The carbon cost of war and climate change

Looking around the world today, we can say that there is global instability. The map of West Asia is being rewritten by fire. The conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran has escalated significantly and Operation Epic Fury, has changed years of shadow warfare into a direct, high-intensity regional conflict. It has turned the Persian Gulf—a crucial path for the world’s energy—into a dangerous zone. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed, strangling 20% of the world’s oil supply.  The war in Ukraine has entered its fifth year. In the Global South, which we often look away, a brutal civil war in Sudan is entering its fourth year, hitting ‘horrific milestones’ of mass atrocities. 

World is watching this man-made disaster. The images of missiles, deterrence, retaliation, casualties, fireballs in the night sky, burning infrastructure, plumes of black smoke, shattered roads, damaged hospitals are familiar.  The consequences of war are far-reaching. While the human and economic costs are enormous, environmental cost is most often overlooked. One question rarely enters mainstream debate- who is counting the climate cost of war?  Wars causing destruction of ecosystems, and reconstruction efforts contribute significantly to carbon emissions and environmental degradation. 

It is a profound blind spot in the way the world understands both war and climate change. Every air strike burns fuel. Every missile launched, every military convoy mobilised, every fire at an oil or industrial facility, every emergency airlift, every reconstruction project that follows destruction carries a carbon cost. And yet military and conflict-related emissions remain poorly captured in global climate accounting. Researchers and advocacy groups have repeatedly pointed out that emissions linked to armed conflict are undercounted, inconsistently reported, or buried within broader national inventories. The result is that one of the most destructive human activities on earth continues to escape full climate scrutiny. 

The ongoing US–Israeli military strikes on Iran have already resulted in widespread destruction and significant humanitarian distress. Reports from the World Health Organization indicate damage to healthcare infrastructure, further weakening an already strained public health system. In addition, the targeting of oil facilities has led to large-scale fires, releasing dense toxic smoke into the atmosphere. Such incidents have been linked to phenomena often described as “black rain,” where pollutants mix with precipitation, contaminating air, soil, and water systems. The environmental consequences extend far beyond immediate conflict zones—affecting respiratory health, increasing long-term disease risks, and degrading ecosystems. This is not merely a story of geopolitics but also a story of pollution, and long-term public health consequences. Yet, despite these clear impacts, the environmental costs of war remain largely absent from mainstream political and strategic discourse, where attention continues to focus primarily on military and diplomatic dimensions.

The contradiction becomes even more clear when we look at current US climate policy. President Donald Trump has taken the United States out of the Paris Agreement again, with the withdrawal taking effect on January 27, 2026. At the same time, his administration has supported fossil fuels and weakened major climate regulations. This is not just a case of hypocrisy. It reveals something deeper about the structure of international politics. This imbalance creates a dangerous situation with respect to climate change realities for global north and global south. Climate justice reframes climate change as an issue of equity, responsibility, and rights, rather than merely an environmental problem. While rich countries are not immune to climate change, they are far better equipped to deal with its impacts. They have access to advanced technology, financial resources, insurance systems, resilient infrastructure, and strong state capacity. They will face challenges, but poorer countries will suffer earlier, more severely, and with far fewer safeguards. This is why climate change cannot be separated from the issue of climate justice.

Developing countries are constantly asked to reduce emissions, limit fossil fuel use, and align their energy choices with global climate targets. In principle, this transition to cleaner energy is necessary. However, in practice, the burden is being placed on countries that contributed the least to the problem and are still struggling with development challenges. For much of the Global South, energy is not just about emissions—it is about development. It supports industrial growth, employment, transport, healthcare, irrigation, and basic quality of life.

Recognizing this does not mean defending fossil fuel dependence. It means asking for fairness. Developing countries should move toward renewable energy, and many are already doing so. The energy transition in developing countries cannot be driven only by international pressure while financial and technological support remains inadequate. Developed countries often speak about transition, but fail to provide the scale of support needed to make it fair. If historical responsibility has meaning, it must translate into real action—financial assistance, technology sharing, and policy flexibility for developing countries.

The global system that asks developing countries to reduce emissions also allows large-scale military destruction, whose environmental costs are rarely measured. The developed countries often follow one set of rules for others and another for themselves whether in war, trade, or climate commitments. This is why the carbon cost of war cannot be ignored and is central to the climate crisis. When emissions from conflict are not counted, the entire climate debate becomes unfair. Developing countries are asked to account for every unit of emissions in their development, while the emissions from war and destruction remain hidden. This is not climate governance—it is climate inequality.

The Paris Agreement has no meaningful supranational authority with the power to enforce its rules. There is no international institution that can compel countries to meet their targets, impose penalties for non-compliance, or enforce climate commitments. Instead, the agreement is based on voluntary participation. Each country sets its own targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions and decides how and when to achieve them. Progress is largely self-reported, and accountability depends on transparency and peer pressure rather than enforcement.

This creates a fundamental contradiction. Climate change is a global problem and its impacts do not respect national borders. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation affect all countries, regardless of who is responsible. Yet, the solution relies on a system where each nation acts according to its own interests, without binding enforcement.

What the world needs is a more honest and balanced approach. There must be:

• transparent accounting of military emissions
• stronger global norms on environmental damage during conflict
• a climate framework that truly reflects justice

Above all, we must recognize that a world unable to control conflict will also struggle to control climate change. This is why a “Humanity First” approach is essential—one that prioritizes cooperation over conflict and shared responsibility over narrow national interests. A world that refuses to account for the environmental cost of power will force the weakest to pay the price—first through underdevelopment, and then through climate disasters.

END OF ARTICLE