By Jaber Jehad Badwan – Jaber Jehad Badwan, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia

We are living in a period of intense instability, marked by increasingly widespread and interconnected armed conflicts and energy crises that are reshaping economic and political balances. In this context, the attention of governments and institutions focuses almost exclusively on immediate emergencies — and this is where a contradiction emerges: we are slowing down precisely on the activities that reduce systemic risk in the medium and long term. The wars that have devastated Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, and the Persian Gulf (along with many other less visible crises) have become the justification for reversing trajectories that until recently seemed well established. In recent years, the European Green Deal had pointed in a clear direction: integrating competitiveness, environmental protection, and social stability within an economic model consistent with the planet’s limits. Not a perfect model, but a trajectory grounded in science and in a growing systemic awareness.

Today, fear is becoming a dominant decision-making driver, pushing organizations and institutions to sacrifice structural objectives (decarbonization, biodiversity protection, sustainable resource management, etc.) that are based on scientific evidence leaving no room for interpretation: the climate crisis continues to advance — indeed, it is accelerating — and the last eleven years have been the warmest ever recorded (source: State of the Global Climate Report 2025, World Meteorological Organization).

The climate crisis, and environmental crises in general, cannot be addressed without considering social justice and the commitment to give voice and access to resources (and opportunities) in an equitable way, respecting democratic processes. Fear and anxiety cannot take over and cause us to lose sight of the collective values that underpin coexistence among people and between people and nature. This is why we have chosen to share our reflections: to focus on what we know best — nature — and on the impacts that wars and conflicts generate on it. It is our attempt to bring attention back to these dynamics and to reaffirm the need to carry forward long-term strategies already underway, at the very moment when they tend to be postponed.

The world is facing an unprecedented crisis of violence, with 59 active conflicts – the highest number since the end of the Second World War – and hostilities are increasingly internationalized: today 78 countries are directly involved in wars outside their own borders (source: GPI 2025).

In a scenario characterized by such a marked increase in conflicts, it is inevitable that the overall environmental impacts of the military sector also grow. Before analyzing in detail the effects of the wars at the center of current debate, it is therefore useful to step back and take a broader view: understanding the environmental weight of the military sector as a whole allows us to better frame the scale and nature of the impacts generated in individual contexts.

source: Institute for Economics & Peace

The military sector represents a significant but still poorly transparent source of climate-altering emissions. The main emissions derive from fossil fuel consumption for operations and training, from the production and maintenance of equipment, and from the management of infrastructure and logistics. These are compounded by indirect emissions along the supply chain, often underestimated, particularly those related to the production of weapons and military technologies throughout their entire lifecycle. Not to mention, of course, the emissions linked to the use of various types of munitions and to the destruction or damage of military and civilian targets.

Many countries do not report the emissions of their armed forces in a complete or consistent manner, and in some cases these are excluded from national inventories or are inaccessible for security reasons. Despite these limitations, estimates indicate that global military emissions could represent approximately 5.5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions – a share comparable to that of entire industrial sectors. If the military sector were a nation, it would be the fourth most polluting country in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (source: Estimating the military’s global greenhouse gas emissions — CEOBS, 2022).

In this scenario of growing global military spending, the risk is therefore a further increase in emissions, in contrast with international climate objectives. For this reason, it is essential to improve the monitoring of these impacts, to fully include the defense sector in climate commitments, and to develop shared measurement methodologies, applying the principles of the hierarchical approach to avoided and reduced emissions (fewer investments in weapons, fewer conflicts), even before considering offsets.

fonte: Conflict and Environment Observatory

On the ground, military operations cause the destruction and fragmentation of habitats through combat, bombing, landmines, and military infrastructure, with immediate effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functionality. Added to this is the release of toxic substances into soils, water, and air, stemming both from warfare and from the collapse of civilian infrastructure: destroyed water treatment plants, continuous sewage spills, contaminated rubble, and widespread unexploded ordnance.

At the same time, conflicts weaken environmental institutions and control systems, encouraging an increase in unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, from illegal logging to poaching. The ecological footprint of war, therefore, does not end with the cessation of hostilities, but continues to generate environmental (as well as social) impacts and costs for decades.

To concretely understand the extent of the environmental impacts of conflicts, it is useful to look at some emblematic and current cases. Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, and the Persian Gulf represent different contexts in terms of scale, intensity, and characteristics, but share significant environmental effects. Analyzing them allows us to move from a systemic reading to concrete evidence, highlighting how the dynamics described translate into real impacts.

In Ukraine, more than four years after the start of the conflict, the capacity to monitor and manage environmental impacts has been drastically reduced, also due to the collapse of monitoring systems and the difficulty of accessing many affected areas. The widespread presence of landmines, unexploded ordnance, and war debris, combined with damage to industrial facilities and energy infrastructure, is causing the release of toxic substances into soil, water, and air, with persistent effects on ecosystems and human health. In particular, damage to mines and settling ponds has led to flooding phenomena that increase the risk of contamination of groundwater and surface water, while the collapse of structures containing industrial waste has caused the dispersal of hazardous chemicals, as in the case of facilities holding hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of toxic residues. At the same time, the conflict has generated a significant increase in waste: thousands of tons of scrap metal and millions of tons of rubble, often contaminated, are putting pressure on already fragile management systems, with over 6,000 landfills in the country and numerous sites not compliant with environmental standards. The destruction of habitats and the increase in fires – which account for between 45% and 65% of annual forest ecosystem losses – are accelerating the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem degradation. It is estimated that since the beginning of the conflict, over 2 million hectares of forests – an area larger than the Veneto region – have been destroyed or damaged by fires caused by direct or indirect effects of military actions. In this context, reconstruction requires complex and integrated interventions in environmental remediation, waste management, and ecological restoration, to prevent the country from being left with a lasting “toxic legacy” (source: Status of Environment and Climate in Ukraine, European Commission, 2025).

During the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Gaza Strip, the destruction of water and sanitation infrastructure, combined with the uncontrolled accumulation of waste and sewage, is compromising the quality of soil and water resources, while emissions from military operations and fires are worsening air quality. These impacts reduce the ability of ecosystems to provide essential services such as drinking water and food security, amplifying the vulnerabilities of the population. The United Nations report Environmental Impact of the Conflict in Gaza (2024) highlighted that the environmental effects of the conflict will continue well beyond the end of hostilities, requiring complex and long-term remediation and restoration actions. Integrating the environmental dimension into response and reconstruction strategies therefore becomes a priority for building conditions of stability and security over time. In the Strip, the bombings have generated over 39.2 million tons of rubble, with approximately 107 kg of debris per square meter, often contaminated with asbestos and unexploded ordnance. The collapse of water infrastructure has led to the daily discharge of approximately 60,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage, with direct impacts on the sea and groundwater (source: United Nations Environment Programme (2024). Environmental impact of the conflict in Gaza: Preliminary assessment of environmental impacts). Furthermore, the United Nations indicates that in Gaza 97% of tree crops and 95% of shrub vegetation have been destroyed, and over 82% of annual crops have been damaged (source: La Nuova Ecologia). Less than 9% of agricultural areas remain accessible, while only 1.5% are both accessible and undamaged (source: FAO).

Photo by Ahmed akacha from Pexels

The conflict in Iran and the Persian Gulf region is also demonstrating how war produces immediate and systematic environmental impacts. According to an analysis by the Conflict and Environment Observatory, over 400 incidents involving risks to ecosystems and human health have been recorded, linked in particular to bombings of military bases, refineries, fuel depots, industrial plants, and civilian infrastructure. Attacks on gas fields, oil infrastructure, and critical facilities are releasing into the environment a mixture of toxic substances, heavy metals, and persistent compounds, contaminating air, soils, and water resources.

These events generate widespread fires, with emissions of soot and fine particulate matter, and phenomena such as acid and oily rain that increase health risks – from respiratory diseases to cancers – and compromise agriculture and drinking water. The destruction or damage of water infrastructure, including desalination plants that are fundamental to the region’s water supply, further amplifies the vulnerability of populations.

Moreover, the growing exposure of critical infrastructure and densely populated areas increases the risk of widespread contamination from debris, building materials, and chemicals released by the impacts. The possible extension of the conflict to energy and maritime facilities, including oil terminals and naval traffic in the Persian Gulf, could cause environmental damage on a regional scale – difficult to contain and even more complex to restore (source: Three days of Operation Epic Fury: a rapid overview of environmental harm in Iran and the region, 2026).

The rise in oil prices and the resulting energy crisis – described by the International Energy Agency as one of the most severe in recent decades — risks generating equally significant indirect effects: economic slowdown, lower investment, and reduced resources allocated to environmental policies, often considered non-priority in emergency contexts. A more robust and timely strategy for developing renewable energy could have partially reduced this vulnerability, limiting dependence on fossil fuels exposed to geopolitical shocks. If it is now too late to avoid the impacts of this crisis, it is nonetheless an element that cannot be ignored in future decisions: energy resilience also depends on the ability to anticipate these scenarios, not only to react to them.

Regarding restoration, the literature highlights extremely variable costs, depending on the level of degradation and the complexity of the interventions: from approximately €200 per hectare in contexts of assisted natural regeneration, to over €30,000 per hectare in cases requiring soil decontamination and active vegetation restoration (source: La Nuova Ecologia). A particularly illustrative case is the cost of demining, estimated at €1–3 per square meter (€10,000–30,000 per hectare). Demining operations are slow, and it is estimated that they require on average one hundred times more time to remove a mine than was needed to lay it. As a result, recovery timelines extend over decades and, in many cases, do not guarantee a return to original conditions, making restoration one of the most critical challenges in post-conflict reconstruction processes.

source: Conflict and Environment Observatory

Overall, the direct and indirect impacts of military activities and conflicts are wide-ranging, complex, difficult to predict and quantify, and moreover manifest or persist for many years, affecting ecosystems and local and global communities. These impacts entail enormous costs, both implicit and explicit, draining and diverting resources from other possible uses. The disparity and lack of foresight in the allocation of resources during an era of unprecedented environmental crises is staggering and entirely unreasonable. According to estimates by UNEP, in 2023 USD 220 billion was invested in the conservation and restoration of natural resources, against USD 2,700 billion in military spending (source: SIPRI) – a ratio (significantly underestimated) of one to twelve. Compounding this is the fact that the loss and degradation of environmental resources are (co-)causes of conflicts: a vicious cycle that feeds on itself.

We have chosen to write this article not to fuel anxiety in an already complex context, but to take a clear stance. We believe that the direction taken with the Green Deal remains the right one, and that precisely in moments of greater instability it is even more important to maintain and strengthen it. Going back is not an option.

Even less so for individual organizations, which today find themselves making decisions in a context marked by interconnected crises, where short-term choices risk amplifying vulnerabilities that are already evident. This is where the coherence between what we know and what we do is at stake: continuing to invest in long-term strategies means contributing to reducing those systemic risks that, as we have seen, underlie the very crises we face today. This is why our choice is to work to raise awareness of the impacts of global choices on the environment – wars included.