If you, like me, are an avid (or just regular) listener of The Rest is Politics, you would have heard Alistair Campbell’s remark on the latest episode of the podcast released on the 25 of March, where he stated that ‘5 million tonnes of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere’ so far as a result of the miliary activity in Iran and across the Middle East since the launch of US and Israeli Missiles on Iran on the 28 of February 2026. This statement drew my attention to the ecological consequences of war that are often ignored or unexamined. War is explored as predominantly a threat to the natural social and political orders. Wars are also enacted mostly to bring about social or political change, yet this does not prevent them from having a lasting environmental legacy.
The impact of war must firstly be understood as not an impact that is centred around direct conflict or fighting, but rather the construction and sustainment of military forces across the globe. Militaries are large forces, which are not just ‘active’ during wartime, but rather throughout peacetime, they engage in continuous training and development to maintaintheir readiness. This training is reliant on resources including metals, hydrocarbons, land space and water. All of which play a role in the earth’s ecosystem.
To explore the hidden environmental consequences of warfare and militaries, take a look at the US Army. It has the 3rd largest amount of active military personnel across the globe, yet by far it ranks as the nation with the greatest military firepower and military strength. But what makes up this strength, and why is it so damaging to our environment? The US Department of War/ Defence is the single largest institutional consumer of oil; this means it is one of the greatest contributors to the release of greenhouse gas emissions. The US Military is reliant on vehicles including cars, ships, tanks, jets, and submarines. These all use fossil fuels to power themselves, the production of fossil fuels as we know leads to the release of enormous amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which contributes to the enhanced greenhouse effect, leading to our warming planet. In fact, in 2017, the US military released 59 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, an amount that was similar to the amount released by Sweden in the same year. So why is a military such a large producer of CO2? Not only do vehicles themselves release CO2, but the production and manufacturing of military weapons requires industrial processes that release pollutants not just into the atmosphere, but into bodies of water, and ecosystems throughout the earth. In addition, the recent build up of specifically US aircraft and naval carriers around Iran, mean that hundreds of protective ships were also deployed with the weapons. The constant transportation of military equipment between nations bases has a massive impact on greenhouse emissions.
Yet the issue with this is that it is not unique to the USA. Across the globe, the last 24 months have become a time defined by polarization and the build up of global military tensions. Global instability has led many countries to make decisions to increase their national defensive budgets. The UK has planned to increase defensive spending by 2.5% by 2028, soapart from leading to a reduce in the amount of foreign aid the UK provides, what does this figure represent? It means more money will be spent on the development of military technology, the training of military personnel, and to increase the amount of effective military infrastructure the nation has. This increase, means countries throughout the world, will feel threatened, ‘left-behind’ and ‘worried’ by this development. Spurring them on to increase their own military spending, plunging the world into a cycle of rapid militarization. Therefore, it is important to understand the impact of the war and the military on the environment is not exclusive to the UK. It is a global concern. So perhaps, we must shift our ideas of ‘national’ security, into ones of ‘collective’ security, to tackle the forthcoming environmental disaster.
To properly understand the environmental consequences of war, we must of course look at its direct impacts. There are many specific examples which have been disastrous, some of which are present conflicts and others which are historical. Take the Vietnam War. Throughout the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong utilized Vietnam’s tropical climate and expansive rainforests to engage in a strategy of guerrilla warfare to fight the USA. In response, the USA used chemicals such as Agent Orange to defoliate almost 3.1 million hectares of inland forests and mangroves across the nation. This destroyed ecosystems, meaning many animal and plant species were left without the habitats they required to exist stably, therefore leading to a significant decrease in biodiversity in the nation. In addition, the defoliation left behind eroded soil that lacked necessary nutrients which has created a long-termproblem in Vietnam, where many areas are unable to be used to grow crops or plants.
Similarly, the conflict in Ukraine since 2022, has seen over 12,000 square km of nature reserves be transformed into active war zones. This has resulted in the loss of animal and plant species, and the loss of decades of conservation work. Furthermore, bodies of water have been inundated with toxic substances and residues of fuels as a result of mass shelling of industrial sites and oil depots in attempts to weaken Ukraine’s energy industry and create economic instability. This has not only created economic and energy crisis for Ukraine and Europe but it has caused large scale death of aquatic organisms in lakes and rivers throughout Ukraine, once again reducing the biodiversity of the nation and our world, damaging the ecosystems around us.
So, with the war across Iran and the Middle East looming, and the numerous other global conflicts seeming endless and threatening, are we set for an ecological catastrophe?
Or is an alternative sustainable future still possible?
Some may argue no. War itself is defined by the idea of organized acts of violence and armed conflict between countries, groups or governments to bring about changes in power, ideology or order. This might make the idea of ‘sustainable’ warfare oxymoronic, as sustainability is about preserving natural resources and protecting the environments around us.
But I would say and believe that it is possible for warfare to be ‘sustainable’ to an extent. There are ways in which we could see a ‘greenified’ version of militaries. NATO in 2021, set out a ‘Climate Change and Security Action Plan’, focused on improving the tracking of military emissions, and the exploration of alternative fuels to fund military equipment, reducing military reliance on fossil fuels.
Or, in a more utopian hope for the future, we could potentially see eventually a demilitarized society, where global unity and peace are promoted above large displays of power and strength. Thus, climate change and the threats to our environment acting as a unifying force.
Yet, what we are seeing is that due to technological developments, military campaigns are becoming increasingly more targeted, this means large scale military campaigns are not needed as much as historically. This will continue to allow governments and states to reduce the collateral consequences of war placed on the environment and instead conductfocused military missions targeting specifics. Adopting sustainable strategies within the military and warfare more widely, will enhance the effectiveness and long-term security of armed forces, in a resource constrained world.
So, whilst the environmental impacts of warfare might be ignored in mainstream media or newspapers, the understanding of the consequences is the first step towards building a more sustainable future, as it forces us to confront and question the military decisions made by governments and political leaders. Thus, let us hope and work towards a future where militaries can be built on renewable and sustainable fuels, and military campaigns are not the creators of ecological disasters.
