When strategy turns toxic: the ecological and civilian price of state power

PHOTO: Oil refinery fire, ChiefHira on Wikipedia Commons 

From the toxic waste sweeping into rivers to the carbon footprint of global armed forces rivalling that of entire nations, states involved in conflict are not just some of the largest disruptors of global supply chains, but they are also some of the planet’s most destructive polluters. With the devastating environmental impacts of ongoing conflicts and the global struggle to fulfill net zero emission targets by 2050, the question is no longer whether global conflicts harm the environment, but whether the world can survive the ecological cost of conflict. 

The environment: Another casualty of war

As the United States and Israel launched wide-ranging attacks on Iran on 28 February 2026, top security officials in both states saw this as a “pre-emptive” measure to remove the threat of an Iranian attack.

As a strategy to threaten and weaken the Iranian regime, the US and Israel have targeted multiple Iranian oil and gas sites. This has generated a strong reaction from Iran, which has retaliated by attacking Israel and several Gulf states and seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz, the latter generating roughly 20% of the world’s oil consumption and being crucial for global oil supply. The impact? A global energy crisis worse than the twin oil shocks of the 1970s, according to the International Energy Agency, with rising inflation and high fuel prices predominantly affecting Global South countries such as Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Bangladesh. These states have been particularly hit hard by the economic shocks due to import dependence on Gulf Energy, limited diversification and fiscal constraints, and have consequently implemented measures to conserve fuel. These shocks have prompted other states such as Pakistan and Vietnam to utilise their existing renewable energy sources or invest in renewables.   

Smoke, fire, and black rain

Considering the extensive damage inflicted on oil and gas sites so far in the conflict, the international community will not just have to pay a high price for fuel, but they will also have to pay the price for environmental damage.

The most prominent example of the environmental consequences of this war occurred when Israeli airstrikes hit four major Iranian oil storage facilities — the oil depots in Karaj, Shehran and Aghdasiyeh, and the refinery in Tehran — the latter of which alone has the capacity to process about 225,000 barrels of oil per day, erupting a significant amount of pollutants into the air. The incomplete burning of oil, caused by limited oxygen, releases sulphur and nitrogen oxides and mixes with rainfall to cause acid rain. This is believed to have been the cause behind the “black rain” that poured down in Tehran and reportedly caused burning smells and breathing difficulties for Iranian residents. The impact of these attacks have raised serious concerns from experts in the World Health Organisation, who urged Iranians to “stay indoors in light of the attacks on the oil warehouses” and also emphasised the “wider regional pollution exposure” caused by Iranian strikes on oil infrastructure in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

In addition to the long-term risks that these strikes pose to the environment and civilian life, these strikes have also raised questions from UN members and Iranian leaders about the use of intentional chemical warfare by states against civilians and its violation of the obligations of international humanitarian law. Under Article 52(2) of the Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, an oil refinery may be seen as a lawful target only if it provides an effective contribution to military operations and, even then, all parties are obligated to take precautions to avoid causing harm to civilians and civilian objects. 

Russia’s war against Ukraine 

When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the main aim of Russian President Vladimir Putin was to return Ukraine to Russia’s sphere of influence. As one of the strategies, Russian forces pressured Ukraine economically and psychologically by consistently targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure and other civilian utilities. A prominent example of this includes the bombing of Ukraine’s Khakovka Hydroelectric dam, which was described by Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrij Melnyk as “the worst environmental disaster in Europe since the Chernobyl disaster”. 

The destruction of the dam resulted in catastrophic flooding, which led to major loss of human life and wildlife. Another particular consequence was the release of 150 tons of toxic industrial lubricants, along with pollutants from sewage pits, fuel stations and storage sites for agrochemicals and pesticides. These contaminants were feared to have spread further downstream into the Dnipro River and ultimately the Black Sea, whose waters reach six countries: Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Georgia in addition to Ukraine and Russia. Further, the loss of the reservoir also heightened the risk of a nuclear disaster as it meant that the Zaporizhzhye Nuclear Power Plant, which relied on the reservoir water, would not receive water needed to cool. This could have potentially risked a nuclear meltdown and the release of radioactive material into the water.

PHOTO: Flooding in Kherson after the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, АрміяInform on Wikipedia Commons

The destruction of the reservoir was also detrimental as it destroyed significant proportions of irrigation systems in Khersonka, Zaporizka and Dnipropetrovska oblasts and left roughly 600,000 hectares of farmland without irrigation, thereby reducing Ukraine’s agricultural output. The economic consequences of a conflict between two of the world’s top agricultural producers bears a similarity to the Iran war: its effects are felt globally. Food prices and insecurity as well as energy prices reached an all-time high in 2022 and disproportionately affected lower and middle-income countries reliant on Ukrainian imports, such as Egypt and Lebanon. 

Consequently, the environmental disasters caused by Russia’s aggression have prompted investigations into wilful acts of environmental destruction, or “ecocide”, punishable under Ukrainian law. However, there are challenges in holding Russia accountable on an international level, as there is currently no global legal instrument on ecocide. Nevertheless, there are provisions under international law that address environmental protection during wartime, such as Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which acknowledges the military intentions of a state to bring long-term damage to the natural environment. Further, Ukraine and Russia are parties to the Geneva Convention. Article 35 and 55 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions — which prohibit both deliberate and unintentional widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment — may also apply.

Israel’s conflict with Gaza

The Israel-Palestine conflict predates more than a century and is one of the longest running and violent disputes today. The deadliest escalation in the conflict occurred on 7 October 2023 when Hamas led a terror attack which killed more than 1,250 Israelis. This led to strong retaliation by Israeli forces in Gaza which has since killed 71,776 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and another 171,343 injured as of January 2026. Although a ceasefire came into effect on 10 October 2025, Israeli military operations in Gaza have included killing and seriously harming thousands of Palestinians, blocking humanitarian aid, destroying healthcare and education systems, committing acts of sexual and gender violence, targeting children, executing attacks on religious and cultural sites and disregarding the orders of the International Court of Justice, which were all established as acts of genocide by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2025.

PHOTO: Israeli armor in Gaza, IDF Spokesperson’s Unit Photographer on Wikipedia Commons

In addition to these acts, which have been the main subjects of investigation, there have also been growing calls for the environmental damage caused to be investigated as a potential war crime. Before 7 October, 47% of Gaza’s total land area was covered with farms, but after the Israeli military’s bombardment of orchards, olive groves and farmland, 38% of that land has been destroyed, devastating Gaza’s ecosystem. According to the UN Environment Programme, the heavy bombing has contaminated soil and ground water due to the release of toxins such as asbestos and industrial chemicals into the surroundings from collapsed buildings, which may increase levels of toxicity in the crops yielded and damage human health. Moreover, the destruction of olive groves, which hold a special cultural, historical, and economic significance in Palestine, has further made the soil unsuitable for irrigation and threatened farmer’s businesses, exacerbating the food and economic insecurity crisis in Gaza.

Although the Israeli military has claimed that the destruction of farmland allows for the passing of Israeli military infrastructure, and does not intentionally aim to violate international law, many scholars argue that the environmental damage caused provides enough grounds to be investigated as “ecocide”. Although issues of environmental destruction during war can be investigated in accordance with the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions, there are still disagreements about its application. 

The ripple effect

One similarity shared between these global conflicts is the involvement of states with high military strength and capabilities, namely the US, Russia, Iran and Israel. Three of these military powers — the US, Iran and Russia — are also listed in the top ten largest carbon emitting countries in the world. This is an important correlation, as research shows that all the militaries in the world are responsible for almost 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions — a figure putting militaries on equal footing with the global cement industry. As these states have the military and economic power to engage in war and contribute to their existing carbon footprint, this serves as a reminder that with great power comes great responsibility. With recent reports indicating that current global efforts to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 are highly insufficient in ambition and action, it is evident that military use could further diminish climate mitigation efforts and cause disproportionate harm to climate-vulnerable nations. 

While many countries have grown accustomed to experiencing the economic impact of conflict, they have also become accustomed to enduring the effects of climate change caused by the top carbon emitting countries. Recent climate disasters, such as the Cyclonic Storm Ditwah, which made landfall in Sri Lanka on 28 November 2025 and affected more than 1.4 million people, serve as contemporary examples of the humanitarian and environmental crisis faced by vulnerable states least responsible for climate change. Scientists claim that climate change intensified the storm, as the ocean water was 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1991–2020 average, adding heat and moisture to the storm, which accounted for heavier rainfall. Similarly, data analysis from Israel’s conflict in Gaza has also exposed the gaps in climate accountability between climate-vulnerable and more climate-resilient states. Within just 60 days of the conflict, 281,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide was produced, more than the annual footprint of 20 of the most climate-vulnerable countries.

PHOTO: ADB President Masato Kanda visits cyclone-affected communities in Sri Lanka, Masato Kanda on Wikipedia Commons  

Are the tides turning?

Although legal frameworks have identified ecocide as a war crime, there are still limitations in its interpretation due to the high thresholds for prosecution, hindering the ability to hold states accountable. Despite this, initiatives by environmental activists, institutions and governments have made valuable contributions that reflect the growing momentum to address environmental destruction during conflict. For instance, independent environmental organisations such as Greenpeace MENA have issued public warnings about the environmental damage in Gaza, and have documented the severe damage to Gaza’s water, sanitation and cropland.

Moreover, institutions such as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) have also partnered with local stakeholders to provide post-crisis environmental assessment and recovery guidance to war-affected countries such as Ukraine, helping them address environmental destruction after conflict in accordance with EU environmental standards. Other institutions have taken legal routes to hold states accountable for ecocide, such as the European Parliament, which adopted a resolution in 2022 on the establishment of a tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine by Russia. Additionally, 15 states have already criminalised ecocide, with states such as Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa also submitting a joint proposal to the International Criminal Court to consider ecocide as the fifth international crime under the Rome Statute.

Clearing the air forward

While the efforts of these key state and non-state actors are promising, these positive developments continue to be undermined by the ongoing military use leaving behind a major carbon footprint and triggering global disruptions. These disruptions have provided an important reminder for states to reduce dependence on oil and gas imported by states involved in war and instead explore alternatives that expand domestic production and accelerate renewable energy. Discussions on energy independence have become prevalent in Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which has shown the continent’s vulnerability to unexpected reductions in supply, since Europe imports more than 50 percent of its energy, mainly oil and gas.  

As an alternative, governments in Italy, Belgium, Greece and Sweden are now planning on transitioning into nuclear energy, which would help to “reconcile both independence, and thus energy sovereignty, with decarbonisation, and thus carbon neutrality”, as French President Emmanuel Macron stated at the Nuclear Energy Summit 2026. While issues around waste management and public safety challenge the use of nuclear energy, data has shown the important role nuclear energy plays for climate mitigation and its compatibility with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

PHOTO: Nuclear Energy Summit 2026, IAEA Imagebank on Wikipedia Commons 

Despite never producing a single watt of nuclear energy, Southeast Asian countries are now sharing the nuclear ambitions of Europe, as many states — Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines — are now reviving nuclear energy plans as pressure grows to meet surging energy demands. 

Although these initiatives may not directly curb emissions released from environmental destruction, these steps allow states to forge a pathway that reduces dependency on other states that abuse their material power, while promoting a sustainable future that can compensate for the environmental damage caused during war.

These possible initiatives make a difference in the long term because, as military conflicts cease and damaged infrastructure is rebuilt, the lives lost and environmental effects caused by war are not so easily reversible. Hence, the war against climate change remains an ongoing battle for many.