Jump to content

Environmental impact of war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kuwaiti oil fires set by retreating Iraqi forces during the Gulf War caused a dramatic decrease in air quality.
Agent Orange, a herbicide, being sprayed on farmland during the Vietnam War
Part of a series on
Pollution
Air pollution from a factory
Air
Biological
Digital
Electromagnetic
Natural
Noise
Radiation
Soil
Solid waste
Space
Thermal
Visual
War
Water
Topics
Misc
Lists
Categories

Study of the environmental impact of war focuses on the modernization of warfare and its increasing effects on the environment. Scorched earth methods have been used for much of recorded history. However, the methods of modern warfare cause far greater devastation on the environment. The progression of warfare from chemical weapons to nuclear weapons has increasingly created stress on ecosystems and the environment. Specific examples of the environmental impact of war include World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Rwandan Civil War, the Kosovo War, the Gulf War, and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Historical events

[edit]

American Civil War

[edit]

The American Civil War (1861-1865) was largely fought in hot, wet regions with pandemic diseases such as malaria. As a result sickness rates were high on both sides. More powerful long range rifles and artillery caused high casualty rates of wounding and death. The Union forces had much better medical and hospital facilities, while the supply system failed so often in the Confederacy that for months at a time soldiers marched and fought barefoot, with little medicine available to their overworked doctors. The Union systematically devastated the railway system in the South, and ruined many cotton plantations. Combat operations killed thousands of horses and mules used to pull supplies, artillery and munitions.[1][2]

Vietnam

[edit]
Main article: Environmental impact of the Vietnam War
Defoliant spray run, part of Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War by UC-123B Provider aircraft

The Vietnam War had significant environmental implications due to chemical agents which were used to destroy militarily-significant vegetation. Enemies found an advantage in remaining invisible by blending into a civilian population or taking cover in dense vegetation and opposing armies which targeted natural ecosystems.[3] The US military used “more than 20 million gallons of herbicides [...] to defoliate forests, clear growth along the borders of military sites and eliminate enemy crops."[4] While the chemical agents gave the US an advantage in wartime efforts, the vegetation was unable to regenerate and it left behind bare mudflats which still existed years after spraying.[3] Not only was the vegetation affected, but also the wildlife: "a mid-1980s study by Vietnamese ecologists documented just 24 species of birds and 5 species of mammals present in sprayed forests and converted areas, compared to 145–170 bird species and 30–55 kinds of mammals in intact forest."[3] The uncertain long-term effects of these herbicides are now being discovered by looking at modified species distribution patterns through habitat degradation and loss in wetland systems, which absorbed the runoff from the mainland.[4] The destruction of forests in Vietnam War is one of the most commonly used examples of ecocide, including by Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, lawyers, historians and other academics.[5][6][7]

Africa

[edit]

Throughout Africa, war has been a major factor in the decline of wildlife populations inside national parks and other protected areas.[8] However, a growing number of ecological restoration initiatives, including in Rwanda's Akagera National Park and Mozambique's Gorongosa National Park, have shown that wildlife populations and whole ecosystems can be successfully rehabilitated even after devastating conflicts.[9] Experts have emphasized that solving social, economic, and political problems is essential for the success of such efforts.[10][8][9]

Rwanda

[edit]

The Rwandan genocide led to the killing of roughly 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The war created a massive migration of nearly 2 million Hutus fleeing Rwanda over the course of just a few weeks to refugee camps in Tanzania and now modern day the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[3] This large displacement of people in refugee camps puts pressure on the surrounding ecosystem. Forests were cleared in order to provide wood for building shelters and creating cooking fires:[3] “these people suffered from harsh conditions and constituted an important threat impact to natural resources.”[10] Consequences from the conflict also included the degradation of National Parks and Reserves. Another big problem was that the population crash in Rwanda shifted personnel and capital to other parts of the country, thereby making it hard to protect wildlife.[10]

World War I

[edit]
Main articles: Chemical weapons in World War I and History of chemical warfare

The first World War saw chemicals especially chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas used heavily. Over 100,000 tons of toxic gas was produced by the end of the war in 1918. For the most part gas masks neutralized advantages. Gas injured many soldiers but it did not change the course of the war. There were no permanent environmental effects.[11][12]

World War II

[edit]

World War II (WW2) drove a vast increase in production, militarized the production and transportation of commodities, and introduced many new environmental consequences, which can still be seen today. World War II was wide-ranging in its destruction of humans, animals, and materials. The postwar effects of World War II, both ecological and social, are still visible decades after the conflict ended.

During World War II, new technology was used to create aircraft, which were used to conduct air raids. During the war, aircraft were used to transport resources both to and from different military bases and drop bombs on enemy, neutral, and friendly targets alike. These activities damaged habitats.[13]

Frying Bacon in the middle of the trenches, soaking in mud and chemicals left from all the bullets lying on the ground.

Similar to wildlife, ecosystems also suffer from noise pollution which is produced by military aircraft. During World War II, aircraft acted as a vector for the transportation of exotics whereby weeds and cultivated species were brought to oceanic island ecosystems by way of aircraft landing strips which were used as refueling and staging stations during operations in the Pacific theater.[14] Before the war, the isolated islands around Europe were inhabited by a high number of endemic species. During World War II, aerial warfare had an enormous influence on fluctuating population dynamics.[15]

In August 1945, after fighting World War II for almost four years, the United States of America dropped an atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima in Japan. About 70,000 people died in the first nine seconds after the bombing of Hiroshima, which was comparable to the death toll which resulted from the devastating Operation Meetinghouse air raid over Tokyo. Three days after the bombing of Hiroshima, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb on the industrial city of Nagasaki, instantly killing 35,000 people.[16] The nuclear weapons released catastrophic levels of energy and radioactive particles. Once the bombs were detonated, the temperatures reached about 3980 °C / 7200 °F.[16] With temperatures that high, all the flora and fauna were destroyed along with the infrastructure and human lives in the impact zones.[15] The radioactive particles which were released resulted widespread land and water contamination.[17] The initial blasts increased the surface temperature and created crushing winds destroying trees and buildings in their path.[17]

European forests experienced traumatic impacts which resulted from fighting during the war. Behind the combat zones, timber from cut down trees was removed in order to clear up the paths for fighting. The shattered forests in the battle zones faced exploitation.[18]

The use of heavily hazardous chemicals was first initiated during World War II.[18] The long-term effects of chemicals result from both their potential persistence and the poor disposal program of nations with stockpiled weapons.[15] During World War I (WW I), German chemists developed chlorine gas and mustard gas. The development of these gases led to many casualties, and lands were poisoned both on and near the battlefields.[18]

Later in World War II, chemists developed even more harmful chemical bombs, which were packaged in barrels and directly deposited in the oceans.[15] The disposal of the chemicals in ocean runs the risk of metal-based containers corroding and leaching the chemical contents of the vessel into the ocean.[15] Through the chemical disposal in the ocean, the contaminants may be spread throughout the various components of the ecosystems damaging marine and terrestrial ecosystems.[18]

Marine ecosystems during World War II were damaged not only from chemical contaminates, but also from wreckage from naval ships, which leaked oil into the water. Oil contamination in the Atlantic Ocean due to World War II shipwrecks is estimated at over 15 million tonnes.[15] Oil spills are difficult to clean up and take many years to clean. To this day, traces of oil can still be found in the Atlantic Ocean from the naval shipwrecks which happened during World War II.

Additionally, the Baltic Sea contains a large quantity of unexploded munitions, including land and naval mines from World War II.[19] Not only do these unexploded munitions pose a threat to boating traffic, but also marine life. When these munitions are detonated below the ocean, whether unintentionally or intentionally in an effort to clear them, marine organisms several kilometers away can be inflicted with direct injury.[20] Organisms greater distances away may still experience injury, such as damage to their hearing range which in some cases is irreversible.[20] One hundred and sixty five thousand naval mines were placed in the Baltic and western sea during World War II, with an estimated 15-30% of these still remaining active.[19]

The use of chemicals during war helped increase the scale of chemical industries and it also helped to show the government the value of scientific research. The development of chemical research during the war also lead to the postwar development of agricultural pesticides.[18] The creation of pesticides was an upside for the years after the war.

The environmental impacts of World War II were very drastic, which allowed them to be seen in the Cold War and be seen today. The impacts of conflict, chemical contaminations, and aerial warfare all contribute to reduction in the population of global flora and fauna, as well as a reduction in species diversity.[15]

In 1946, in the U.S. Zone of Germany, the United States military advised the government to prepare accommodations and employment for the people who were bombed out of their cities. The answer was a special garden program that would provide new land for the people to live in. This included land to provide food needed for the people as well. Forests were then surveyed for good soil that was suitable for crop production.This meant that the forest would be cut down in order to make land for farms and housing.The forestry program would be used to exploit the forests of Germany for future resources and control the war potential of Germany. In this program about 23,500,000 fest meters of lumber were produced out of the forests.[21]

Aluminum was one of the biggest resources affected by World War II. Bauxite, an aluminum ore and the mineral cryolite were essential, as well as requiring massive amounts of electrical power.[22]

Gulf War and Iraq War

[edit]
Main article: Environmental impact of the Gulf wars

During the 1991 Gulf War, the Kuwaiti oil fires were a result of the scorched earth policy of Iraqi forces retreating from Kuwait. The Gulf War oil spill, regarded as the worst oil spill in history, was caused when Iraqi forces opened valves at the Sea Island oil terminal and dumped oil from several tankers into the Persian Gulf. Oil was also dumped in the middle of the desert.

Just before the 2003 Iraq War, Iraq also set fire to various oil fields.[23][24][25]

Some American military personnel complained of Gulf War syndrome, typified by symptoms including immune system disorders and birth defects in their children. Whether it is due to time spent in active service during the war or for other reasons remains controversial.

The water supply during the Iraq War had been heavily contaminated due to actions of the conflict; The oil from military vehicles would leak out, the ammunition fired from all weapons would also have uranium ooze out into the waters, and the overall wellbeing of nature and forest live in the Middle East had been destroyed.[26] The chemicals used in the ecoterrorist attack affected the shore line of Saudi Arabia, completely destroying it from what it was, and all of the natural resources that were filled within 34 kilometers become contaminated, with visible damages that are apparent to this day.[27]

As a result of these oil spills, the avian ecosystem took a major hit. Their levels of intake became too high, and the constant oiling of their feathers would constantly cripple them, seabirds and waders in particular. The Gulf War resulted in the populations of many species to dwindle and die, with a large decrease that ranged from 20 to 50 percent. Almost every bird in the time period and region was affected by the oil spills and it resulted in the deaths of around 100,000 waders.[28]

Other examples

Environmental hazards

[edit]
See also: Environmental warfare and Environmental issue

Resources are a key source of conflict between nations: "after the end of the Cold War in particular, many have suggested that environmental degradation will exacerbate scarcities and become an additional source of armed conflict."[30] A nation's survival depends on resources from the environment.[30] Resources that are a source of armed conflict include territory, strategic raw materials, sources of energy, water, and food.[30] In order to maintain resource stability, chemical and nuclear warfare have been used by nations in order to protect or extract resources, and during conflict.[30][31] These agents of war have been used frequently: “about 125,000 tons of chemical agent were employed during World War I, and about 96,000 tons during the Viet-Nam conflict.”[31] Nerve gas, also known as organophosphorous anticholinesterases, was used at lethal levels against human beings and destroyed a high number of nonhuman vertebrate and invertebrate populations.[31] However, contaminated vegetation would mostly be spared, and would only pose a threat to herbivores.[31] The result of innovations in chemical warfare led to a broad range of different chemicals for war and domestic use, but also resulted in unforeseen environmental damage.

The progression of warfare and its effects on the environment continued with the invention of weapons of mass destruction. While today, weapons of mass destruction act as deterrents and the use of weapons of mass destruction during World War II created significant environmental destruction. On top of the great loss in human life, “natural resources are usually the first to suffer: forests and wild life animals are wiped out.”[30] Nuclear warfare imposes both direct and indirect effects on the environment. The physical destruction due to the blast or by the biospheric damage due to ionizing radiation or radiotoxicity directly affect ecosystems within the blast radius.[31] Also, the atmospheric or geospheric disturbances caused by the weapons can lead to weather and climate changes.[31]

Unexploded ordnance

[edit]
Main article: Unexploded ordnance

Military campaigns require large quantities of explosive weapons, a fraction of which will not detonate properly and leave unexploded weapons. This creates a serious physical and chemical hazard for the civilian populations living in areas which were once war zones, due to the possibility of detonation after the conflict, as well as the leaching of chemicals into the soil and groundwater.[32]

Unexploded ordnance pose a threat to both construction activities and tunneling activities.[33] This threat primarily exists in the United Kingdom, where many unexploded ordnance remain, leftover from World War I and II.[33] If these unexploded ordnance were to explode, they pose the same level of threat to civilian populations just as they did during the war that they were used in, including a blast wave and shrapnel.[33] Many unexploded ordnance are located at a depth ranging from 6 meters to 20 meters, with the depth these unexploded ordnance reach depending on multiple factors.[33]

During the Vietnam war, There was a secret bombing that was left untouched in the country of Laos in the XeingKhouang Province. The bombing took place in 1964, and consisted of 260 million bombs being dropped all over the area, with residue being left behind, it was reported that there was at least one or more casualties or injuries every other day due to the Unexploded Ordnance's, and these would mainly pertain to children of the ages 15 and below.[34]

Agent Orange

[edit]
Main article: Agent Orange

Agent Orange was one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the British military during the Malayan Emergency and the U.S. military in its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War. An estimated 21,136,000 gal. (80 000 m3) of Agent Orange were sprayed across South Vietnam.[35] According to the Vietnamese government, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, and this exposure resulted in 400,000 deaths and disabilities as well as 500,000 children born with birth defects.[36] The Vietnamese Red Cross estimates that up to one million people were disabled or have health problems as a result of Agent Orange.[37] The United States government has called these figures unreliable.[38]

Many Commonwealth personnel who handled and/or used Agent Orange during and decades after the 1948–1960 Malayan conflict suffered from serious exposure of dioxin. Agent Orange also caused soil erosion to areas in Malaya. An estimated 10,000 civilians and insurgents in Malaya also suffered from the effects of defoliants, though many historians agreed it was likely more than 10,000 given that Agent Orange was used on a large scale in the Malayan Emergency and unlike the U.S., the British government manipulated the numbers and kept its deployment a secret in fear of a negative backlash from foreign nations.[39][40][41][42]

The soil erosion mixed in with the soil animals that keep it vibrant like ants, termites and centipedes altered the soil fertility and the carbon output in the atmosphere. Long term exposure to Agent Orange would result in changes in the local, urbanization development, agricultural, industrial lifestyle and so many other factors that sustain the environment. Long term exposure to Agent Orange has proven to have evolutionary properties to exposed wild animals, as well as modify their genetic DNA, all the while being able to spread throughout lakes, rivers, and forest terrains. The dioxin chemicals ingested by domesticated animals could potentially transfer Agent Orange to humans, as it is stored with their fat, and tolerance levels leveled from 50 to 60 years.[43][44]

Testing of nuclear armaments

[edit]
Main article: Nuclear weapons testing

Testing of nuclear armaments has been carried out at various places including Bikini Atoll, the Marshall Islands Pacific Proving Grounds, New Mexico in the US, Mururoa Atoll, Maralinga in Australia, and Novaya Zemlya in the former Soviet Union, among others.

Many of the sites where nuclear armaments have been tested have both radioactively polluted water and soil.[19] Strontium, plutonium, and uranium can all be released into the environment along with numerous other pollutants such as benzene and mercury.[19]

Downwinders are individuals and communities who are exposed to radioactive contamination and/or nuclear fallout from atmospheric and/or underground nuclear weapons testing, and nuclear accidents.

Numerous negative health impacts exist from exposure to radiation due to nuclear armaments testing. One of the largest threats is the development of thyroid cancer, a health implication that primarily impacts individuals exposed to radiation during childhood.[45] The threat of radiation exposure from nuclear armaments testing not only disproportionately impacts children but also those living closest to the site of the test. In the case of the United States of America, numerous residents of Nevada as well as the Marshall Islands have received much larger doses of radiation from the nuclear armaments testing that has taken place there.[45] The testing of nuclear armaments in the Marshall Islands disproportionately impacts Marshallese people, as they make up the majority of the population on the Marshal Islands.

A movement to ban the testing of nuclear weapons, called the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, was adopted by the United Nations in September 1996.[46] The treaty has been ratified by one hundred and seventy eight states as of 2024, with Papua New Guinea being the most recent state to ratify the treaty.[47]

Strontium-90

[edit]

The United States government studied the post-war effects of Strontium-90, a radioactive isotope which is found in nuclear fallout . The Atomic Energy Commission discovered that “Sr-90, which is chemically similar to calcium, can accumulate in bones and possibly lead to cancer”.[48] Sr-90 found its way into humans through the ecological food chain as fallout in the soil, was picked up by plants, further concentrated in herbivorous animals, and eventually consumed by humans.[49]

Strontium-90 is considered one of the most dangerous radioactive elements.[50] This is because it is highly radiotoxic and it has a very long half-life.[50] In addition to polluting the soil, Strontium-90 can also pollute water, such as oceans and rivers. Strontium-90 is highly dangerous for marine life.[51]

The chemical is so powerful, that it was rumored to be one of the causes that lead to the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011.[52] samples were taking around the plant in 2005 and high levels of concentrated Strontium-90 was found covering the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear power station, with levels of the element rising and even exceeding prior levels after the samples were collected 7 years prior.[53][54]

Depleted uranium munitions

[edit]
Main article: Depleted uranium

The use of depleted uranium in munitions is controversial because of numerous questions about potential long-term health effects.[55] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.[56] It remains weakly radioactive because of its long half-life. The aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel.[57] In a three-week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003, it was estimated over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used mostly in cities.[58] The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.[59]

Yet, U.S. DoD studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[55]

In addition, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service in early 2004 attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[60] Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (Spring, 2004)[61] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[62]

According to a 2011 study by Alaani et al., depleted uranium exposure was either a primary cause or related to the cause of the birth defect and cancer increases.[63] According to a 2012 journal article by Al-Hadithi et al., existing studies and research evidence does not show a "clear increase in birth defects" or a "clear indication of a possible environmental exposure including depleted uranium". The article further states that "there is actually no substantial evidence that genetic defects can arise from parental exposure to DU in any circumstances."[64]

Fossil fuel use

[edit]

With the high degree of mechanization of the military large amounts of fossil fuels are used. Fossil fuels are a major contributor to global warming and climate change, issues of increasing concern. Access to oil resources is also a factor for instigating a war.

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is a government body with the highest use of fossil fuel in the world.[65] According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, when compared with the consumption per country the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use, coming in just behind Iraq and just ahead of Sweden.[66]

Waste incineration

[edit]

At U.S. bases during the 21st-century wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, human waste was burned in open pits along with munitions, plastic, electronics, paint, and other chemicals. The carcinogenic smoke is suspected to have injured some soldiers exposed to it.[67]

The smoke from these burn pits can potentially cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease.[68] The threat of exposure to the smoke from these burn pits impacts both military as well as civilian populations. The threat that the exposure to this smoke poses depends on multiple factors, including the duration of exposure, wind direction, and the materials that are being incinerated.[69] The United States Military now discourages waste disposal using open burn pits, recommending that they only be used in emergency situations.[68] Additionally, there are also certain items that are now prohibited from being burned.[68] Open air burn pits are still used today by military forces as well as civilian populations in places that do not have adequate solid waste disposal services.

Intentional flooding

[edit]
Intenional flooding made to deny the enemy the tactical use of controlled flooding on the Pukhan and Han rivers (Korean War).

Flooding can be used as scorched earth policy through using water to render land unusable. It can also be used to prevent the movement of enemy combatants. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, dykes on the Yellow and the Yangtze Rivers were breached to halt the advance of Japanese forces. During the Siege of Leiden in 1573, the dykes were breached to halt the advance of Spanish forces. During Operation Chastise during the Second World War, the Eder and Sorpe river dams in Germany were bombed by the Royal Air Force, flooding a large area and halting industrial manufacture used by the Germans in the war effort.

Targeting of chemical and industrial facilities

[edit]

The targeting of chemical and industrial facilities in warfare can result in multiple negative environmental impacts.[19] Depending on the type of facility, multiple chemicals and other dangerous substances can enter the environment which can pose a wide array of negative impacts.[19] For example, the River Dunbae became heavily contaminated after airstrikes targeting oil and chemical facilities caused oil and chemical leaks during the Kosovo War.[19] The targeting of oil fields and refineries also impacts the atmosphere, with large amounts of carbon dioxide as well as sulphur, mercury, and dioxins being released.[19] Nearly half a million tons of carbon dioxide were released from the Gulf War, in which many oil fields were burned.[19]

Militarism and the environment

[edit]

Human security has traditionally been solely linked to military activities and defense.[70] Scholars and institutions like the International Peace Bureau are now increasingly calling for a more holistic approach to security, particularly including an emphasis on the interconnections and interdependencies that exist between humans and the environment.[71][70] Military activity has significant impacts on the environment.[71][70][72][73] Not only can war be destructive to the socioenvironment, but military activities produce extensive amounts of greenhouse gases (that contribute to anthropogenic climate change), pollution, and cause resource depletion, among other environmental impacts.[71][70][73][74]

Animals

[edit]

Cetacea have been a major casualty of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with more than 50,000 thought to have been killed. The heavy presence of sonar emanating from naval ships on the Black Sea impacts mammals' ability to use echolocation and subsequently impacts their hunting capabilities.[75]

There are also reported impacts on animal behaviour that can cause sublethal fitness costs, with greater spotted eagles flying up to an additional 250 km on migration to avoid areas of conflict in Ukraine.[76]

During the Tigray war of 2020, it was reported over 12 million cattle, goats, donkeys, and other animals were caught in the crossfire and killed, as well as over a billion dollars worth of damages.[77]

Greenhouse gas emissions and pollution

[edit]

Military forces are responsible for 5.5% of global emissions and wars diverte resources from climate action.[78] Several studies have found a strong positive correlation between military spending and increased greenhouse gas emissions, with the impact of military spending on carbon emissions being more pronounced for countries of the Global North (i.e.: OECD developed countries).[73][71] Accordingly, the US military is estimated to be the number one fossil fuel consumer in the world.[79]

Additionally, military activities involve high emissions of pollution.[70][80] The Pentagon's director of environment, safety and occupational health, Maureen Sullivan, has stated that they work with approximately 39,000 contaminated sites.[80] Indeed, the US military is also considered one of the largest generators of pollution in the world.[80] Combined, the top five US chemical companies only produce one fifth of the toxins produced by the Pentagon.[70] In Canada, the Department of National Defence readily admits it is the largest energy consumer of the Government of Canada, and a consumer of “high volumes of hazardous materials”.[81]

Military pollution is a worldwide occurrence.[70] Armed forces from around the world were responsible for the emission of two thirds of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were banned in the 1987 Montreal Protocol for causing damage to the ozone layer.[70] In addition, naval accidents during the Cold War have dropped at minimum 50 nuclear warheads and 11 nuclear reactors into the ocean, they remain on the ocean floor.[70]

Wars and geopolitical tensions harm climate action, including by preventing just distribution of needed resources. Climate change can increase conflicts, creating a "Doom Loop". As of 2024, this process began to be felt more strongly.[82]

Land and resource use

[edit]

Military land use needs (such as for bases, training, storage etc.) often displace people from their lands and homes.[70] Military activity uses solvents, fuels and other toxic chemicals which can leach toxins into the environment that remain there for decades and even centuries.[79][70] Furthermore, heavy military vehicles can cause damage to soil and infrastructure.[70] Military-caused noise pollution can also diminish the quality of life for nearby communities as well as their ability to rear or hunt animals to support themselves.[70] Advocates raise concerns of environmental racism and/or environmental injustice as it is largely marginalized communities that are displaced and/or affected.[83][70]

Militaries are also highly resource intensive.[80][70][83] Weapons and military equipment make up the second largest international trade sector.[70] The International Peace Bureau says that more than fifty percent of the helicopters in the world are for military use, and approximately twenty-five percent of jet fuel consumption is by military vehicles.[70] These vehicles are also extremely inefficient, carbon-intensive, and discharge emissions that are more toxic than those of other vehicles.[83]

Activist responses

[edit]

Military funding is, at present, higher than ever before, and activists are concerned about the implication for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.[83] They advocate for demilitarization, citing the high greenhouse gas emissions and support the redirection of those funds to climate action.[83] In 2023 the world spendt about 2.4 trillion dollars on military.[84] It is estimated that it would cost approximately one percent of global GDP yearly until 2030 to reverse the climate crisis.[85] Moreover, activists emphasize the need for prevention and the avoidance of costly clean up.[83] Currently, the expense for cleaning up military contaminated site is at least $500 billion.[70] Finally, activists point to social issues such as extreme poverty and advocate for more funding to be redirected from military expenses to these causes.[83]

Groups working for demilitarization and peace include the International Peace Bureau, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, The Rideau Institute, Ceasefire.ca, Project Ploughshares, and Codepink. See List of anti-war organizations for more groups.

Militaries' positive effects on the environment

[edit]

There are examples from around the world of nations’ armed forces aiding in land management and conservation.[86] For example, in Bhuj, India, military forces stationed there helped to reforest the area; in Pakistan, the Army took part in the Billion tree tsunami, working with civilians to reforest land in KPK and Punjab.;[87] in Venezuela, it is part of the National Guard’s responsibilities to protect natural resources.[86] Additionally, military endorsement of environmentally friendly technology such as renewable energy may have the potential to generate public support for these technologies.[88] Finally, certain military technologies like GPS and drones are helping environmental scientists, conservationists, ecologists and restoration ecologists conduct better research, monitoring, and remediation.[15]

Furthermore, on a small scale, Ukrainians have committed to using more sustainable forms of energy, with nationwide power outages in Ukraine driving public interest and demand for solar power, and the clean energy economy is growing. [75]

The impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on fossil fuel demand could be experienced globally. Suspected impacts of the war include greater demand for locally produced energy sources stemming from increased concern over energy security.[89] As fossil fuel deposits are not evenly distributed around the world, this could lead to a greater push for renewable energy forms as these are typically easier to domestically produce and are not as susceptible to the global economy.[89] This process will likely occur gradually, if at all. Additionally, the war in Ukraine will likely produce a very large amount of Carbon Dioxide emissions due to high fossil fuel usage for military purposes.

Meanwhile, some are sceptical and almost sure that this war will disrupt all efforts towards the Paris agreement goals.[90]

In 2023, many Asian countries have been forced to return to using coal to keep up with energy demands caused by the heat wave in the region, due to the European boycott of Russian oil reducing the availability of liquefied natural gas (LNG).[91] Due to problems with energy supply in 2022, China has begun to strongly increas coal-fired power capacity[92] One of the reasons was the war in Ukraine that led to instability in energy supply including rising prices for metals like lithium.[93][94]

In 2022, the USA experienced a fracking boom when the war in Ukraine led to a massive increase in approval of new drillings. According to the article in The Guardian, "there is significant political pressure to increase domestic drilling in response to the Russia-Ukraine war". Planned drillings will release 140 billion tonnes (310 trillion pounds) of carbon, four times more than annual global emissions.[95]

Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency talking about the prospects of COP 28 mentioned the war in Ukraine and the international tensions in general as the main barrier for climate action.[96]

A study analizyng different aspects of the environmental impacts of the war in Ukraine found that it seriously disturbed climate action and "The biggest risk in terms of impact lies in the potential diversion of attention and focus toward the reduction of inflation rates and market regulation, potentially pushing the focus away from the urgent fight against climate change".[97]

A report from the climate group Reclaim Finance, found a sharp rise in gas projects in recent years. The war in Ukraine is one of the main causes. The projects could lead to a “climate bomb” equivalent to the annual emissions of all the world’s operating coal power plants.[98]

War and environmental law

[edit]
Main article: War and environmental law

From a legal standpoint, environmental protection during times of war and military activities is addressed partially by international environmental law. Further sources are also found in areas of law such as general international law, the laws of war, human rights law and local laws of each affected country. Several United Nations treaties, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the 1977 Environmental Modification Convention have provisions to limit the environmental impacts of war. Additionally, the United Nations Environment Programme has begun doing in-depth evaluations for some current wars that explore the environmental impacts that the war is having with to aid in the creation of a more inclusive assessment of the impacts of the conflict.[99]

The Environmental Modification Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. This treaty has been in force since 1978 and has been ratified by leading military powers.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Browning, Judkin; Silver, Timothy (2020). An Environmental History of the Civil War. UNC Press Books. ISBN 978-1-4696-5539-0.[page needed]
  2. ^ Drake, Brian Allen (2015). The Blue, the Gray, and the Green: Toward an Environmental History of the Civil War. University of Georgia Press. ISBN 978-0-8203-4715-8.[page needed]
  3. ^ a b c d e DeWeerdt, Sarah (January 2008). "War and the Environment". World Wide Watch. 21 (1).
  4. ^ a b King, Jessie (8 July 2006). "Vietnamese wildlife still paying a high price for chemical warfare". The Independent. Retrieved 4 March 2015.
  5. ^ Zierler, David (2011). The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientists who Changed the Way We Think about the Environment. University of Georgia Press. ISBN 978-0-8203-3827-9.[page needed]
  6. ^ Falk, Richard A. (1973). "Environmental Warfare and Ecocide — Facts, Appraisal, and Proposals". Bulletin of Peace Proposals. 4 (1): 80–96. doi:10.1177/096701067300400105. JSTOR 44480206.
  7. ^ Chiarini, Giovanni (30 March 2022). "Ecocide: From The Vietnam War To International Criminal Jurisdiction? Procedural Issues In-Between Environmental Science, Climate Change, And Law". Cork Online Law Review. 21: 1–34. SSRN 4072727.
  8. ^ a b Daskin, Joshua H.; Pringle, Robert M. (2018). "Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa's protected areas". Nature. 553 (7688): 328–332. Bibcode:2018Natur.553..328D. doi:10.1038/nature25194. PMID 29320475.
  9. ^ a b Pringle, Robert M. (2017). "Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity". Nature. 546 (7656): 91–99. Bibcode:2017Natur.546...91P. doi:10.1038/nature22902. PMID 28569807.
  10. ^ a b c Kanyamibwa, Samuel (1998). "Impact of war on conservation: Rwandan environment and wildlife in agony". Biodiversity and Conservation. 7 (11): 1399–1406. doi:10.1023/a:1008880113990.
  11. ^ L.F. Haber, The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War (Oxford University Press, 1986).
  12. ^ Thomas I. Faith, Gas Warfare, in: 1914–1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
  13. ^ Evenden, Matthew (2011). "Aluminum, commodity chain, and the environmental history of the second world war". Environmental History. 16: 69–93. doi:10.1093/envhis/emq145.
  14. ^ Stoddart, D. R. (1968). "Catastrophic Human Interference with Coral Atoll Ecosystems". Geography. 53 (1): 25–40. JSTOR 40566472.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h Lawrence, Michael J.; Stemberger, Holly L.J.; Zolderdo, Aaron J.; Struthers, Daniel P.; Cooke, Steven J. (December 2015). "The effects of modern war and military activities on biodiversity and the environment". Environmental Reviews. 23 (4): 443–460. doi:10.1139/er-2015-0039. hdl:1807/69913.
  16. ^ a b Justice, Environmental. "Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – SJ Environmental Justice – sj environmental justice". Archived from the original on 2021-11-05. Retrieved 2021-11-05.
  17. ^ a b Lemon (16 April 2018). "Environmental Effects of the Atomic Bomb".
  18. ^ a b c d e Tucker, Richard (2012). "War and the Environment". A Companion to Global Environmental History. pp. 319–339. doi:10.1002/9781118279519.ch18. ISBN 9781118279519.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i Gidarakos, Evangelos (January 2015). "War and environmental impacts". Waste Management. 35: 1–2. Bibcode:2015WaMan..35....1G. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.007. PMID 25481653.
  20. ^ a b Siebert, Ursula; Stürznickel, Julian; Schaffeld, Tobias; Oheim, Ralf; Rolvien, Tim; Prenger-Berninghoff, Ellen; Wohlsein, Peter; Lakemeyer, Jan; Rohner, Simon; Aroha Schick, Luca; Gross, Stephanie; Nachtsheim, Dominik; Ewers, Christa; Becher, Paul; Amling, Michael; Morell, Maria (January 2022). "Blast injury on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the Baltic Sea after explosions of deposits of World War II ammunition". Environment International. 159: 107014. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.107014. PMID 34883460.
  21. ^ "History: A year of Potsdam, the German economy since the surrender: How 17,000,000 Germans are fed". digicoll.library.wisc.edu. Retrieved 2020-01-24.
  22. ^ Wills, Matthew (2020-08-18). "The Environmental Costs of War". JSTOR Daily.
  23. ^ Markus, William. "Boots & Coots tames Iraq's oil well fires during war" (PDF). Drilling Contractor (November/December 2003): 38–41.
  24. ^ "CNN.com - UK: Iraq torches seven oil wells - Mar. 21, 2003". edition.cnn.com.
  25. ^ "Kuwait Oil Company". kockw.com. Archived from the original on 19 May 2015. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  26. ^ "Environmental Costs | Costs of War". The Costs of War. Retrieved 2024-03-26.
  27. ^ Hilborn, Ray (1977). "IIASA Conference on Adaptive Environmental Management, held in Schloss Laxenburg, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, 13–17 June 1977". Environmental Conservation. 4 (3): 235–236. Bibcode:1977EnvCo...4R.235H. doi:10.1017/s0376892900025959.
  28. ^ Hilborn, Ray (1977). "IIASA Conference on Adaptive Environmental Management, held in Schloss Laxenburg, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, 13–17 June 1977". Environmental Conservation. 4 (3): 235–236. Bibcode:1977EnvCo...4R.235H. doi:10.1017/s0376892900025959.
  29. ^ "Winning the humanitarian war in Yemen". Atlantic Council. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  30. ^ a b c d e Gledistch, Nils (1997). Conflict and the Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  31. ^ a b c d e f Robinson, J.P (1979). The Effects of Weapons on Ecosystems. Pergamon Press.
  32. ^ Joel Hayward, Airpower and the environment: The Ecological Implications of Modern Air Warfare. Air University Press, 2013.
  33. ^ a b c d Cooke, Simon (2015). "Unexploded Ordnance". Tunnels and Tunneling International: 43–46. ProQuest 1752092863.
  34. ^ Morikawa, Masahiro; Taylor, Sebastian; Persons, Marjie (May 1998). "Deaths and injuries due to unexploded ordnance (UXO) in northern Lao PDR (Laos)". Injury. 29 (4): 301–304. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(98)80210-6. PMID 9743752.
  35. ^ "Agent Orange". United States Department of Veterans. January 9, 2008. Archived from the original on July 3, 2012. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
  36. ^ The Globe and Mail, June 12, 2008. 'Last Ghost of the Vietnam War' Archived 2009-03-31 at the Wayback Machine
  37. ^ King, Jessica (2012-08-10). "U.S. in first effort to clean up Agent Orange in Vietnam". CNN. Archived from the original on 2013-03-03. Retrieved 2012-08-11.
  38. ^ Tucker, Spencer C., ed. (2011). "Defoliation". The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War : a Political, Social, and Military History (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-85109-961-0.
  39. ^ Pesticide Dilemma in the Third World: A Case Study of Malaysia. Phoenix Press. 1984. p. 23.
  40. ^ Arnold Schecter, Thomas A. Gasiewicz (July 4, 2003). Dioxins and Health. pp. 145–160.
  41. ^ Albert J. Mauroni (July 2003). Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook. pp. 178–180.
  42. ^ Bruce Cumings (1998). The Global Politics of Pesticides: Forging Consensus from Conflicting Interests. Earthscan. p. 61.
  43. ^ Banout, Jan; Urban, Ondrej; Musil, Vojtech; Szakova, Jirina; Balik, Jiri (2014). "Agent Orange Footprint Still Visible in Rural Areas of Central Vietnam". Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2014: 528965. doi:10.1155/2014/528965. PMC 3930020. PMID 24639878.
  44. ^ Truong, Kiem N.; Dinh, Khuong V. (2021-11-16). "Agent Orange: Haft-Century [sic] Effects On The Vietnamese Wildlife Have Been Ignored". Environmental Science & Technology. 55 (22): 15007–15009. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c06613. PMC 8600662. PMID 34714069.
  45. ^ a b Simon, Steven L; Bouville, André (August 2015). "Health effects of nuclear weapons testing". The Lancet. 386 (9992): 407–409. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61037-6. PMID 26251378.
  46. ^ "The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)". CTBTO. Retrieved 2024-04-16.
  47. ^ "Papua New Guinea ratifies CTBT, advancing Treaty universalisation in Pacific". CTBTO. Retrieved 2024-04-16.
  48. ^ Lutts, Ralph (1985). "Chemical Fallout: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Radioactive Fallout, and the Environmental Movement". Environmental Review. 3. 9 (3): 210–225. doi:10.2307/3984231. JSTOR 3984231. PMID 11616075.
  49. ^ Kulp, J. Laurence; Eckelmann, Walter R.; Schulert, Arthur R. (1957). "Strontium-90 in Man". Science. 125 (3241): 219–225. doi:10.1126/science.125.3241.219. JSTOR 1753918. PMID 13401228.
  50. ^ a b Kim, Gahyun; Choi, Sang-Do; Lim, Jong-Myoung; Kim, Hyuncheol (August 2023). "Strontium-90 levels in seawater southeast of Jeju Island during 2021–2023". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 193: 115258. Bibcode:2023MarPB.19315258K. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115258. PMID 37433238.
  51. ^ Matishov, G. G.; Ilyin, G. V. (August 2022). "Strontium-90 in Seawater and Bottom Sediments of the Barents Sea Shelf (2000–2019)". Doklady Earth Sciences. 505 (2): 565–571. Bibcode:2022DokES.505..565M. doi:10.1134/S1028334X22080116.
  52. ^ "Fukushima Daiichi Accident - World Nuclear Association". world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 2024-04-25.
  53. ^ Sahoo, Sarata Kumar; Kavasi, Norbert; Sorimachi, Atsuyuki; Arae, Hideki; Tokonami, Shinji; Mietelski, Jerzy Wojciech; Łokas, Edyta; Yoshida, Satoshi (2016-04-06). "Strontium-90 activity concentration in soil samples from the exclusion zone of the Fukushima daiichi nuclear power plant". Scientific Reports. 6 (1): 23925. Bibcode:2016NatSR...623925S. doi:10.1038/srep23925. PMC 4822116. PMID 27048779.
  54. ^ Kavasi, Norbert; Arae, Hideki; Aono, Tatsuo; Sahoo, Sarata Kumar (2023-06-01). "Distribution of strontium-90 in soils affected by Fukushima dai-ichi nuclear power station accident in the context of cesium-137 contamination". Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987). 326: 121487. Bibcode:2023EPoll.32621487K. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121487. PMID 36958665.
  55. ^ a b Miller, AC; McClain, D (2007). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Reviews on Environmental Health. 22 (1): 75–89. doi:10.1515/REVEH.2007.22.1.75. PMID 17508699.
  56. ^ Craft, Elena; Abu-Qare, Aquel; Flaherty, Meghan; Garofolo, Melissa; Rincavage, Heather; Abou-Donia, Mohamed (2004). "Depleted and natural uranium: chemistry and toxicological effects". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. 7 (4): 297–317. Bibcode:2004JTEHB...7..297C. doi:10.1080/10937400490452714. PMID 15205046.
  57. ^ Mitsakou, C.; Eleftheriadis, K.; Housiadas, C.; Lazaridis, M. (2003). "Modeling of the dispersion of depleted uranium aerosol". Health Physics. 84 (4): 538–44. doi:10.1097/00004032-200304000-00014. PMID 12705453.
  58. ^ Brown, Paul (25 April 2003). "Gulf troops face tests for cancer". The Guardian.
  59. ^ U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense. "Toxicological profile for uranium". Archived from the original on 2007-11-23.
  60. ^ Williams, M. (February 9, 2004) "First Award for Depleted Uranium Poisoning Claim," The Herald Online, (Edinburgh: Herald Newspapers, Ltd.)
  61. ^ "MoD Forced to Pay Pension for DU Contamination". CADU News 17.
  62. ^ Hindin, Rita; Brugge, Doug; Panikkar, Bindu (2005). "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective". Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source. 4 (1): 17. Bibcode:2005EnvHe...4...17H. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17. PMC 1242351. PMID 16124873.
  63. ^ Alaani, Samira; Tafash, Muhammed; Busby, Christopher; Hamdan, Malak; Blaurock-Busch, Eleonore (2011). "Uranium and other contaminants in the hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq". Conflict and Health. 5: 15. doi:10.1186/1752-1505-5-15. PMC 3177876. PMID 21888647.
  64. ^ Al-Hadithi, Tariq S.; Saleh, Abubakir M.; Al-Diwan, Jawad K.; Shabila, Nazar P. (2012). "Birth defects in Iraq and the plausibility of environmental exposure: A review". Conflict and Health. 6 (3): 245–250. doi:10.1186/1752-1505-6-3. PMC 3492088. PMID 22839108.
  65. ^ Karbuz, Sohbet (2006-02-25). "The US military oil consumption". Energy Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2009-05-10. Retrieved 2009-09-12.
  66. ^ Colonel Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF, The Brookings Institution, Department of Defense Energy Strategy, August 2007, "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-07-26. Retrieved 2009-09-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  67. ^ Valentine, Catherine; Keilar, Brianna (21 June 2021). "Surviving combat only to die at home: Retired Staff Sgt. Wesley Black is picking out his coffin at 35 years old". CNN. Retrieved 21 June 2021.
  68. ^ a b c Woskie, Susan R.; Bello, Anila; Rennix, Christopher; Jiang, Lan; Trivedi, Amal N.; Savitz, David A. (June 2023). "Burn Pit Exposure Assessment to Support a Cohort Study of US Veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 65 (6): 449–457. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000002788. PMC 10227925. PMID 36728333.
  69. ^ Sotolongo, Anays; Falvo, Michael; Santos, Susan; Johnson, Iman; Arjomandi, Mehrdad; Hines, Stella; Krefft, Silpa; Osterholzer, John (2020-04-01). "Military Burn Pits". American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 201 (7): P13 – P14. doi:10.1164/rccm.2017P13. PMID 32233853.
  70. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r International Peace Bureau. (2002). The Military’s Impact on The Environment: A Neglected Aspect Of The Sustainable Development Debate A Briefing Paper For States And Non-Governmental Organisations, Retrieved from: http://www.ipb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/briefing-paper.pdf
  71. ^ a b c d Jorgenson, Andrew K.; Clark, Brett (May 2016). "The temporal stability and developmental differences in the environmental impacts of militarism: the treadmill of destruction and consumption-based carbon emissions". Sustainability Science. 11 (3): 505–514. Bibcode:2016SuSc...11..505J. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0309-5.
  72. ^ "The US Department of Defense Is One of the World's Biggest Polluters". Newsweek. 2014-07-17. Retrieved 2018-05-26.
  73. ^ a b c Bradford, John Hamilton; Stoner, Alexander M. (11 August 2017). "The Treadmill of Destruction in Comparative Perspective: A Panel Study of Military Spending and Carbon Emissions, 1960-2014". Journal of World-Systems Research. 23 (2): 298–325. doi:10.5195/jwsr.2017.688.
  74. ^ Khan, Mahreen (2022). "The Environmental Impacts of War and Conflict". Institute of Development Studies. doi:10.19088/K4D.2022.060.
  75. ^ a b "In Ukraine, Dead Dolphins Tell a Story of Ecocide and Violence". April 2023.
  76. ^ Russell, Charlie J.G.; Franco, Aldina M.A.; Atkinson, Philip W.; Väli, Ülo; Ashton-Butt, Adham (May 2024). "Active European warzone impacts raptor migration". Current Biology. 34 (10): 2272–2277.e2. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2024.04.047. PMID 38772328.
  77. ^ Tedla, Mebrahtu G.; Berhe, Kibrom F.; Grmay, Kibrom M. (2023-11-20). "The impact of armed conflict on animal well-being and welfare, and analyzing damage assessment on the veterinary sector: The case of Ethiopia's Tigray region". Heliyon. 9 (12): e22681. Bibcode:2023Heliy...922681T. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22681. PMC 10709505. PMID 38076045.
  78. ^ Buxton, Nick; Burton, Deborah. "Wars are closing down the window for climate action". Climate Home News. Retrieved 24 December 2024.
  79. ^ a b Schwartz, M. et al. (2012) Department of Defense Energy Initiatives: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, [Online] Available at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42558.pdf
  80. ^ a b c d Nazaryan (2014-07-17). "The US Department of Defense Is One of the World's Biggest Polluters". Newsweek. Retrieved 2018-05-26.
  81. ^ Department of National Defence Canada (2017). Defence Energy and Environment Strategy. Retrieved from the Government of Canada Website: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/reports/2017/20171004-dees-en.pdf
  82. ^ Laybourn, Laurie; Dyke, James (9 December 2024). "A 'doom loop' of climate change and geopolitical instability is beginning". The Conversation. Retrieved 18 December 2024.
  83. ^ a b c d e f g Lorincz, T. (2014). Demilitarization for Deep Decarbonization: Reducing Militarism and Military Expenditures to Invest in the UN Green Climate Fund and to Create Low-Carbon Economies and Resilient Communities. Retrieved from The International Peace Bureau Website: http://www.ipb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Green_Booklet_working_paper_17.09.2014.pdf Archived 2018-05-27 at the Wayback Machine
  84. ^ "Global military spending surges amid war, rising tensions and insecurity". STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Retrieved 25 December 2024.
  85. ^ "How much will it cost to mitigate climate change?". Our World in Data. Archived from the original on 2017-06-12. Retrieved 2018-05-26.
  86. ^ a b "The potential of the military in environmental protection: India". FAO.
  87. ^ "Pakistan has planted over a billion trees".
  88. ^ Light, S. "Interview by Knowledge@Wharton The Surprising Role the Military Plays in Environmental Protection". Knowledge at Wharton.
  89. ^ a b Markman, Joseph (2023). "BP: Ukraine War likely to speed decline in fossil fuel use". Oil & Gas Investor. 43 (3): 69–70. ProQuest 2784896956.
  90. ^ Fisher, Jonah (2022-06-08). "Climate change: Ukraine war prompts fossil fuel 'gold rush' - report". BBC. Retrieved 2022-07-06.
  91. ^ de Guzman, Chad (2023-05-19). "Russia's War in Ukraine Is Worsening Asia's Heat Wave". Time. Retrieved 2023-05-21.
  92. ^ Davidson, Helen (29 August 2023). "China continues coal spree despite climate goals". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 November 2023.
  93. ^ Wallace, Jeremy (26 May 2022). "The Ukraine War's Shadow on China's Road to Decarbonization". New Security Beat. Retrieved 5 November 2023.
  94. ^ Chen, Yawen (2 June 2022). "Ukraine war helps China's coal addiction stack up". Reuters. Retrieved 5 November 2023.
  95. ^ Lakhani, Nina; Milman, Oliver (11 May 2022). "US fracking boom could tip world to edge of climate disaster". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
  96. ^ Harvey, Fiona (26 September 2023). "'Staggering' green growth gives hope for 1.5C, says global energy chief". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 September 2023.
  97. ^ Shahiqi, Din (5 September 2023). "Can War in Ukraine Be A Step Back on Climate Change Fight?". Access to justice in Eastern Europe. doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-6.4-a000401. Retrieved 18 December 2024.
  98. ^ "Climate bomb' warning over $200bn wave of new gas projects". The Guardian. 5 December 2024. Retrieved 25 December 2024.
  99. ^ Kong, Lingjie; Zhao, Yuqing (December 2023). "Remedying the environmental impacts of war: Challenges and perspectives for full reparation". International Review of the Red Cross. 105 (924): 1441–1462. doi:10.1017/S1816383123000280.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Environmental_impact_of_war&oldid=1265490604"