Dr Fasiha Safdar
AS the world fights the invisible battle against climate change and fears losing its race against time, the US-Israel-Iran conflict has exacerbated this existential crisis.
As the world worries about the economic impacts of this war, the interlinked humanitarian and environmental impacts remain ignored. As the world tries to negotiate a peace deal, the planetary crisis, lingers on and would linger on for decades to come.
A study by researchers from Queen Mary University of London, Lancaster University and the Climate and Community Institute have estimated that the first 14 days of the Iran war generated greenhouse gases more than 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). This is comparable to annual GHG emissions of 84 lowest emitter states of the world or around 1.1 million gas-powered cars. The emissions are projected to grow with ongoing fires at fossil fuel facilities and increasing scale of the dispute, but the scary part is, they are going to increase exponentially after the war as well, as clearing rubble and then rebuilding are the biggest source of emissions in any war.
During the US-Israel-Iran war, the biggest share of emissions has been from the destruction of infrastructure, followed by military operational fuel use and burning of fossil fuel infrastructure. The emissions from fuel consumption by Israel and US aircrafts are 20 to 30 times bigger than those from the destruction from the energy infrastructure, contrary to general perception. As of late March, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that the US had launched more than 9000 combat flights during “Operation Epic Fury”; a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, one of these, emits around 14-17 tons of carbon dioxide during a single combat flight of one-and-a-half to two hours, equal to the emissions from an entire lifetime of a conventional passenger car. Consider motivating common man to use public transport to reduce his car’s carbon footprint, while the world leaders unleash carbon on a war footing!
Besides Carbon Dioxide, methane and black carbon are amongst the other very potent air pollutants emitted during damage to fossil fuel infrastructure. Uncontrolled release of methane into the air, without being combusted is a climate hazard in itself, since methane is 80 percent more potent than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere, a catastrophe while the world tries to meet the Paris agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. At the same time, soot and black carbon resulting from explosions and fires, can alter the global energy budget by altering the planet’s albedo and potently capturing heat inside the atmosphere. The striking images from Tehran, of darkened skies and black acid rain, due to soot, ash, and toxic chemicals from strikes on fuel infrastructure are testament to the environmental disaster that looms in the shadows of war.
The environmental impacts of military operations (responsible for around 5.5 percent of global emission) and wars, are not accounted for and are excluded from international climate agreements and carbon emissions reporting, even in transparent societies like EU. These impacts are not limited to open conflict only, but also include military production during peace times. This is a significant gap in the reporting of greenhouse gases, also acknowledged by UNEP in its Emissions Gap Report 2023. For reference, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has emitted 311 million tons of greenhouse gas equivalents in around 4 years, while the war in Gaza has emitted 32 tons over two years, not accounted in any climate reporting mechanism. That is the reason many environmental organizations are calling for increased transparency in emissions reporting.
In modern times, the relationship between fossil fuels and conflicts is both direct and structural; non-renewable resources do not only fuel military operations, they also shape geopolitics, trigger disputes, and sustain warfare. Fossil fuels are considered a strategic prize, as seen in almost all ongoing conflicts. That is why civil society leaders and climate vulnerable countries are pushing for a “Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty” aimed at addressing the root cause of climate change and phasing out fossil fuels in a just manner from global economy.
The recent conflict has also highlighted the economic insecurities linked with the use of fossil fuels. The silver lining to this conflict is that the many countries have realized that energy resilience is security resilience and it comes with renewable energy, not with imported fossil fuel. Experts believe that the countries with a strong renewable energy base will embrace the independence, while those more dependent on LNG might turn to other fossil fuel replacements, particularly coal, which must be discouraged.
Resilient economies create resilient nations, which can be achieved through renewables; a decentralized network of rooftop solar, batteries and local grids can help keep hospitals, schools and homes functioning even when national infrastructure is attacked or fuel imports are disrupted, any reduction in GHG emissions and benefit to Earth’s climate, however very imperative and important, can remain a secondary, almost inconvenient afterthought.
—The author holds a PhD in Environmental Sciences and is affiliated with NIMA, Islamabad.
