War is an intrinsically human phenomenon: waged by humans against humans, rooted in our geopolitical concerns and aspirations. War imagery and narratives evoke feelings of loss and suffering – above all human loss and human suffering; but the destruction caused by war extends to the environment, harming natural habitats and the biodiversity that depends on them. The ecological cost of war is often ignored; but at a time when ecological consciousness turns into an integral part of international discussions and diplomacy, the silent casualties of warfare merit consideration – and add yet another argument for the pursuit of lasting peace.
According to recent research, the military sector accounts for about 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is a tremendous amount: if compared to national data, military emissions would rank 4th globally – after China, the US and India, just before Russia [1]. Moreover, military bases, testing grounds and training facilities are estimated to cover between 1-6% of global land surfaces, including ecologically important ones [2].
*2023 country data, Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (2024 Report) [3].
The numbers speak for themselves: it is estimated that three years of warfare in Ukraine amounted to the release of 230 Mt CO2eq [4] – for comparison, Greece in 2023 emitted less than 70 Mt CO2eq [3]; in Gaza, emissions during the first 60 days of active warfare following the 7 October attack were estimated at 281,315 tonnes of CO2eq [5]. Moreover, as wars leave behind vast amounts of rubble and debris, environmental challenges continue long after the guns have fallen silent. In Gaza, an estimated 42 Mt of debris will need to be cleared – a project that would take many years, with some experts suggesting it could take 40 years to rebuild the region fully [6].
Ecological destruction may be explicitly employed as a military strategy. For example, during the Second World War, retreating Soviet armies famously employed a scorched-earth policy, burning everything that Nazi forces could potentially make use of – “crops, houses, railways, entire cities, anything that might be of use to the enemy”, writes the historian Adam Hochschild [7]. Risks multiply when oil facilities are involved, as in the case of the 1991 Oil Spill in Kuwait during the Gulf War, where more than 700 oil wells were blown up, releasing 11m barrels of crude oil into the Persian Gulf [8]. Amidst full-on warfare, data on environmental damage is often incomplete – unreliable at best, purposefully manipulated at worst. As a result, claims of ecological destruction (as with human casualties, territorial losses, etc.) may be exaggerated or played down; and blame may be casted on distinct actors, especially when accountability is unclear.
Whether it forms part of military strategy or represents collateral damage, ecological destruction during war is far from negligible – and may come under the scrutiny of international law. Israel’s war in Gaza is increasingly denoted as “ecocide”, referring to the extensive ecological damage it has inflicted: according to satellite imagery, around 38-48% of tree cover and farmland in Gaza has been destroyed – although the IDF claimed that it “does not intentionally harm agricultural land and seeks to prevent environmental impact absent operational necessity” [9]. Both the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 8 – War Crimes: 2-b-iv) and the Geneva Convention (Protocol I, Article 55) explicitly rule against attacks that cause “long-term and severe damage” to the environment [10], [11].
Despite general legal frameworks for the protection of the environment in the context of war, the military sector retains exceptional freedom of maneuver when it comes to global environmental policies. Militaries are largely exempt from international reporting obligations, even though their share of emissions is significant (5.5% of global emissions): they were excluded in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997; and even the 2015 Paris Agreement only mentions voluntary, rather than mandatory, reporting of military emissions [6]. Researchers analyzing the carbon footprint of militaries globally argue that urgent action is needed – and for that, quality data is indispensable. Yet governments remain skeptical of greater reporting obligations, concerned about the security implications of potential restrictions to military activities – particularly now that military build-up is clearly on the rise.
Rearmament and renewed emphasis on military build-up are diverting critical resources (and funding) away from sustainable development; and geopolitical tensions are undermining opportunities for international collaboration needed to effectively address global problems. “As the world scrambles to respond to wars between nations, we are losing the far bigger, far more destructive battle against runaway climate change and ecological collapse” [12]. Wars are measured in human casualties and territorial losses. But there is no doubt, military activities are directly contributing to the climate crisis –from pre-war military build-up, through the waging of war, to post-war waste-management and eventual reconstruction. In this sense, ecological destruction, commented only sparsely, in cases of extraordinary damage, represents the silent casualty of our never-ending conflicts.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Parkinson and L. Cottrell, ‘Estimating the military’s global greenhouse gas emissions’, Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ceobs.org/estimating-the-militarys-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
[2] D. Weir, ‘How does war damage the environment?’, Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS). [Online]. Available: https://ceobs.org/how-does-war-damage-the-environment/
[3] JRC/IEA, ‘GHG emissions of all world countries.’, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/4002897
[4] M. Planelles, ‘The climate bill for the invasion of Ukraine is up to 250 million tons of greenhouse gases’, EL PAÍS English, Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-03-01/the-climate-bill-for-the-invasion-of-ukraine-is-up-to-250-million-tons-of-greenhouse-gases.html
[5] N. Lakhani, ‘Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have “immense” effect on climate catastrophe’, The Guardian, Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/emissions-gaza-israel-hamas-war-climate-change
[6] M. Bera, ‘Militarism: A Leading Cause of Environmental and Climate Crises’, International Union of Scientists. [Online]. Available: https://www.iuscientists.org/militarism-and-climate-crises/
[7] M. Shuster, ‘Russians scorch earth in retreat’. [Online]. Available: https://greatwarproject.org/2015/06/25/russians-scorch-earth-in-retreat/
[8] R. Syal, ‘“Gushing oil and roaring fires”: 30 years on Kuwait is still scarred by catastrophic pollution’, The Guardian, Dec. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/11/the-sound-of-roaring-fires-is-still-in-my-memory-30-years-on-from-kuwaits-oil-blazes
[9] K. Ahmed, D. Gayle, and A. Mousa, ‘“Ecocide in Gaza”: does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime?’, The Guardian, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide-environmental-destruction-pollution-rome-statute-war-crimes-aoe
[10] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court | International Criminal Court. [Online]. Available: https://www.icc-cpi.int/publications/core-legal-texts/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
[11] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. [Online]. Available: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-55
[12] N. Rokke, ‘Why War Is One Of The World’s Biggest Climate Threats’, Forbes. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nilsrokke/2025/03/26/why-war-is-one-of-the-worlds-biggest-climate-threats/
