Armed conflicts are not just a human tragedy. They are also climate tragedies, with short and long-term consequences for public health, ecosystems, and the environment. In 2024, the world spent a record $2,700 billion on military expenses, with increasing spending each year over the past decade and consequently an increasing military carbon footprint.
From Ukraine to Sudan, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and Venezuela, as populations suffer from war, bombs, occupation, militarization, and political violence, it is evident that the damages extend beyond the front lines: homes, hospitals, power grids, water supply systems, agricultural lands, and coastlines also bear the violence of destruction.
The military carbon footprint: an invisible climate cost
War not only kills people and destroys their homes; it also damages the systems that make life possible, including water supply networks, purification stations, agricultural lands, ports, fuel depots, and power infrastructure. It leaves behind ecocide with polluted air, contaminated soils, and unsafe water long after the hostilities end. Research highlights a consistent pattern across recent conflicts, involving fires, toxic debris, damaged sanitation systems, collapsing public health systems, and ecosystems pushed beyond the point of no return.
These damages are not incidental. This is one way war disrupts daily life.
In Iran, just days after the first American-Israeli strikes, energy itself became a battlefield, with attacks targeting fossil fuel-related infrastructure.
The Strait of Hormuz has become a hotspot, with dozens of oil tankers carrying billions of liters of oil stuck in the Persian Gulf. Greenpeace Germany warned that a single oil spill in the region could irreversibly damage the fragile marine habitat, with devastating consequences for the local populations, animals, and flora, in addition to the terrible human toll the war has already taken on local populations.
In Gaza, Greenpeace MENA’s analysis highlighted severe damage to water, sanitation, agricultural lands, and fishing, alongside estimates that the first 120 days of the war generated more than half a million tons of carbon dioxide. This combination of bombings, infrastructure collapse, and pollution makes a place harder to inhabit, less healthy, and less resilient to climate disruption.
Sudan provides another striking example: Conflict has led to increased deforestation, agriculture decline, industrial pollution, and collapse of health and sanitation systems, compromising access to food, water, and energy for populations.
The climate cost of war goes beyond the battlefield. Research by the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) estimates that armed forces account for about 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with conflicts adding to this through fires, fuel consumption, reconstruction, and destruction of public infrastructure.
War destroys ecosystems and weakens our ability to cope with the heat, drought, floods, and crop losses of the future.
The History shows that damages persist
This is not new. During the Vietnam War, American forces sprayed nearly 80 million liters of herbicides, including Agent Orange, affecting 2.9 million hectares of land and leaving dioxins in the soil, water, and food chains for decades. In Iraq, the UN Environment Program, as well as field investigations, have warned of the long-term risks to the environment and health related to contamination by depleted uranium and other war residues. These enduring conflicts are significant because they show that environmental damage does not end with a ceasefire.
The lessons from Vietnam, as well as Iraq, Gaza, and Ukraine, are simple. War poisons life itself. It degrades the soil, water, air, and health in a way that can impact multiple generations, especially when combat involves chemicals, fuel, radiation, or the destruction of public infrastructure.
The renewable energy imperative
You cannot block the sun’s rays in the Strait of Hormuz or hold the wind hostage on a maritime route. Decentralized renewable energies are harder to bomb or block than massive oil fields, pipelines, and centralized thermal power plants because they do not concentrate the energy system in one place. A decentralized network of solar panels, batteries, local grids, and energy efficiency measures can help maintain the operation of hospitals, schools, and households, even when national infrastructure is under attack or fuel imports are disrupted.
That is why the energy transition must also be seen as a strategy for security and resilience. Countries that produce their electricity from solar and wind energy are less exposed to disruptions in maritime transport, fuel price spikes, and the blackmail associated with oil and gas imports. Local renewable energies may not end a war, but they can reduce the influence of fossil fuel lobbies, ensure the operation of essential services, and limit the damage to the defense of centralized infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels.
The war not only kills people. The military carbon footprint exists. It also poisons water, degrades soil, pollutes air, and destroys the systems that make daily life possible. It is necessary to articulate this devastation, as peace is not just the absence of bombs; it is also the possibility of living on safe, healthy, and habitable lands, a principle recognized in human rights for a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
Breaking free from fossil fuels helps make this future more accessible by reducing both environmental damage and the dangerous dependencies that often exacerbate conflicts.
