Study: Carbon emissions during the 60 days of the Gaza war exceed the annual emissions of more than 20 countries with the highest emissions (Associated Press)
Talk about the environmental effects of war usually turns to referring to the toxic chemicals they leave behind that pollute soil and water for decades, even after the fighting has stopped, but recent global interest in “climate change” issues - especially after the extreme weather events that occurred during the past five years - has contributed In opening the “black box” of wars’ contributions to carbon emissions, and their long-term effects on the climate.
While researchers in the Russian-Ukrainian war found a practical model to show the size of the impact caused by wars, they called about two years ago in a report prepared by the “Greenhouse Gas Calculation Initiative for the Russian-Ukrainian War” (an association of climate experts who estimate the impact of the war on the climate), to add provisions to the United Nations Convention. The framework on climate change includes military emissions. The Israeli war on Gaza that followed October 7 came to support this demand after a recent study by British and American researchers revealed a huge amount of emissions left behind by that war in its first months.
In its first year, the Russian-Ukrainian war left 120 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is approximately equivalent to Belgium's annual emissions, according to the report issued by the Greenhouse Gas Accounting Initiative. While the study on the Gaza war, which was published on the pre-print research website (Social Science Research Network), revealed a huge volume of emissions during the first two months alone, exceeding the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the countries with the highest emissions in the world.
The vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions were generated in the first 60 days of the war on Gaza (French)
Responsibility for the Israeli air strikes
The study attributed the vast majority of emissions (99%) - of the 281,000 metric tons (a metric ton equals 1,000 kg) of carbon dioxide generated in the first 60 days of the war - to the Israeli aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, nearly half of which was due to American cargo planes transporting military supplies to Israel.
According to the study, which is based on only a small number of carbon-intensive activities and is therefore probably a significant underestimate, the climate cost during the first 60 days of the Israeli military offensive was equivalent to burning at least 150,000 tons of coal.
The rockets fired by Hamas at Israel in the same period generated about 713 tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to about 300 tons of coal, which confirms the asymmetry in the war mechanism on each side.
The analysis published by the study includes carbon dioxide resulting from aircraft missions, tanks and fuel from other vehicles, in addition to emissions resulting from making and detonating bombs, artillery and missiles, and does not include other gases that cause global warming such as methane, so the study gives only a partial picture of carbon emissions. Huge and broader toxic pollutants that will remain long after the fighting ends, says Benjamin Neimark, a senior lecturer at Britain's Queen Mary University, in a report published by the British newspaper The Guardian last January.
The joint study by British and American researchers stressed that the emissions of the Gaza war must not pass without accountability (Shutterstock)
Pollution without punishment
Neimark, who led the study with the participation of researchers from Lancaster University and the Climate and Society Project, a climate policy research center based in the United States, explained: “These emissions must not go unaccounted for, and the environmental exception enjoyed by armies that allows them to pollute with impunity must be addressed.” "It stops."
Neimark drew attention to the fact that international accountability for these emissions comes after clear provisions are added to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Military Emissions, which must also include emissions that will result from reconstruction.
The new research estimates that the carbon cost of rebuilding 100,000 damaged buildings in Gaza using contemporary construction techniques; It will generate at least 30 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, this is equivalent to New Zealand's annual carbon dioxide emissions and higher than 135 other countries and territories including Sri Lanka, Lebanon and Uruguay.
Although Neimark and other researchers - who have studied the carbon footprint of wars - are convinced of the necessity of including the climate consequences of wars in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Egyptian expert and former national coordinator of the United Nations Climate Change Convention, Hisham Issa, explains that these demands, although they have been renewed and have become more Power after the Gaza war, it is not new.
Study: Rebuilding 100,000 buildings in Gaza will generate about 30 million metric tons of greenhouse gases (Reuters)
He said in a telephone interview with Al Jazeera Net: “The Gaza war confirmed the previous demands, but past experience indicates that there are difficulties in estimating the military carbon footprint, so the Secretariat of the Conferences of the Parties to the Climate Convention always avoids including it in the negotiations, and is limited to talking about it in events.” It is organized in the green and blue zones during the summit, which are designated for activities and seminars.”
Issa described the talk about the carbon footprint of wars as “absurd” and an attempt to push the issue of wars to a marginal area, and asked sarcastically: “Will war be acceptable when people are killed in an environmentally friendly way?”
Former US President Donald Trump raised this point when he commented in one of his speeches on the efforts of the Biden administration to make military vehicles run on clean energy. He said sarcastically: “If tanks were electric, they would unleash hell in the country they go to, but at least they would... "This is done in an environmentally friendly way."
Another reason to stop the war
In contrast to the previous opinion, the Secretary-General of the Union of Arab Environmental Experts, Magdy Allam, believes that talking about the carbon footprint of the Gaza war is an additional reason to push for the necessity of stopping it.
He said in a telephone interview with Al Jazeera Net: “Talking about the carbon footprint of the Gaza war is an attempt to draw the attention of other countries to the fact that the devastating effects of that war will reach you through the contribution of its emissions to global climate change.”
Turkey's President Erdogan at the COP28 climate summit: Climate change discussions should not exclude Israel's continued bombing of Gaza (Reuters)
Allam holds the United States responsible for hindering the placing of the carbon footprint of wars on the agenda of climate summit negotiations, even though it is always present in the statements of the heads of delegations, and in some seminars and events in the blue and green zones of the climate summits.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, and Jordanian King Abdullah stressed during the last climate change summit in Dubai (COP28) that discussions on climate change should not exclude the effects of the ongoing Israeli bombing of Gaza.
Malaysian Minister of Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change Nik Nazmi said in press statements on the sidelines of his participation in the summit that the climate and environmental impact of the Israeli attack on Gaza must be addressed.
Allam, who was a member of a team formed by the United Nations Environment Program to assess the extent of the environmental destruction caused by the US army in Iraq, pointed out that despite the absence of official data on the armies’ carbon footprint in the reports they submit annually to the United Nations Climate Convention, it is available to the relevant research teams. In this case some tools can be used that give rough estimates.
How is the carbon footprint of armies calculated?
Benjamin Neimark, who led the study of the carbon footprint of the Gaza war, detailed the mechanism used to calculate the carbon footprint of armies in an article published on The Conversation website.
Emissions generated from wars are of four types, and each type has a method for calculating it (Reuters)
Neimark explained that there are four types of emissions, and each type has a method for calculating it:
First:
Scope 1 emissions;
It includes direct global warming emissions resulting from aircraft and military vehicles. For example, if we know the amount of fuel consumed by a specific type of jet aircraft per kilometer, we can begin to estimate the amount of carbon emitted by an entire fleet of those aircraft during a certain amount of missions.
Second: Scope 2 emissions;
They include indirect greenhouse gas emissions associated with the operation of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling. For example, by calculating the emissions resulting from burning gas to produce electricity to light military barracks, we can visualize the size of these emissions.
Third: Scope 3 emissions;
It includes all activities not listed in the first two, and refers to emissions in large-scale military supply chains, and includes carbon emitted by anything from weapons manufacturing to IT and other logistics services.
Fourth: Scope 3 Plus emissions;
It includes everything from war damage to post-conflict reconstruction.
By estimating the size of these four types of emissions, Neimark and his colleagues were able to estimate the size of the carbon footprint of the Gaza war, using their previous experiences in determining the size of the carbon footprint of the Russian-Ukrainian war and the American attack on Iraq.
“Scope 3 Plus emissions” were present in research published by Neimark and his colleagues, which examined the US military’s use of concrete in Iraq from 2003 to 2011.
This research notes that “during its occupation of Baghdad, the US military built hundreds of miles of walls as part of its urban counterinsurgency strategy, using them to protect against damage from bombs planted by insurgents, and to manage the movements of civilians and insurgents within the city by directing residents along roads.” and authorized checkpoints. This concrete had a massive carbon footprint, representing nearly 7% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The concrete walls in Baghdad alone were 412 kilometers (256 miles) long, longer than the distance from London to Paris, and caused "Emitting an estimated 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and other gas equivalents, which is roughly equivalent to the UK's total annual car exhaust emissions, or the entire emissions of a small island state."
Accordingly, Allam believes that the problem lies in the way the problem is presented, and he concludes by saying: “Presenting it within the framework of comparisons, as these studies do, makes us realize its seriousness, as it is not a marginal damage to the Gaza war, but it lies at the heart of the damage, and it is necessary to emphasize the necessity of opening this black box.” .
Source: Al Jazeera + agencies