It would be reductive to say that war is destructive. We all know that there are so many layers to international conflicts and combat. While the necessity of violence can be argued, the fact is that no matter what agenda is being pushed, innocent lives are almost always lost. As engaged citizens, we should always be thinking about the human-related impacts of war, on an interpersonal, societal, and global scale. Still, it is also our job to think about how warfare affects our planet and consider the long-term—often invisible—ecological effects that worsen our already rapid degradation of the environment.
To start, major aspects of the issue are the tactics and resources used by militaries. Military vehicles have extreme impacts, depleting fuel resources and pumping greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere at rapid rates. Hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons, along with other aerosols, are emitted by the United States’ military vehicles alone. Tanks shift soil and terrain, increasing the amount of airborne dust, and increasing the amount of toxins ingested by soldiers and civilians. Additionally, war zones generally see spikes in water pollution, particularly from oil. These practices are far from sustainable, and further the decrease in quality of life for blameless citizens whose homes are overtaken.
Weapons add another dimension to the issue of war zone environment degradation. Nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons—obviously extremely destructive to the environment if used—also can result in wide-scale radioactive contamination of the land. This can eventually lead to many illnesses for people living in the war zones, including cancer. The effects are not limited to such intense weaponry, though. The production of conventional weapons drains natural resources and results in emissions. On top of that, they are commonly disposed of either by being dumped into the sea or through open burning—contributing even more toxins to the atmosphere.
A common thread throughout all the forms of pollution is the overall decrease of biodiversity—and this often occurs indirectly. War often fosters economic decline, which then results in food insecurity. This causes citizens and the armed forces, especially in less developed nations, to rely on wildlife. It is an added strain to the already weakened and polluted ecosystems. The combination of fewer clean water sources, loss of habitat, and altering food webs causes the threat of species extinction to increase. Ripple effects occur in situations like these, and if one species’ population begins to decline, its predators can too, or it leaves the community more susceptible to invasive species. The intricate entanglement of abiotic and biotic is disrupted in yet another way.
Clearly, the issue is vast, and has no one, overarching solution. At the end of the day, if there is war, there will be this level of environmental harm. First, we can educate ourselves. A jarring statistic from a New York Times article, A ‘Silent Victim’: How Nature Becomes a Casualty of War, said that “From 1950 to 2000, more than 80 percent of the world’s major armed conflicts took place in biodiversity hot spots, areas that are rich in native species but under threat.” We need to understand not just how this is devastating for the ecological stability of these targeted regions, but also why these regions are targeted. Question authority and the government’s values. Who are the people living in these areas, and how are they affected? We can advocate for more peaceful negotiations, legal action versus physical. Really, though, we can spread awareness, and lobby for further regulations within the military. Although it is a massive feat, small limitations make profound changes.