It's time to account for the environmental costs of war

The world is besieged with two wars raging across two continents: Ukraine in East Europe and Gaza in West Asia. Apart from leaving a trail of large-scale death and destruction, they have also perpetrated "eco-terrorism" by damaging both the natural and human-built environment.

- ARCHANA DATTA

The world is besieged with two wars raging across two continents: Ukraine in East Europe and Gaza in West Asia. Apart from leaving a trail of large-scale death and destruction, they have also perpetrated "eco-terrorism" by damaging both the natural and human-built environment. As a climate researcher observed, "Wars do have significant emission footprints, not just from the explosives being used, but also from the entire military supply chains that are extremely energy intensive... and the process of reconstruction also has large emission implications." In 2023 alone, the world recorded 170 armed conflicts and the displacement of nearly 120 million people. This is tragic, of course. So, too, is the ecological impact of war.

In the modern era of warfare, World War I was extremely damaging, given its use of trench fighting, which not only destroyed vast grasslands, plants and animal habitats, but also eroded ground soil through heavy tree-felling. Then, in World War II, aerial bombardment smudged landscapes with chemical contamination, while taking a toll on flora and fauna. The 1960s' Vietnam War turned this country from a once-pristine habitat to what has been described as "an almost apocalyptic state" through the use of chemical deforestation techniques. The 1990s' Gulf War was responsible for huge greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as oil wells were targeted, with vast oil spills in the sea hurting almost every marine species.