In the decade since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, governments have pledged to bend the curve of greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of policy reform, technological innovation, and financial investment. Renewable energy deployment has accelerated, climate finance has expanded, and net-zero commitments have proliferated. Yet beneath this progress lies a destabilising force that is rarely integrated into climate discourse: war.
From the Russia–Ukraine conflict to the Israel–Gaza war and the emerging escalation involving the United States and Iran, modern warfare is reshaping the trajectory of global emissions. The Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) has reported that these conflicts are not only humanitarian and geopolitical crises; they are also large, unaccounted sources of greenhouse gases, while simultaneously undermining the very policies designed to reduce them. With only a few years remaining to meet the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, the growing intersection between conflict and climate change raises an urgent question: are wars quietly cancelling out the gains of global mitigation efforts?
The Carbon Footprint of Conflict
Quantifying the emissions of war is inherently complex. Military fuel use, explosions, fires, damaged infrastructure, and the long shadow of reconstruction all contribute to a diffuse and often underreported carbon footprint. Nevertheless, recent analyses provide a clearer picture of the scale involved in post-Paris conflicts.
The estimated emissions from the Russia–Ukraine war (2022–2025), Israel–Gaza (2023–2025), and the USA/Israel–Iran conflict (March 2026) are 237, 33, and 5+ MtCO₂e, respectively, while the approximate climate damage from these conflicts is 44, 6, and 1 billion USD, respectively, using ~$185/tCO₂e as a social cost of carbon benchmark.
These emissions are not incidental. The Russia–Ukraine war alone has generated emissions comparable to the annual footprint of countries such as Spain or Poland. Unlike industrial or economic emissions, however, these are purely destructive outputs; they contribute nothing to economic productivity or human welfare. More importantly, these figures likely underestimate the full impact. War-related emissions often exclude indirect effects such as supply chain disruptions, increased fossil fuel reliance, and behavioural shifts in energy use.
Governments are not abandoning climate goals, but they are reprioritising them under pressure, often at the expense of near-term mitigation
From Climate Action to Energy Security
Wars not only add emissions; they fundamentally reshape policy priorities. Following the Russia–Ukraine conflict, the European Union launched emergency measures to reduce dependence on Russian energy. While programmes like REPowerEU accelerated renewable deployment, several countries also increased coal use and expanded LNG imports in the short term.
Yet, this transition was far from linear. These actions, while necessary for energy security, temporarily increased emissions and strained public finances. Climate policy became intertwined with geopolitical strategy, often leading to compromises in decarbonisation timelines.
A similar pattern is emerging in the Middle East. The Israel–Gaza war has coincided with rising military expenditures and increased fossil fuel reliance in the region. Globally, military spending has reached a record $2.7 trillion, reflecting a shift in public finance priorities. This surge is crowding out investments in climate mitigation and adaptation.
The emerging tensions between the United States and Iran risk amplifying these trends. Even in their early stages, such conflicts contribute to volatility in oil markets, raising concerns about delays in carbon pricing reforms, increased fossil fuel subsidies, and reduced fiscal space for climate investments. In this context, governments are not abandoning climate goals, but they are reprioritising them under pressure, often at the expense of near-term mitigation.
The Hidden Carbon Cost of Reconstruction
Perhaps the most overlooked dimension of war-related emissions is reconstruction. Rebuilding cities, infrastructure, and energy systems requires vast quantities of cement, steel, and energy—among the most carbon-intensive materials and processes globally. In both Ukraine and Gaza, reconstruction efforts are expected to generate emissions over decades, creating a long-term carbon lock-in effect. This dynamic introduces a troubling paradox: the more destruction caused by war, the greater the emissions required to rebuild.
Without peace, climate ambition cannot be sustained
In Gaza, where infrastructure damage is extensive, reconstruction will rely heavily on imported materials and diesel-powered machinery, further amplifying emissions. In Ukraine, rebuilding energy infrastructure presents both a challenge and an opportunity: whether to restore fossil-based systems or transition towards cleaner alternatives.
Food Systems Under Stress
For developing regions, the climate impacts of war extend far beyond emissions. Conflicts in energy-producing regions have direct implications for global fertiliser markets. Nitrogen fertilisers are highly dependent on natural gas, making them vulnerable to supply disruptions and price volatility. The Russia–Ukraine war disrupted both fertiliser exports and grain supplies, leading to sharp increases in global food prices.
Similarly, tensions in the Middle East threaten critical shipping routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global energy and fertiliser trade passes. For countries like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, these disruptions translate into higher fertiliser costs, reduced application rates, lower crop yields, and increased food insecurity. This creates a cascading effect across the food system, undermining agricultural productivity and resilience at a time when climate change is already placing additional stress on crops and soils.
Military Emissions: The Uncounted Frontier
One of the most significant gaps in global climate accounting is the treatment of military emissions. Under current international frameworks, including the Paris Agreement, reporting of military emissions is often incomplete or voluntary. This creates a blind spot in global emissions inventories, particularly as military operations intensify.
Modern warfare is energy-intensive. Fighter jets, naval fleets, armoured vehicles, and logistical operations consume vast quantities of fuel. Yet, these emissions are rarely integrated into national climate strategies or mitigation targets. As global military spending has reached an unprecedented $2.7 trillion, it reflects a clear shift in public finance priorities.
A Setback for the Sustainable Development Agenda
The implications of war extend across the entire sustainable development landscape. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a comprehensive framework for addressing global challenges, from poverty and hunger to climate action and peace. Yet, modern conflicts simultaneously undermine multiple goals:
- SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): disrupted food production and supply chains
- SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): increased reliance on fossil fuels
- SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): inefficient use of resources
- SDG 13 (Climate Action): rising emissions and delayed mitigation
- SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): weakened governance
With only a few years remaining until 2030, the cumulative impact of these disruptions is profound. Progress that took decades to build can be reversed in a matter of months.
Are We Losing Ground?
The central question is not whether wars increase emissions—they clearly do—but whether they are significantly offsetting global mitigation efforts. In absolute terms, the emissions from recent conflicts represent a fraction of global annual emissions, which exceed 50 gigatonnes CO₂e. However, this comparison misses the point. Climate mitigation is not only about total emissions; it is about marginal gains, momentum, and policy coherence.
Wars disrupt all three, as they add sudden, large emissions pulses, delay or dilute policy implementation, and divert financial and political capital. In this sense, wars act as systemic shocks to the climate system—not only physically, but institutionally.
Integrating Peace into Climate Policy
If climate goals are to remain achievable, the relationship between conflict and climate must be addressed more explicitly. This requires a shift in perspective. Climate policy cannot operate in isolation from geopolitics. Instead, it must incorporate:
- Accounting for conflict-related emissions in national inventories,
- Protecting energy and fertiliser supply chains during crises, and
- Linking climate finance with peacebuilding efforts and strengthening international cooperation to reduce geopolitical risks.
In short, achieving climate targets will depend not only on technological innovation and policy design, but also on the ability to maintain global stability.
Wars today are not only fought on battlefields; they are fought in the atmosphere, in food systems, and in national budgets. As the world approaches the 2030 deadline for climate and development goals, the growing frequency and intensity of conflicts pose a fundamental challenge. They add emissions, disrupt policies, and strain the systems that underpin global sustainability.
The lesson is clear: “Without peace, climate ambition cannot be sustained”. Recognising and addressing the climate costs of conflict is no longer optional; it is essential for preserving the integrity of the global carbon agenda.