In 2024, the world spent a record $2.7 trillion on military expenses, with an increase in spending every year over the past decade.
From Ukraine to Sudan, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and Venezuela, as populations suffer from war, bombs, occupation, militarization, and political violence, the damages extend far beyond the frontlines: homes, hospitals, power grids, water supply systems, farmlands, and coastlines also bear the brunt of destruction. Armed conflicts are not just a human tragedy. They are also environmental disasters, with short- and long-term consequences for public health, ecosystems, and the climate.
War not only kills people and destroys their homes, but also damages the systems that make life possible, including water supply networks, purification stations, farmlands, ports, fuel depots, and electrical infrastructures. It leaves behind polluted air, contaminated soil, and unhealthy water long after the hostilities end. Research shows a common pattern in recent conflicts, involving fires, toxic debris, damaged sanitation systems, collapse of public health systems, and ecosystems pushed beyond the point of no return.
These damages are not accidental. This is one way war disrupts everyday life.
In Iran, just days after the first American-Israeli strikes, energy became a battleground, with attacks targeting fossil fuel-related infrastructure.
The Strait of Hormuz has become a hotspot, with dozens of oil tankers carrying billions of liters of oil blocked in the Persian Gulf. Greenpeace Germany warned that a single oil spill in the region could irreversibly damage this fragile marine habitat, with devastating consequences for the local populations, animals, and flora, adding to the already terrible human toll the war has taken on local populations.
In Gaza, Greenpeace MENA’s analysis uncovered severe damage to water, sanitation, farmlands, and fishing, alongside estimates that the first 120 days of the war generated over half a million tons of carbon dioxide. This combination of bombings, infrastructure collapse, and pollution makes a place harder to inhabit, less healthy, and less resilient in the face of climate change.
Sudan provides another striking example: research from the Conflict and Environment Observatory showed that war led to increased deforestation, decline in agriculture, industrial pollution, and collapse of health and sanitation systems, compromising access to food, water, and energy for the population.
The climate cost of war goes beyond the battlefield. Researchers cited by the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) estimate that armed forces represent about 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while conflicts add to this through fires, fuel consumption, rebuilding, and destruction of public infrastructure.
War destroys ecosystems and weakens our ability to cope with heat, drought, floods, and crop losses in the future.
History shows that the damages persist
This is not new. During the Vietnam War, American forces sprayed nearly 80 million liters of herbicides, including Agent Orange, affecting 2.9 million hectares of land and leaving dioxins in the soil, water, and food chains for decades. In Iraq, the United Nations Environment Programme, followed by on-the-ground investigations, warned of the long-term risks to the environment and health arising from depleted uranium contamination and other war residues. These past conflicts are important as they demonstrate that environmental damages do not end with a ceasefire.
The lesson to be learned from Vietnam, Iraq, Gaza, and Ukraine is simple. War poisons life itself. It degrades soil, water, air, and health in a way that can span multiple generations, especially when conflicts involve chemicals, oil, radiation, or the destruction of public infrastructure.
Ukraine assesses the environmental cost of war
Ukraine has made these damages particularly visible. Greenpeace’s Central and Eastern Europe office, in collaboration with the Ukrainian organization Ecoaction, released a map of environmental damages based on over 900 documented cases, with the 30 most severe verified by satellite imaging, to show how Russia’s invasion damaged land, habitats, water, and air. Documenting these damages is essential, not only to establish accountability but also to plan for the simultaneous reconstruction and restoration of nature.
Missile strikes ignite forest fires, industrial sites release toxic substances, bombings pollute soil and water, and mined or occupied lands become hazardous to cultivate, restore, or enter. This raises a broader question: how can war-torn countries rebuild better to restore nature and reduce their dependence on vulnerable energy systems targeted by war?
What unfolds in Ukraine also shows how war amplifies and instrumentalizes risks related to nuclear infrastructure. Our local offices have repeatedly warned of the dangers posed by the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant (Europe’s largest), and the ongoing crisis in nuclear safety and security it has caused. As long as the site remains under Russian army control and Rosatom, there is no justification for restarting the Zaporizhia reactors in terms of safety, security, or legality. Our on-the-ground teams have cautioned that any restart would significantly increase the risk of a nuclear disaster.
However, this warning extends beyond Ukraine. Nuclear power plants are designed to operate under stable conditions, not to withstand occupation, militarization, and threats to cooling systems, staff, and external power supply. The example of Zaporizhia shows how war can turn a critical infrastructure into a potential regional environmental catastrophe, whose consequences would far exceed borders and conflict.
Environmental damages caused by war are not only a consequence of conflict. They are also determined by energy systems based on fossil fuels that power modern economies.
Oil and gas fuel war and worsen its environmental impact
Oil and gas are not just caught in the crossfire. They are often at the heart of it. Revenues from fossil fuels fund war machines, while control over pipelines, ports, tankers, and maritime chokepoints primarily fuels geopolitical conflicts. When the global economy relies on centralized and flammable resources, attacks on depots, refineries, tankers, or sea lanes not only disrupt trade but also threaten marine ecosystems, public health, and economic stability.
This dynamic explains why conflicts related to oil and gas infrastructure so often become ecological emergencies. During the 1991 Gulf War, burning oil wells in Kuwait darkened the sky and polluted land and water on a massive scale. More recently, Greenpeace Germany revealed that the US-Israel-led war against Iran, along with retaliatory strikes throughout the Gulf, trapped over 85 large oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and significantly increased the risk of an oil spill. Local populations would be the first to pay the long-term price as any oil spill would threaten their livelihoods and the most fragile marine ecosystems for decades, including coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds. The environmental threat is inherent in an energy system that concentrates risks on a handful of highly flammable and polluting sites.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought into focus the environmental devastation caused by war. Greenpeace, along with a local Ukrainian group called Ecoaction, mapped out nearly 900 environmental damages in Ukraine due to the conflict. This data is crucial for understanding the extent of the destruction and planning for restoration efforts.
In conclusion, the environmental consequences of war are far-reaching and impact ecosystems, public health, and the climate. Transitioning away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources is not only vital for reducing environmental damage but also for promoting global security and resilience. With renewable energy, communities can become less dependent on vulnerable fossil fuel systems that are often targeted in conflicts, contributing to a safer and more sustainable future for all.
Original article written by Mehdi Leman for Greenpeace International
