The impact of war on the environment:an issue forgotten by COP28

Despite the importance of the topic, the impact of militarization on the environment and climate was not at the center of the talks held at COP28, now concluded.If on the one hand some entities tried to bring the topic to the center of attention, on the other hand this was poorly taken into consideration by the delegates of the countries present.Yet, the two themes go hand in hand: war and environment are two sides of the same varied coin which is the global disaster.The war sector is one of the major factors impacting the environment.Awareness is growing thanks to the action of various movements, which are starting to deal with the problem of militarization under this lens, but the road is still long and now more than ever is the time to dissect the matter and address the topic as it should .

During the Conference, some reality intervened to underline the decisive role of wars in climate change and environmental degradation.The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has also launched a appeal for this to be recognized within the Global Stocktake, the final document.Yet, the result was not as hoped.Dialogue face to face with the data on the ecological impact that the war sector has on the environment is anything but simple.According to one joint study carried out by the Conflict and Environment Observatory and by Scientists for Global Responsibility, military actions would correspond to approximately 5.5% of emissions of greenhouse gases;yet, the same report underlines how "the emissions linked to the war contribution go beyond this framework", since the data collected are often "voluntary, absent, incomplete or hidden" and omit elements that would be crucial for the analysis, to the point of be able to talk about “military emissions gap”.The situation that these give us back, however, is anything but encouraging:the same analyses in fact, he underlines how if the world's military were a nation, they would classify themselves just outside the podium of the most polluting countries, taking home a commendable fourth place, and placing itself above the whole of Russia.

The same war between Russia and Ukraine brought countless damage to the environment and risks causing even more disasters than we have already seen.Today's conflict in Donbass is an exemplary testimony of the damage that war can cause to the territory:from the annihilation of natural areas, to the release of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere, up to the flattening of land, deforestation, water pollution, the dispersion of dust and metals, all issues already widely debated, but never faced head-on by the international community.Not only war, but also exercises can cause enormous damage to the ecosystem, and in this regard we have an excellent home example with what happened this summer in Sardinia.The important fact that emerges from all this is that it is not even necessary for the tragedy of war to become flesh because the war sector has a significant impact on the environment.The only real way to reduce the ecological and humanitarian disasters that the war brings with it is to work at the root;no longer look at the way in which war is waged, but directly attack what war allows to be waged: production.

In recent years there has been talk of acting directly on production by drawing up a list of 27 principles regarding Environmental Protection in Relation to Conflicts (hence the acronym PERAC).The same text promoted by the International Law Commission discusses, in the first principle, environmental protection measures to be implemented "Before, during and after an armed conflict”.Despite this, most principles are not only very general (they are principles after all), but primarily linked to ongoing military operations and control of the conquered areas.For example, we read in principle 15 that "attacks against the environment in the form of reprisals are prohibited", or again, in the following principle that "plundering of natural resources" is strongly prohibited.There are few princes directly dedicated to the production of armaments, and as if this were not enough, these promote rather vague and generic rules.The tenth, in particular, maintains that States must commit to ensuring that companies operating in their territory operate "diligently", and that they move to obtain natural resources in an "ecologically sustainable manner".In short, progress has been made, but we are still far from making a substantial impact on production of weapons and equipment of a war nature.

The possible advantages that gradual disarmament, or at least a reorganization of the war production machine according to more sustainable standards, would bring are varied, and do not only concern the issue of the environment.Here in Italy, one of the homelands of world war production, recently discussed it Let's get out of balance! in the own counterfinancial company.Because war, in addition to being the dispute resolution tool preferred by most, is also a huge business;and the fact that the topic was barely mentioned at COP28 is only a confirmation of this of hypocrisy and false commitment – entirely of facade – which the leaders of the countries carry out in the fight against climate change.Without falling into the clearest of ways greenwashing, instead began to start the discussion on the ecological impact of the war sector Earth Social Conference on Thursday 7 December.Yet, although awareness is growing, the road is still all uphill.The problems persist and the issue of the ecological impact of the war sector is still too little considered:the time has come to put active policies on the table that directly consider production and attack the war system at its roots.

[by Dario Lucisano]