FEATURE
September-October. 2025 | @ green
FEATURE
15 as the Conflict and Environment Observatory( CEOBS), are pressing for a new framework called Scope 3-Plus accounting.
It extends traditional corporate and national emission categories to include warfare: the detonation of munitions, fires from bombardments, displacement logistics, and reconstruction impacts.
This comprehensive approach to accounting would provide a more accurate picture of the true environmental cost of war.
Meanwhile, academic institutions have begun publishing“ war carbon ledgers,” tracking emissions from specific conflicts using satellite imagery, supply-chain data, and fuel estimates.
The proposed Incident & Conflict Emissions Module( ICEM)— a concept gaining traction among environmental think tanks— would enable the UNFCCC to track war emissions, much like wildfires are currently monitored.
Such frameworks could make the climate cost of war measurable, transparent, and, eventually, accountable.
THE MORAL PARADOX
The omission of war from climate discourse is more than a technical gap— it’ s a moral one.
How can the world pledge to“ limit global warming to 1.5 ° C” while disregarding a single war that emits more than 20 countries combined?
How can billions be spent rebuilding what was deliberately destroyed, without factoring in the emissions that reconstruction itself will generate?
At every COP, leaders reaffirm that climate change threatens“ human security”. But the very instruments of“ national security” are among its chief accelerants.
The irony is bitter: tanks and fighter jets that defend nations today may be accelerating the planetary destabilisation that endangers them tomorrow. through a dedicated ICEM framework.
• Price the carbon cost of war, integrating it into reconstruction aid and reparations.
• Condition green finance on transparent military accounting.
A world serious about climate justice cannot allow war’ s carbon shadow to remain unmeasured and unpunished.
THE CARBON ANATOMY OF WAR
Source of Emission Estimated Impact Notes
Military fuel
Explosions & fires
Infrastructure destruction
Reconstruction
Supply chains
Refugee displacement
~ 5 % of global emissions
Millions of tonnes of CO₂e
30 – 50 MtCO₂e
Up to 100 MtCO₂e
Significant
5 – 10 MtCO₂e
THE ULTIMATE CONTRADICTION
War has always been humanity’ s oldest failure. Now, it may also be its most climate-destructive one.
Every detonation releases more than shock and shrapnel— it releases carbon, soot, and silence.
As the next COP convenes to debate the planet’ s survival, perhaps it’ s time for a new agenda item:“ The Climate Cost of Conflict”.
Because peace is not just the absence of war. It is the presence of breathable air, fertile soil, and a stable climate— things no army can ever defend once they are lost.- @ green
Often excluded from national inventories
Includes oil depot and urban fires
Rubble, collapse, chemical releases
Cement and steel are high-carbon inputs
Transport, logistics, maintenance
Travel, camps, aid operations
“ It’ s easier to talk about cows than about cruise missiles.”— Climate policy schola
TOWARDS A CLIMATE CEASEFIRE
The path forward is neither naïve nor utopian. It begins with an acknowledgement.
War must be recognised as a significant carbon source. Military and defence emissions must be reported, verified, and mitigated— just like any other industrial sector.
COP negotiators could adopt several pragmatic steps:
• Include military emissions in national inventories by 2027.
• Mandate reporting of conflict-related emissions