Conflict in a Climate Crisis: Why War Is an Environmental Justice Issue

War doesn’t just redraw borders or shift political power. It also scars landscapes, destabilizes communities, and deepens existing inequalities in ways that can last for generations. The emerging conflict involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran is a stark reminder that every missile strike and air raid carries an environmental and social justice cost that rarely makes the headlines. For a world already struggling to meet climate targets and protect vulnerable communities, those costs are impossible to ignore.

The Environmental Impact of War

Modern militaries are major climate actors, even though their emissions are often excluded or underreported in international agreements. Scientists estimate that the global military sector accounts for roughly 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions when you include both direct operations and supply chains—on par with some of the world’s largest national emitters. Those emissions come from fuel‑intensive equipment, sprawling bases, weapons production, and the enormous energy required to move troops and hardware around the world.

Conflicts also add another layer of climate impact through the destruction of carbon sinks and the need for carbon‑intensive reconstruction. Forests are burned or cleared for tactical reasons, wetlands are drained, and cities are reduced to rubble—all of which release stored carbon and undermine ecosystems that would otherwise help absorb emissions. Rebuilding after a war demands large amounts of cement, steel, and energy, leading to heightened emissions for many years to come.

Toxic Landscapes and Collapsing Ecosystems

Beyond carbon, war radically reshapes local environments. The United Nations warns that conflicts contaminate soil and water, destroy critical ecosystems, and jeopardize people’s health and livelihoods long after fighting stops. Strikes on fuel depots, refineries, military bases, and industrial sites can release clouds of toxic pollutants, as seen in recent attacks on oil storage and military targets in Iran that produced thick smoke and even reports of “black rain” over Tehran.

Similar patterns are visible in other recent conflicts. In Gaza, bombardment and infrastructure collapse have knocked out sewage treatment and water systems, sending raw wastewater across the land and into the Mediterranean, while damaging wells and farmland that people rely on for food. In Ukraine, investigators have documented tens of billions of dollars in environmental damage from destroyed industrial facilities, polluted waterways, and contaminated soils, with long‑term risks to biodiversity and human health that are still difficult to quantify. These are not isolated tragedies. They are part of a recurring pattern in which war degrades the very ecological foundations that communities need to recover.

Who Bears The Burden? Environmental Justice In Wartime

The environmental impacts of war are profoundly unequal. Pollution, water shortages, and destroyed infrastructure hit hardest in frontline and marginalized communities that have the fewest resources to adapt or relocate. When sewage systems fail or aquifers are contaminated, it is often low‑income families, refugees, and those already facing systemic discrimination who are forced to drink unsafe water, breathe polluted air, or live among hazardous debris.

Conflict also diverts government attention and funding away from environmental governance and climate action. In Ukraine, for example, war has shifted resources from environmental protection and sustainable development to immediate military needs, jeopardizing progress on climate and biodiversity goals. This dynamic repeats elsewhere. As military budgets expand, investments in clean energy, adaptation, and public health protections frequently stall or shrink, widening the gap between those who can insulate themselves from risk and those who cannot.

Scholars argue that these patterns raise fundamental questions of justice that traditional peace and transitional justice processes often overlook. Environmental harms such as contaminated land, destroyed fisheries, poisoned air, are rarely centered in negotiations or reparations, even though they shape communities’ ability to rebuild and thrive. Incorporating environmental justice into post-conflict reconstruction is not merely an additional "green" aspect; it is crucial for any meaningful vision of equity and sustainable peace.

War, Climate Targets, and Policy Blind Spots

Rising military spending and prolonged conflicts also threaten global climate commitments. Analysts have warned that as countries rearm and expand their defense sectors, their military carbon footprint risks undermining progress made in other sectors like energy and transport. Yet military emissions are still not fully accounted for under frameworks like the Paris Agreement, often shielded by national security exemptions.

This blind spot makes it harder for climate and sustainability advocates to tell the full story of why global emissions remain stubbornly high. If military operations and war‑related reconstruction are not transparently measured, they cannot be effectively governed or reduced. For environmental policy communities, this is a crucial frontier. Pushing for better accounting of military emissions, integrating conflict‑related risks into climate planning, and recognizing that peace and decarbonization are deeply intertwined goals.

Centering Justice in a Time of Conflict

A justice‑oriented sustainability lens asks: Who is exposed to pollution and displacement? Whose water and land are sacrificed? Who gets a say in reconstruction and resource allocation when the fighting stops? Answering these questions requires elevating local voices, especially women, Indigenous peoples, and marginalized groups who often understand both the damage and the pathways to more resilient recovery.

It also means insisting that environmental accountability be part of any discussion of war crimes, reparations, and peacebuilding. Documenting ecological damage, tracking pollution, and valuing lost ecosystem services are not just technical exercises; they lay the groundwork for claims to restoration, compensation, and safer futures. When international bodies, courts, and climate negotiations incorporate these dimensions, they begin to recognize that a livable environment is a basic condition of justice, not an optional afterthought.

What This Means for the Environmental Movement

For those working in sustainability and environmental policy, the takeaway is clear. Advocating for climate action and environmental justice also means grappling honestly with the impacts of war. That includes:

• Supporting stronger monitoring and reporting of military and conflict‑related emissions.

• Backing humanitarian and reconstruction efforts that rebuild water, energy, and waste systems to be cleaner and more resilient than before.

• Pushing for peace and diplomacy as climate strategies, recognizing that every avoided conflict is also avoided pollution and displacement.

• 
  

Even when we cannot control geopolitical decisions, we can insist that environmental and social justice remain part of the conversation—whether in international forums, local organizing, or the policies we champion at home. In a century defined by both climate crisis and geopolitical tension, building a just, sustainable future will require not only decarbonizing our economies, but also demilitarizing our approach to security and centering the rights of people and ecosystems caught in the crossfire.

Sources

Birmingham City University. “The Environmental Impacts of War and Armed Conflict Raise Fundamental Issues of Justice.” 2025.https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2025/the-environmental-impacts-of-war-and-armed-conflict-raise-fundamental-issues-of-justice​

Center for Environment and Development for the Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE). “Contribution of Military and War to Global Emissions.” 2025.https://2025.cedare.org/contribution-of-military-and-war-to-global-emissions-2/​

Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS). “Operation Epic Fury: Emerging Environmental Harm and Risks in Iran and the Region.” 2026.https://ceobs.org/operation-epic-fury-emerging-environmental-harm-and-risks-in-iran-and-the-region/​

European Commission Joint Research Centre. “War Worsens Climate and Environmental Challenges in Ukraine.” 2025.https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/war-worsens-climate-and-environmental-challenges-ukraine-2025-04-10_en​

Riahi, Leila et al. “Rising Military Spending Jeopardizes Climate Targets.” Environmental Research Letters, 2025.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12098794/​

SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). “Environmental Accountability, Justice and Reconstruction in the Russian War on Ukraine.” 2023.https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2023/environmental-accountability-justice-and-reconstruction-russian-war-ukraine​

United Nations. “How Conflict Impacts Our Environment.” 2024.https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/how-conflict-impacts-our-environment​

Yale Environment 360. “As War Halts, the Environmental Devastation in Gaza Runs Deep.” 2023.https://e360.yale.edu/features/gaza-war-environment​

Ynet News. “From ‘Black Rain’ in Tehran to Missile Damage: The Environmental Toll of the Israel-US War with Iran.” 2026.https://www.ynetnews.com/environment/article/r1x5jk3tzg​

EnvPK. “Catastrophic Environmental Impact of US–Israel–Iran Conflict.” 2026.https://www.envpk.com/catastrophic-environmental-impact-of-us-israel-iran-conflict/