· 6 min read
Climate change is a present-day emergency. In 2024, we recorded the highest global average temperature ever, exceeding normal heat levels by more than 2°F. Heatwaves have resulted in thousands of deaths globally, many in cities ill-equipped to manage rising nighttime temperatures and persistent urban heat islands. According to the World Health Organization, heat stress is now the leading cause of weather-related deaths globally, as the number of people exposed to extreme heat has soared in the 21st century. Against this backdrop of escalating climate stress, a critical but under-examined driver of environmental degradation persists: armed conflict.
Ongoing global conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war, escalating Israel-Iran tensions, and protracted violence in Africa further exacerbate climate risks and undermine the developing world's ability to adapt or mitigate the climate crisis. Climate change and global conflict increasingly correlate. This article discusses pathways for intergovernmental collaboration, environmental diplomacy, and technological adaptation, citing how armed conflict further exacerbates the global climate crisis.
The military footprint as an overlooked polluter
Militaries are among the world's largest carbon emitters, accounting for approximately 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, due to exemptions in international climate agreements like the Paris Accord, they are often absent from global decarbonization frameworks. The U.S. Department of Defense alone consumes more fossil fuels than many mid-sized nations, and NATO collectively spends over $1 trillion annually on defense, most of it tied to fossil-fuel infrastructure. A single F-35 fighter jet burns approximately 5,600 liters of fuel per hour, emitting over 13 metric tons of CO₂ in the process.
The ongoing bombardments due to wars serve as case studies in climate destruction — a reality that raises a sobering question:
Can we effectively address climate change without confronting the carbon footprint of warfare?
1. Russia-Ukraine: Industrial Devastation as Carbon Release
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the environmental consequences of the conflict have been staggering. Ukraine’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources estimates that, by mid-2023, over $50 billion in environmental damage had been incurred, with emissions equivalent to 33 million tons of CO₂ released. The destruction of chemical plants, oil depots, and industrial centers has also polluted rivers and air, compounding environmental and humanitarian risks. So far, Russia's position on climate change has been characterized by a lack of ambitious action. The Putin-led government set a net-zero target for 2060, yet maintains heavy reliance on fossil fuels, with a tendency to prioritize national security and economic interests over climate goals. International efforts are underway to monitor and document the environmental consequences of the war in Ukraine to inform future remediation and potential war reparations.
2. Middle East: Energy infrastructure as a target
The ongoing hostilities between Israel and Iran (including proxy confrontations in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Qatar) often center on the destruction of critical infrastructure. On June 22, U.S President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Iran nuclear sites, using B-2 Spirit stealth bombers to carry the largest bunker buster bombs in the U.S. arsenal, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (GBU-57), and drop them on nuclear sites in central Iran. The Pentagon used more than 125 aircraft in total, launching about 75 total weapons. Airstrikes like this one and other war-related sabotage have repeatedly targeted oil refineries, water treatment plants, and even solar facilities. Iran’s desertification, already worsened by years of water mismanagement, is being compounded by climate-unfriendly wartime decisions that erode national resilience.
3. Africa’s Sahel and Horn: Climate as a driver and victim of conflict
In the Sahel, violence from extremist groups and illegal mining activities intersects with climate stress in a deadly feedback loop. The African Development Bank estimates that environmental degradation costs the continent up to 10% of its GDP each year. In regions like Lake Chad, once a thriving ecosystem, climate-induced water scarcity and Boko Haram-linked insurgency have displaced over 3 million people. Conflict has disrupted agroforestry projects, conservation efforts, and green adaptation policies in Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and Niger. Over 110 million people were forcibly displaced as of 2023, many due to a combination of war and climate-related disaster. Displacement camps often emerge in ecologically fragile zones, leading to deforestation and unsustainable resource extraction. As climate change worsens, such movements are expected to increase. Countries already struggling with infrastructure deficits, such as Chad, Ethiopia, and Sudan, face additional strain from refugee inflows and cross-border climate migration. The civil society is showing good leadership, as in the case of Sudan.
Climate vs. conflict: A legal and policy vacuum
Current global climate frameworks largely exclude wartime emissions and environmental destruction. Military operations are exempt from Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, and there is no multilateral mechanism to quantify or regulate the environmental impacts of armed conflict. This omission creates a dangerous blind spot. The disproportionate impact of war-fueled climate change on developing countries underscores the need to prevent a new form of green colonialism, where wealthier nations externalize the environmental costs of their defense activities onto the Global South. International mitigation mechanisms must therefore be coupled with equitable finance flows, capacity-building, and inclusive governance models.
Recommendations
1. Integrate Military Emissions in Climate Frameworks: Countries must agree to include military emissions in their national climate inventories under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Defense ministries should be required to set decarbonization targets and publish annual climate disclosures.
2. Protect Green Infrastructure in Wartime: Update international humanitarian law to safeguard renewable energy infrastructure, water systems, and conservation zones. Establish rapid response environmental teams under the UN to assess and mitigate ecological damage during conflicts.
3. Climate-Sensitive Peacebuilding: Climate resilience must become a core pillar of post-conflict reconstruction, with investments in nature-based solutions and sustainable urban planning. Peace accords should include environmental restoration clauses backed by donor funding.
4. Technological Innovation and Resilience: Emerging technologies such as atmospheric water generators, AI-enabled climate modeling, and resilient microgrids can enhance local adaptation in fragile states. International institutions should prioritize funding for climate innovation hubs in vulnerable regions.
5. Establish a Climate-Conflict Observatory: A dedicated Climate and Conflict Monitoring Center under the UN could track environmental degradation in real-time using satellite imagery, drones, and AI analysis.
Conclusion
The world can no longer afford to silo its approach to global challenges. Climate and security are intertwined. War is a climate issue, and climate change is a security issue.
Without integrating the environmental dimensions of conflict into national, regional, and global policy frameworks, the international community risks compounding the very crises it seeks to resolve. Intergovernmental collaboration must prioritize joint emissions reporting, climate finance for fragile states, and legally binding frameworks that recognize environmental destruction as a form of war crime. Environmental diplomacy should focus on protecting green infrastructure and integrating climate adaptation into peace processes. Technological adaptation (including early warning systems, off-grid renewable energy, and ecological restoration tools) should be mainstreamed into conflict-sensitive development policies. These pathways, if pursued with urgency and equity, can help preserve lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems amid escalating consequences.
The pathway to a livable future lies in recognizing the linkages between climate and conflict, acting on the data, and rebuilding trust, systems, and the biosphere of cities and communities we all depend on.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
