War and climate change fuel a survival-threatening cycle

Oct. 24, 2024

War is insane. Humans spend enormous amounts of money, consume massive resources, develop jaw-dropping technologies, destroy infrastructure and natural areas and kill millions of people, including many non-combatants, often just to stroke the egos of petty power-seeking men.

Our killing technologies may have advanced tremendously, but our mindsets haven’t evolved much from 3,000 years ago when Homer wrote his epic story The Iliad, about a bloody battle over perceived loss of “honour” when Paris, prince of Troy, absconded with Spartan king Menelaus’s wife Helen. Wars have since become far costlier, in lives, resources and money, but their justifications seem no less absurd.

We often hear how expensive it is to address the climate change and biodiversity loss crises, but it’s a pittance compared to spending on weapons and destruction — and addressing environmental crises is necessary and offers numerous benefits. Wars rarely do any good other than to enrich weapons manufacturers and, now, the fossil fuel industry.

Wars rarely do any good other than to enrich weapons manufacturers and, now, the fossil fuel industry.

That’s not to say that military and defence spending isn’t sometimes needed. In a world rife with conflicting ideologies and power-hungry leaders, people sometimes have to fight back against those who threaten freedom, democracy and human rights, or who engage in genocidal actions. And militaries often help out in times of disaster, such as hurricanes and other extreme weather–related events. But the overall concept of war is suicidal. It’s a testament to how little our thinking has evolved that we still don’t have better ways to settle differences.

Not only do wars prevent us from resolving serious, survival-threatening emergencies such as climate change and biodiversity loss — by sucking up money and resources and prioritizing destruction over problem-solving — they also contribute greatly to those problems.

A recent study by researchers in the U.S. and U.K. found greenhouse gas emissions generated during the first two months of the war in Gaza — more than 99 per cent from Israel’s devastating retaliation for Hamas’s brutal October 7 attacks — were greater than the annual emissions of more than 20 of the nations most vulnerable to climate change impacts.

Those figures are a significant underestimate, as they’re based on just a few carbon-intensive activities. They include emissions from warplanes, tanks and other vehicles, building and using bombs, artillery and rockets and flying weapons and equipment from the United States to Israel. Other studies show the numbers could be as much as eight times higher if emissions from the entire supply chain were included.

Not only do wars prevent us from resolving serious, survival-threatening emergencies such as climate change and biodiversity loss — by sucking up money and resources and prioritizing destruction over problem-solving — they also contribute greatly to those problems.

Considering these conservative estimates are from just the first two months of a conflict that has escalated over more than a year, one can only imagine the current toll with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the many other conflicts worldwide added.

Although military emissions contribute significantly to global heating, reporting on them is voluntary. They’re mostly kept secret and aren’t included in United Nations climate negotiations. According to the Guardian, “Even without comprehensive data, one recent study found that militaries account for almost 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions annually — more than the aviation and shipping industries combined.”

The U.S. is one of the largest contributors to overall military emissions, about 20 per cent from protecting oil and gas interests in the Persian Gulf region — which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the inhabited world.

Beyond their emissions, military actions and war create a lot of other toxic pollutants. And, the UN reports, “while conflict exacerbates the effects of climate change, climate change, at least indirectly, drives conflict.”

Imagine what we could accomplish if all the resources used to kill and destroy went into solving the existential threats we’ve created.

David Boyd, UN special rapporteur for human rights and the environment (who has done work for the David Suzuki Foundation), told the Guardian, “This research helps us understand the immense magnitude of military emissions — from preparing for war, carrying out war and rebuilding after war. Armed conflict pushes humanity even closer to the precipice of climate catastrophe, and is an idiotic way to spend our shrinking carbon budget.”

Millions of people in the Middle East, Ukraine and around the world are being killed, maimed, orphaned, displaced and starved as a result of war and climate change. Imagine what we could accomplish if all the resources used to kill and destroy went into solving the existential threats we’ve created.

We’d better come to our senses before it’s too late.

[Top photo: The U.S. is one of the largest contributors to overall military emissions, about 20 per cent from protecting oil and gas interests in the Persian Gulf region. (Photo: Curioso Photography via Unsplash)]