Climate-Conflict Connection

Do critical infrastructure like energy plants, water treatment facilities, and transportation networks destroyed in war-torn regions exacerbate climate change? Dr. Hendrix from PIIE distinguishes between climate change driven by greenhouse gas emissions and local environmental degradation and damage. “The local impacts on critical infrastructure are dire for the human communities that depend on them, and there’s the direct carbon cost of rebuilding the cement- and steel-intensive infrastructure that underpins our societies.”

Talking about war-induced displacement and the resulting refugee crises, which in turn contribute to environmental degradation and influence climate change, Dr. Hendrix, Senior Fellow at PIIE, mentions that wars almost always displace people, leading to unsustainable coping strategies. “This is true of both large-scale interstate wars and civil conflicts, but the effects are even more pronounced for civil conflicts, as many governments and rebels resort to “draining the sea” – forcibly depopulating areas where the enemy is thought to be active to separate insurgents and/or government sympathizers from combatants.” This leads the refugees to “often wind up inhabiting marginal lands with few economic prospects – if they weren’t marginal, they’d be inhabited already – making them dependent on humanitarian assistance and unsustainable foraging strategies for food, shelter and energy.”

Sharing an example of the refugees of the Rwandan Civil War in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Dr. Hendrix highlights that the refugees “deforested roughly 38 km2, an area about one-third the size of San Francisco, within three weeks of their arrival in and around the city of Goma near the Rwandan/DRC border. Former Rwandan rebels pushing into DRC were implicated in the slaughter of already endangered highland mountain gorillas for bushmeat. These foraging practices harm both ecosystems and the wildlife they support.”

Speaking of conflicts leading to unsustainable and shortsighted harvesting practices that can undermine the long-term viability of local resources, Dr. Hendrix shares another example. “Surveyors found after the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 that half the country’s natural pistachio woodlands had been cut down to sell wood or hoard it for future use. Given how long pistachio trees mature, it was the early 2010s before those orchards could be regrown and returned to production. Conflict leads to unsustainable and shortsighted harvesting practices that can undermine the long-term viability of local resources. The direct effects of climate change are harder to parse, at least for me.”

‘If the world’s militaries were a country, this figure (total military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions) would mean they have the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world – greater than that of Russia,’ according to Estimating the Military’s Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Despite the world’s militaries being major GHG emitters, their carbon footprint goes mostly unnoticed, which needs to be addressed.

Ellie Shackleton, Program Assistant at the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation and 2023-2025 Forum on the Arms Trade Emerging Expert, in her piece on Emissions Within the Military Industrial Complex: Arms Manufacturers for the Security Context, specifies that ‘the gap in reporting arms industry greenhouse gas emissions should be addressed in two ways: adding environmental considerations to existing arms trade agreements, and committing arms manufacturers to provisions within international climate agreements.’

What role do international climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, play when it comes to war and military activities in contributing to climate change? Or are there any gaps that need to be addressed?

“International climate agreements like the Paris Agreement primarily focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from civilian sources and do not specifically address the role of war and military activities. The main gap is the lack of explicit provisions for mitigating emissions from military operations and defence sectors,” according to Yasir Ali, a PhD Scholar.

But Dr. Hendrix from PIIE doesn’t think there are any gaps, at least directly, in these agreements. “These international agreements are driven by consensus, so it’s difficult to introduce direct discussions of security issues that are, of course, a matter of national sovereignty and security.”

Ali highlights the governance vacuum in post-conflict regions: “It hampers climate resilience and sustainable development by leading to unmanaged environmental degradation, uncoordinated recovery efforts, and insufficient infrastructure for effective climate adaptation and resource management.”

As for Dr. Hendrix, breakdowns in order and the rule of law in active war zones provide opportunities for illegal activities. “In wartime, insurgents, local warlords, and often military members can make substantial fortunes trafficking in illegally harvested resources. These resources include everything from “conflict timber” – exotic, sometimes endangered hardwoods – to “conflict fish,” rhino horn, and ivory. These resources have received less attention than conflict minerals – non-renewable, highly lucrative minerals like diamonds, gold, and tungsten,” he shares, emphasizing that their overharvesting can lead to biodiversity loss and permanent changes in ecosystems.

According to research, the carbon emissions produced during the first 60 days of the Gaza war exceeded the total yearly carbon footprint of over 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries.

Despite constant reports and scientific warnings about the Earth’s rapid warming, these alerts often seem to go unheard. Are the people whose actions truly matter paying attention?