While war has always been an ecological disaster, it used to be a relatively localised phenomenon. The effects of war could be mitigated by moving away from destroyed land and restoration was possible over time. More recently, the loss of wild areas and the increasingly destructive technologies and strategies used in warfare have devastated landscapes that may not recover for decades or hundreds of years. Water sources are polluted by toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Damaged water, waste and energy infrastructure add to the pollution burden left behind when the armies eventually leave.
The true cost of modern war is almost impossible to calculate and extends beyond damage visible to the eye. When Russia’s armed forces destroyed the Kakhovka dam in Kherson, Ukraine, media attention focused on the immediate impacts of flooding. However, peer-reviewed investigations published in the journal Science found that toxic contamination within newly exposed sediments of the former reservoir bed posed a largely overlooked long-term threat to freshwater, estuarine and marine ecosystems, in addition to the effects of flooding and contamination.
[ Opinion: How to make Irish cities more sustainable, by Sadhbh O'NeillOpens in new window ]
Modern warfare is so devastating on human lives and physical infrastructure that the lasting environmental impacts barely register – it is a given that war and destruction go hand in hand. However, this means that in conflict zones, the environmental impacts – which will persist long after the conflict ends – often don’t get measured or reported. Nor do they get framed as an additional violation that warrants remedy during the post-conflict phase. Researchers now estimate that air pollution and the rise in particulate matter in Syria has contributed to an estimated 17 per cent increase in mortality rates over a seven-year period. In Gaza the bombing by Israel had generated an estimated 39 million tonnes of debris and hazardous material by the end of 2024, much of which is contaminated with unexploded ordnance and toxic substances like asbestos.
According to the activist website War on Climate, the conflict in Gaza had resulted in 32.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions 15 months in – exceeding the yearly emissions of more than 100 countries. While it may feel disrespectful to the suffering of the civilian population to focus on environmental impacts, the reality is that land, homes, farmland and livelihoods are being destroyed along with human lives. The scale of destruction by Israeli forces in Gaza has led experts to conclude that in addition to genocide, Israel has committed acts of ecocide against the Palestinian people.
Man charged in relation to alleged sexual assault of young girl in Saggart, Dublin
Catherine Connolly is going to win. Heather Humphreys needs to be a better loser
Humphreys denies she said Connolly profited from people’s misfortune ahead of Prime Time debate tonight
Irish farmer who left school at 13 now holds meetings with von der Leyen and Macron
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, researchers have attempted to calculate the war’s impact on the climate.
The fifth assessment of the climate impact of the war published earlier this month by the Initiative on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Accounting of War concludes that the GHG emissions in the three years since the full-scale invasion by Russia have increased to almost 237 million tCO2e (for reference, Ireland’s annual emissions are about 60 million tCO2e annually). The emissions are not just attributable to the warfare itself, but to the spread of wildfires, concrete used in fortifications, the forced population movements and the extra aviation emissions caused by no-fly zones that require airlines to make long detours. While the damage to physical and energy infrastructure peaked during the first year of the war, landscape fires and related emissions rose sharply in 2024, likely amplified by climate change. But because firefighters cannot operate in conflict zones the fires rage on, doing huge amounts of damage.
Are drones a less damaging way to conduct war? Not necessarily. While drones have caused a decline in GHG emissions from the use of ammunition, their effectiveness means more widespread destruction of military equipment and ammunition, which means higher emissions.
[ Jane Goodall modelled the behaviour we will need in a future worldOpens in new window ]
However, one striking feature of the conflict in Ukraine is the way it has mobilised civil society and local authorities to speed up the energy transition.
With 73 per cent of the country’s thermal power plants destroyed or heavily damaged by Russian missiles, Ukraine has embraced the potential of renewable energy. In 2024, 850MW of solar and 20MW of wind capacity were added, providing more reliability during attacks and blackouts, and ensuring that critical water and health infrastructure can continue to operate. Before the war, Ukraine had an ageing, Soviet-era creaking energy infrastructure. The country, forced by circumstances, is now modernising its outlook and embracing a renewable energy future as a form of resilience and resistance.
