Military activities have a significant impact on the environment, often overlooked in discussions about war and peace. The military is not just involved in direct conflicts; its regular operations contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental damage. This widespread destruction has raised a call for what’s being termed “peace ecology”—a concept advocating for harmony between people and the planet.
### The Military’s Environmental Impact
It’s staggering to think that military operations, even during peacetime, are among the largest sources of carbon emissions globally. A study by scientist Stuart Parkinson revealed that the U.S. military alone emitted around 340 million tons of CO2 equivalents in 2017. This accounts for about 5.5% of global emissions from military activities—a figure that likely underestimates the total when wartime emissions are included.
### Wars and Environmental Consequences
Wars aren’t only about people; they severely harm the planet. Recent conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine, have devastating ecological footprints. An estimated 119 million tons of CO2 were released during just one year of fighting, comparable to the total emissions of Belgium. Meanwhile, an estimated one-third of Ukrainian soil is now contaminated by toxic substances, making it unusable for agriculture.
### The Link Between Climate Crisis and Conflict
Interestingly, there’s a two-way relationship between climate change and conflict. Michael T. Klare, a professor at Hampshire College, notes that climate crises can lead to instability, particularly in vulnerable regions. For example, as fertile lands decrease and resources dwindle, conflicts over food and land can intensify, potentially leading to even more wars.
### Insights from Experts
Experts stress the importance of viewing environmental issues and military activities through a combined lens. Johan Galtung, a Norwegian peace researcher, highlighted a cultural mindset that dominates nature, echoing in how ecosystems suffer during military actions.
Moreover, researchers such as Bálint Rosz have drawn comparisons between the emissions from military conflict and those from civilian sources, showing just how severe the military’s environmental footprint is.
### Shared Goals of Peace and Environmental Movements
There’s a growing understanding among peace and environmental activists that fighting for a greener planet also means advocating for peace. Both movements can benefit by uniting their efforts against military-driven environmental destruction. Calls for disarmament and ceasing military pollution are at the heart of this partnership.
### Who Bears the Cost?
An essential question arises: who pays for the environmental damage caused by military actions? Typically, the costs are shifted onto taxpayers while the arms industry profits. There is a growing demand for accountability, insisting that arms manufacturers should share the cleanup costs for the damage they contribute to.
The United Nations has often excluded military emissions from climate agreements, particularly during the Kyoto Protocol discussions. A push for greater accountability in this area is vital, with organizations like Fridays for Future and other NGOs advocating for systemic change.
### Conclusion
Peace ecology emphasizes that societies must work together not only for peaceful coexistence among people but also for a healthier planet. Addressing the ecological damage inflicted by military activities is crucial for a sustainable future. By recognizing the interconnectedness of peace and environmental health, we can begin to forge a path toward a more harmonious world, one where future generations can thrive.
Source link
climate-emergency, greenhouse-gases, military-industrial-complex, us-military, pollution, arms-industry, war-peace
