The Iran–US Conflict: Unseen Environmental Costs
As the Iran–US conflict unfolds, there’s a troubling side effect that’s often overlooked: its impact on the environment. This war is not just a humanitarian crisis; it’s contributing significantly to global emissions.
In the first few weeks of fighting, estimates indicate that around 7.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent were released. This is more than Iceland’s total annual emissions. This spike is largely due to the energy-intensive nature of modern warfare. For instance, the US–Israeli alliance launched over 2,500 airstrikes, consuming vast amounts of jet fuel.
The destruction of buildings adds to this pollution. Thousands of structures have been demolished, releasing carbon stored in materials like steel and concrete back into the atmosphere. This creates a significant burden on our already strained carbon budget.
The conflict has also turned Tehran and nearby areas into what some specialists call a “chemical event,” with strikes on oil facilities leading to toxic “black rain.” This rain contaminates water, soil, and air, affecting millions of lives.
Shipping routes have also been impacted. With disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which carries about 20% of global oil, ships have taken longer, more polluting paths. Furthermore, bombings of nuclear sites raise concerns about potential radioactive exposure, risking public health across the region.
You might think the emissions from conflict end once the fighting stops, but that’s not the case. The “carbon multiplier effect” shows that post-war reconstruction can release 1.5 to 3 times more emissions than the war itself. This means that we’re not just depleting our carbon budget during battles; we’re doing so again while rebuilding.
Yet, this environmental cost often goes unreported. Currently, military emissions reporting is inconsistent, and estimates suggest that armed forces contribute around 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If militaries were treated as a single country, they would rank among the top emitters in the world.
Interestingly, as organizations like the IMF and World Bank focus more on military funding, essential climate finance could be diverted away from vulnerable nations that didn’t instigate these conflicts.
The ongoing warfare serves as a reminder that our reliance on fossil fuels can lead to geopolitical instability. However, advancing renewable energy could offer a solution. Innovations in solar and wind power could protect us from the volatility of fossil fuel markets.
Transitioning to greener energy isn’t just an environmental goal; it’s crucial for our national security. By making the environment an integral part of discussions about security, we can work towards a more stable and sustainable future.
Kazi Ayman Awsaf is a law student at East West University.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of The Business Standard.
