The ecological footprint of military activity was one of the topics addressed at the XVI Greenaccord International Forum on the protection of nature.
I have always been struck by the fact that when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, we limit ourselves to mentioning those produced by fossil fuels, and when it comes to pollution and destruction of nature, we refer only to toxic waste from industrial production. And there is never mentioning one of the worst sources of environmental devastation, such as that caused by all kinds of shells and bombs being launched in wars. When it comes to reducing environmental damage, the issue of the ravages caused by wars is like the elephant in the room, blunt evidence that no one seems to want to see.
That is why I highlight in this note the presentation made by the Ukrainian journalist, Alla Sadovnik, at the last Greenaccord International Forum that took place last week in Rome/Frascati. The journalist presented images showing how Russian bombs have devastated fields, forests, natural habitats, fertile land, and polluted rivers and important water sources. Large areas of the country are now littered with landmines. The bombs have targeted industrial, water and sewage infrastructure, have destroyed reservoirs causing not only extensive contamination but also flooding of farmland.
The war in Ukraine is a humanitarian disaster whose first victim is its people, but it is also an environmental disaster with perhaps irreversible consequences that go beyond national borders. The Russian bombardment of Ukrainian territory has generated emissions far greater than those produced by a multinational oil company in a year, or those produced annually by a country like Belgium. Why, then, in the international agreements for the reduction of emissions, does no one talk about reducing wars?
If we take into account that there are currently more than fifty armed conflicts, of greater or lesser magnitude, around the world, we can get an idea of the environmental catastrophe that occurs daily on the planet. Military activity currently generates 5.5% of the total massive carbon emissions into the atmosphere. But to that we still have to add the toxic legacy of military activity, as the pollution will remain in nature long after the war is over.
As for the other major armed conflict of the moment, Israel’s war in Gaza, “…recent studies suggest that during the first two months of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, in Palestine, the carbon footprint was larger than that of 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations. Approximately 99% of the 281,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide released in this period came from Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza.” That’s just the first two months. Farmland and groves of trees have been destroyed. The bombardments have produced millions of tons of debris contaminated with hazardous substances.
Armies are voracious consumers and wasters of energy. “…even before the first shot is fired, standing armies are climate hostile,” due to fuel consumption for transporting people and heavy armaments. It is well known that the U.S. military is the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world.
Why is this hardly ever discussed? International agreements propose to reduce emissions, talk about a green transition, and set deadlines for tackling climate change, but the ecological impact of war, which has only worsened in recent years, is not included in these talks.
If governments were consistent with the purpose of keeping the temperature at a certain limit, as proposed in the Paris Agreement, and of considerably reducing the amount of harmful gases in the atmosphere by 2030, and altogether by 2050, then they would have to place serious restrictions on wars. Establish limits, such as that after 2030 military activity should represent only 50% of what it is today; that the attack on vulnerable ecosystems should be prohibited (something that is already in the Geneva Conventions, but which is not complied with), and the use of particularly polluting weapons. The goal is that by 2050, or let’s say 2075, no weapon capable of damaging the environment will be fired in the world.
Clearly, this sounds tremendously naïve. The thought of greening wars is nonsense. Who is telling Putin to curtail his war machine! Who is telling the U.S. military to cut its military budget and its billion dollar arms sales around the world! If the UN convention system worked as it should, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change would require countries’ militaries to report their emissions – even the U.S. which does not do so on ‘national security’ grounds – and commit to reducing them. Just as energy companies and industry in general are committed (although they do not always meet the deadlines).
The Greenaccord Forum provided participants with expert information on multiple topics on transition, sustainable development, waste recycling, improved agricultural techniques. In short, how economic sectors can move forward while protecting nature; how to build a financial architecture that effectively manages climate change. But what good will it do to continue advancing in recycling techniques, in green production, in the generation of more efficient photovoltaic grids, etc., if one day a military or political leader with sufficient power decides to drop bombs that destroy a gas pipeline, a nuclear power plant, thousands of hectares of forests… Or simply drop a nuclear bomb, as some have already threatened.
Armies are ravaging the environment with impunity. We now speak of ecocide to refer to massive or systematic damage to an ecosystem. War is the worst form of ecocide.
The concept of energy transition, if it is to really work, should also apply to the arms sector. At this time, with so many wars going on, it is true that this sounds very naïve. But at least nothing is lost by starting to talk about it and putting it on the agendas of international climate conferences.
BLOC DE NOTAS 