The Problems of Earth: Environmental impacts of war

Environmental impacts of war are the damage that warfares cause on the environment. 

Destroyed building after a bombing in Syria (Southfront, 2016)

War has a destroying impact on the environment. Air, water and soil are polluted, human beings and animals are killed, and numerous health issues occur among those still living. Back in history we find that the armies of ancient Rome, to ensure the total capitulation of their enemies, sowed salt into the cropland of their foes, making the soil useless for farming. This practice had a devastating environmental effect.  

Modern chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare has the potential to wreak unprecedented environmental havoc. Fortunately, we have not seen it yet –perhaps the Japanese community will disagree on that*. 

Comparison between the nuclear bombs dropped in Japan, and modern ones. (Nairobi Wire, 2017)

During the war, extensive damage is done and many people suffer health effects from weapons applied to destroy enemy targets. Building and sustaining military forces consumes vast quantities of resources and energy, and the CO2 emissions of the largest militaries are greater than many of the world’s countries combined. Military lands and training often occur in ecologically important areas, producing emissions, disruption, and chemical and acoustic pollution. 

Most wars are a result of the liberation of countries after decades of colonization. Countries fight over artificial borders drawn by former colonial rulers. Wars mainly occur in densely populated regions, over the division of scarce resources such as fertile farmland, oil, water... Therefore we can presuppose that livelihood is a key factor on warfare. While the effects of war may be obvious, how the environmental damage itself leads to conflict is less clear. It is also important to consider how security policies and militarism are tailored to ensuring access to –and control of– natural resources like oil, gas, water and metals. 

Colonialism in Africa with its “European defined” countries borders as of 1914. (brucemctague.com, 2010)

From a legal standpoint, environmental protection during times of war and military activities is addressed partially by international environmental law. The Fourth Geneva Convention in 1972 and the Environmental Modification Convention in 1977 have provisions to limit the environmental impacts of war. Nonetheless, localized civil wars, are usually beyond the reach of international treaties and jurisdiction: internal conflict is viewed as an internal matter. As a result, environmental damage –and human rights violations– occur unchecked by outside organizations.

How are wars supported? Some enterprises and banks finance the military industry. Only in Spain –the 6th world’s exporter of weapons–, 44 entities finance the military industry. Boeing, General Dynamics, Honeywell International, Airbus are some other international examples of enterprises that finance the nuclear military industry. 

International bank credit to armament industry in million euros (Público, 2017)

On the other hand, in some regions like Korea, the most preserved area is the demilitarized zone, because of the exclusion of human activity. Despite the massive amounts of herbicide used during the Vietnam War, more forests have been lost since the war ended than during it due to the country’s development. The oil fires in Kuawaiti in 1991 burnt in one month the amount of oil burned by the US in a single day. These are ironic twists that show that peace can be damaging too. However, warfare only delays the environmental damage of peaceful human activities.

Armed conflicts and open warfare vary tremendously by region. However, the effects of war on the environment usually involve the following broad categories: 

Habitat destruction and deforestation: military movements and weapon application result in land degradation and releases heavy metals and other harmful substances. Pesticides are a clear example of it: when pesticides are used to spray wide areas, some regions are not expected to recover for several decades. This is what happened with the Agent Orange that United States (US) forces sprayed on Vietnam.

US armed forces spraying agent orange in Vietnam (New York Times, 2014)

Refugees: war causes the mass movement of people, resulting on deforestation, soil erosion, contamination by human waste and demand of resources. During the Rwandan conflict in 1994, local population of some animals became extinct because of the unchecked hunting.  

Invasive species: the invasion of military forces carry non native species of plants and animals that may become a plague.  

Infrastructure collapse: among the first targets of attack in a military campaigns are the enemy’s infrastructures, which can lead to degrade regional soil, water and air quality. 

Increased production: even in regions not directly affected by warfare, increased production in manufacturing weapons, agriculture, and industry to support a war effort can have severe impacts on the environment. As an example, during the World War I around 58,000 whales were killed to provide Britain and its allies with the oil they needed. 

A blue whale lies on the fleshing platform at a British whaling station (reddit, 2016)

Scorched earth practices: the burning of crops and buildings that might feed and shelter the enemy applying environmental destructive strategies. An example is the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) when Chinese authorities dynamited a dike on the Yellow River, drowning thousands of Japanese soldiers and flooding millions of square miles of land. An other example are the 200 plastic containers containing uranium that were stolen and which content was dumped in rivers. 

Hunting and poaching: armies need to be fed and that often requires hunting local animals, specially larger mammals that have lower rates of reproduction. In Sudan, poachers seeking meat for soldiers had a tragic effect on bush animal populations: at one point the number of elephants shrunk from 22,000 to 5,000.  

Clearance of landmines and explosive remnants of war: after a warfare conflict, landmines and remaining explosives need to be cleared out. This highly needed action can lead to soil degradation and localized pollution. 

Testing weapons –as the US nuclear bombs tests in New Mexico’s desert– destroy wild environments to test how destructive is that weapon and plan how to use it towards the enemy.

When a community is under siege, it must find immediate sources of food, water, and shelter, so they are forced to adapt their thinking to short-term solutions, not long-term sustainability or development. This short-term desperation for survival leads to a vicious cycle of conflict, that pushes people to meed their immediate needs in unsustainable ways, which leads to more conflict. Military tensions also reduce opportunities for international cooperation on global environmental threats. Scientists and researchers may be unable to access areas due to security problems, harming conservation programs. National parks and protected areas may lose what protection they had. 

Refugee camp in Uganda (International Business Times, 2016)

What is done and what to do?

Military funding is higher than ever before. Activists are concerned about the implication for the climate change, land degradation, pollution, wildlife threat, etc. They advocate for demilitarization and support the redirection of those funds to climate action. Currently the world spends about 2.2% of global GDP on military funding according to the World Bank, and it is estimated that it would cost 1% of global GDP yearly until 2030 to reverse climate crisis. Moreover, the expense for cleaning up military contaminated site is at least 500 billion USD, not to mention the extreme poverty. 

It might seem unreal that in times of war people are concerned about the environment. But the 1992 Rio Declaration claims: “Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.” 

United Nations General Assembly debate on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts (Conflict and Environment Observatory, 2019)

While armed conflicts and military activities cause many different forms of environmental harm, addressing the environment during and after conflicts can also create opportunities for building and sustaining peace, and for helping to transform societies through sustainable recovery. Shared natural resources can provide the basis for dialogue between warring parties, as common environmental threats that extend across human boundaries and borders. What can be a cause for conflict, can also be an opportunity to build back greener.

To take profit from former military infrastructures to rebuild damaged land is a good initiative: in war-torn Mozambique, former military combatants have been hired to work as park rangers protecting wildlife and natural habitats that they once sought to destroy. 

It is difficult –impossible for most of the mortals– to stop a war. But as individuals, we can try to live a fair life, advocating for social justice, and supporting parties who do not stand for military funding. Avoid investing or consuming in banks and enterprises that finance the armament industry, try to work on your empathy towards those communities suffering from warfare, racism, religion or ethnicity discrimination. Raising awareness and spreading education through the society leads to less social injustice. In the end, all conflicts end up ringing our doorbell, as refugees, as social crisis, as tax increases, as political and environmental pressures or as terrorist attacks. 

Supporters of “stop the war” and “campaign for nuclear disarmament” marching in London (MiddleEastEye, 2016)

 

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” –Albert Einstein

Maria Serra

*The most devastating environmental impact of the Second World War was caused by the atomic bombs used by the American government on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1945, Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima the 6th of August, and Fat Man on Nagasaki 3 days later. The first impact of the atomic bombings was a blinding light accompanied by a giant wave of heat that burnt every flammable materials, all men and animals within half a mile from the explosion sites died instantly. Many structures collapsed, even the structures designed to survive earthquakes. Water lines broke and fires could not be extinguished because of water shortage. Small fires combined with wind formed a firestorm that killed those who did not die before but were left in the cities. Within days after the blasts, radiation sickness started rearing its ugly head, and many more people died from it within the next 5 years and many years later, babies were being born with malformations due to it. The total estimated death toll as between 170,000 and 350,000. These events can be translated into environmental effects: the air pollution, radioactive debris and fires killed many plants and animals in the blast and months later from radioactive precipitation. 

SOURCES

Albarez, Y. (2016) Bancos que invierten en armas. Contrainfo. https://www.contrainfo.com/21502/bancos-que-invierten-en-armas/

Austin, J. E. & Bruch, C.E. (2000) The Environmental Consequences of War. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511522321 

Don’t Bank on the Bomb (2016) Spain. DontBAnkOnTheBomb.com

Enzler, S.M. (2006) Environmental effects of warfare: The impact of war on the environment and human health. Lenntech. https://www.lenntech.com/environmental-effects-war.htm 

Imperial War Museums (2021) https://www.iwm.org.uk

Lallanilla, M. (2020) The Effects of War on the Environment. Treehugger. https://www.treehugger.com/the-effects-of-war-on-environment-1708787 

Weir, D. (2020) How does war damage the environment? Conflict and Environment Observatory. https://ceobs.org/how-does-war-damage-the-environment/