by sharply underlining the terrible environmental damage that war may do.
Gaza’s Environmental Impact: Current Crisis
Two decades later, the continuous fighting in Gaza is revealing the deadly effects of contemporary warfare on the surroundings. The massacre in Gaza has once more brought this topic front and center as global debates and talks on the connection between conflict and climate change continue. A preliminary estimate released by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) indicates that the war in Gaza has caused hitherto unheard-of environmental harm. The battle fast raises air, water, and soil pollution, endangering the natural ecosystems of the area.
Recent studies show that the carbon emissions from just the first two months of the Gaza conflict exceeded the annual carbon footprint of over twenty of the most climate-vulnerable countries worldwide. This amazing statistic emphasizes the extreme damage the war causes to the ecosystem, therefore aggravating Gaza’s already terrible position.
The West’s backing of Israel’s activities in Gaza and the neglect of environmental effects of such wars by the international community have shown a great hypocrisy about the climate catastrophe. Governments and companies sometimes talk about the threats of climate change, but they usually overlook the significant effects of military operations and foreign policy on the surroundings. This disparity is especially clear when one compares the urgency of climate action with the indifference for the long-term consequences of continuous wars.
Building and Future Environmental Expenses
The Gaza conflict has environmental expenses beyond the immediate devastation. Projected to produce around 60 million tons of CO2, the rehabilitation of Gaza surpasses the yearly emissions of more than 135 countries. This sets Gaza’s rebuilding emissions on line with those of nations like Sweden and Portugal. Rebuilding projects add to the harm caused by the war, therefore aggravating a region already suffering with climate change.
Particularly vulnerable to climate change are the Palestinian territories—including Gaza and the West Bank. Although some of these regions have arid or semi-arid territory, overall they are rather hot. This susceptibility is worsened by climate change, which also lowers water supply and raises high temperatures. The resultant consequences, including food insecurity, water scarcity, and severe weather occurrences, aggravate Gaza’s humanitarian situation and compromise the welfare of its people.
Climate Emissions and Global Military Footprint
The conflict in Gaza serves as a microcosm of the larger military presence influencing world temperature. Military emissions are at an all-time high; latest statistics show that worldwide CO2 emissions in 2022 will be 182 times more than in 1850. Another striking illustration of this is found in the crisis in Ukraine. According to a thorough investigation by EcoAction, 175 million tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have leaked out of Ukraine. Likewise, conflicts in Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan are aggravating food shortages brought on by climate change, flooding, and severe drought creating humanitarian disasters.
Among continuing wars, nations like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq struggle with the hard reality of climate change. Extreme weather events and related disasters strike these war-torn areas without enough money or support to enable proper adaptation.
Climate Policy Failures and Military Accountability
The military-industrial complex’s major contributions to climate change have gone unpacked in the COP UN climate talks several times. Although the effects of fossil fuels’ emissions are well known, the influence of radioactive contamination from nuclear energy applied for military purposes is sometimes disregarded. Lack of outcome documents addressing the military’s involvement in the climate problem at COP28 exposes a significant disparity in climate policy.
With a budget of $916 billion and the greatest military expenditure in 2023, the US promised just $17.5 billion to the COP28 loss and damage fund. Likewise lacking pledges were Israel, Russia, and Ukraine, all engaged in hostilities resulting in significant wartime environmental damage. Reflecting a gap between words and deeds, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made comments on the impact of climate change on defense and the need of net-zero militaries even if formal agreements exclude military emissions.
The Need of Reform: Directing Military Spending to Climate Finance
Long advocating a change in military expenditure to climate money, are climate activists. Just $90 billion was been out for climate finance in 2021 while worldwide military spending in 2022 exceeds $2.2 trillion. This disparity emphasizes how urgently resources should be reallocated. Rich countries, especially NATO members accountable for more than half of world military expenditure and major CO2 emissions, should set aside 5% of their military expenditures to help with the climate issue, activists contend.
Wars, NATO, and the military-industrial complex are unequivocally among the causes of the climatic crisis. Governments and legislators have to implement foreign and defense policies that reduce future military emissions if we are to handle this challenge. Crucially, we need to create a strong anti-war movement emphasizing the terrible environmental damage caused by militarism and aggressively demand its termination. We cannot start to address the more general climatic damage or pursue a sustainable future without facing the environmental legacy of militarism.
