(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
There are good reasons to include the military system in climate accounting and climate action. The relationship between climate and conflict and militarization can be seen as a self-reinforcing process, where militarization and conflict contribute to serious damage to the environment and climate, which in turn can have a reinforcing effect on factors contributing to conflict and militarization. The image of the environment as a victim – both in preparation for war, the war itself and the reconstruction phase – is not difficult to illustrate.
Big sums. Calculations made in the mid-1990 century showed that military emission sources accounted for 25 percent of the world's consumption of aviation gasoline, 9 percent of steel and iron consumption, and consumed more aluminum, copper, nickel and platinum than all developing countries combined. Researchers have also suggested that military activity's contribution to global air pollution may be as high as 10 percent.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the world's military consumption was $ 2014 billion in 1776 – resources that could fund comprehensive environmental measures. It is very complicated to calculate the economic costs of curbing climate change. But the Copenhagen Consensus Research Center has nevertheless made an effort, projecting a cost of 5,9 percent (the "middle" of three scenarios) of the world's total GDP over a century. According to the center, this would equal the value of two years of economic growth over a century, or about $ XNUMX billion – about the same as three years of military consumption.
Cancer and birth defects. Iraq has gone through several rounds of wars, which have had major consequences for the country's environment. During two wars, according to some estimates, the United States has used over 2000 tons of depleted uranium ammunition against Iraqi targets. Doctors have documented incidences of cancer far higher than normal, as well as a high rate of damage to the fetus, and put this in the context of the use of uranium. In addition, there are bombing of sewerage systems, oil plants and pipelines as well as industrial plants. As Iraqi forces withdrew from Kuwait, they set fire to over 600 oil wells. These fires have caused lasting damage to the environment and health.
During the first phase of the Second Iraq War, the invading forces consumed about 70 million liters of fuel a day – an amount sufficient to sustain India's economy. Between 2003 and 2007, the war resulted in greater CO2 emissions than the total emissions from 139 of the world's countries.
The fight against ISIS in recent years has also caused damage to the environment, since fighting has taken place near industrial plants and oil fields. It has even been suggested that ISIS uses attacks with environmental consequences as a deliberate strategy in its warfare.
Deforestation. Decades of civil war and foreign invasions have also left their mark on Afghanistan's environment. Between 1990 and 2007, it is estimated that the country lost about a third of its forest areas. Illegal logging, including by warlords supported by Western occupying forces, has led to deforestation, erosion and reduced species diversity. Prolonged drought has led to declining groundwater, damage to wetlands, and severe degradation of agricultural areas and natural resources.
Extensive pollution. In Syria, several years of civil war have in all probability led to serious pollution from heavy metals in ammunition, fuel in missiles and chemicals in improvised weapons such as barrel bombs. In addition, industrial plants have been attacked, with the danger of emissions and pollution this entails, and systems for handling emissions and waste have broken down. Illegal oil industry has arisen in parts of the country, and lack of expertise and poor equipment here contribute to emissions, which among other things lead to damage to agricultural areas. Information has come from Ukraine about damage to mines and gas plants, destroyed agricultural areas, contaminated drinking water sources, extensive forest fires and damage to wetlands as a result of the war.
It is estimated that hundreds of tonnes of cement, one of the worst industrial sources of environmentally unfriendly gas emissions, are needed just for the reconstruction of Iraq.
Aftermath. Even after the fighting is over, they will continue to have environmental consequences for a long time to come. The environmental toxins remain in water, soil and humans, and the reconstruction after war causes large emissions. It is estimated that hundreds of tonnes of cement, one of the worst industrial sources of environmentally unfriendly gas emissions, are needed just for the reconstruction of Iraq.
In addition, sustained refugee flows will leave a mark on the environment. During the war in Rwanda, two thirds of the country's population at one time lived in refugee camps around Virunga National Park. The refugees extracted 1000 tonnes of wood from the national park daily, over a period of two years, for fuel and building materials. The consequence of this was 35 km2 of forest that was completely cleared of vegetation, and 105 km2 of forest with extensive damage.
Vicious circle. Environmental and climate change can also, in interaction with political, economic, social and cultural factors, drive conflict. Researchers have pointed out that climate change can affect competition for resources, predation on common resources and environmental degradation that undermines a society's quality of life. For example, the expansion of the Roman Empire, the imperialism of Europe and the civil wars in El Salvador and in the Philippines are mentioned as wars and conflicts where the struggle for resources or environmental degradation has been a contributing factor. Another example is the severe drought that hit Syria between 2006 and 2010, which led to devastated crops and declining livestock populations, sending millions of Syrians to the cities in search of work. This, combined with cuts in government subsidies for food and fuel, contributed to social distress and discontent, which in turn may have contributed to the protests that led to the civil war in the country today.
This mutual influence – between environmental and climate change on the one hand and conflict on the other – should have consequences for how we think about environmental protection. The military's emissions must be included in statistics and regulated. Existing international legislation for the protection of the environment against the consequences of conflict must be enforced and strengthened. And countries participating in a military intervention must clean up after themselves, not leave the job and the expenses to the affected country. These are things Norway should step in for.
Heldal is the general manager of Norway's peace team.
fredrik@fredslaget.no
