Mike Hudema’s Post

Israel’s war in Gaza has an immense impact on the climate crisis finds a new study. Sadly the human suffering, the greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental damage have been kept out of UN climate change negotiations. More here https://t.co/9qLbpN2Mlj #climatejustice

Israel's bombardment of Gaza has had a devastating toll on the environment, with emissions from the last two months surpassing the annual carbon footprint of over 20 climate-vulnerable nations. This study, though possibly an underestimate, attributes over 99% of the 281,000 metric tonnes of CO2 to Israel's military actions. The environmental consequences are expected to generate at least 30 million metric tonnes of warming gases. The genocide in Gaza is already unfathomable, and here the environmental challenges further illustrate the interconnectedness of conflict, climate, and a humanitarian crisis. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/d4E2VdYW #ClimateJustice #IsraelGaza #EnvironmentalImpact

Israel's bombardment of Gaza, in addition to causing a humanitarian crisis, is exacerbating the climate crisis. In two months, its emissions have exceeded the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations. As our previous research alongside The Conflict and Environment Observatory indicates, however, the climate impact of any conflict is considerably worse when emissions from the entire war supply chain are included. In fact, we estimate that the world's militaries produce emissions that amount to 5.5% of the global carbon footprint. If they were a country, this would be the fourth largest national carbon footprint in the world – greater than that of Russia. The full SGR/CEOBS report cited in the Guardian piece: https://lnkd.in/enmFnJHB

Climate researchers have begun calculating the carbon emission costs of the Gaza war, with the predictable emphasis on Israel’s military actions. Of course, we could retort that Hamas is solely responsible for the carbon crimes. But we should give the research its due credit by peer reviewing it. The research is only based on a small number of carbon-intensive activities. But there are noticeable omissions. The researchers did not calculate the carbon emissions of incinerating children and adults alive. And while the researchers calculated the carbon cost of rebuilding Gaza’s damaged infrastructure, they do not seem to have taken account of 23,000 fewer inhabitants and their carbon footprint. Someone surely gets a carbon credit. Also, there is no mention of the carbon emissions of Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel, nor even the Houthis’ carbon wetprint. And there is no mention of the carbon consequences of Iran’s hegemonic Middle East foreign policies. Indeed, who would have thought that we could place a carbon price on national survival. Perhaps we should next calculate the carbon cost of ridiculous research. We might find that bovine flatulence is the least of our climate concerns. … The planet-warming emissions generated during the first two months of the war in Gaza were greater than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world's most climate-vulnerable nations, new research reveals. The vast majority (99%) of the 281,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (COz equivalent) estimated to have been generated in the first 60 days following the 7 October Hamas attack can be attributed to Israel's aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis by researchers in the UK and US. Hamas rockets fired into Israel during the same period generated about 713 tonnes of COz, which is equivalent to approximately 300 tonnes of coal - underscoring the asymmetry of each side's war machinery. It comes amid growing calls for greater accountability of military greenhouse gas emissions, which play an outsize role in the climate crisis but are largely kept secret and unaccounted for in the annual UN negotiations on climate action. "This study is only a snapshot of the larger military boot print of war... a partial picture of the massive carbon emissions and wider toxic pollutants that will remain long after the fighting is over," said Benjamin Neimark, a senior lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London, and co-author of the research published on Tuesday on Social Science Research Network. "The catastrophic aerial attack on Gaza will not fade when a ceasefire comes," said Zena Agha, policy analyst at Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, who writes about the climate crisis and the Israeli occupation. "The military detritus will continue to live in the soil, the earth, the sea and the bodies of the Palestinians living in Gaza - just as it does in other postwar contexts such as Iraq."

I don't understand articles like this that connect greenhouse gas emissions and the tragedy of war. First of all, the war in Gaza is, far and away, a human tragedy. Lives are being lost. Issues around greenhouse gas emissions seem to pale by comparison? Second, the emissions being discussed are incredibly small and have almost no significance to the atmosphere -- or climate change -- as a whole. Roughly 300,000 tons of CO2 out of 50-60 billion tons of CO2e emitted globally? That's only 0.00055% of the total. Not "immense". War is tragic enough. People are dying. And trying to claim that the very small (in the global sense) additional emissions of greenhouse gases associated with this are having an "immense" effect on climate change seems scientifically and morally misguided. War is hell. Climate change, unabated, is another kind of hell. They're both already bad enough.

I'm a BIG fan of Jonathan Foley's but this "Not Immense" take is disturbing because it is missing the acute numerical context for the global historical and future prospects for a fairer life on earth. Yes, the 281,315 tonnes of CO2 equivalent of activity since October 7 is negligible in the global total climate contribution, but as the article makes clear it is larger than entire countries emit in a year. Do we not care about that? I would rather move us further toward pressing for diplomacy because of environmental constraints than a militaristic paradigm that conveniently ignores it at the expense of the global majority. Yes, every military aggression eats up our shared carbon budget and risks further escalation. "The new research calculates that the carbon cost of rebuilding Gaza’s 100,000 damaged buildings using contemporary construction techniques will generate at least 30m metric tonnes of warming gases. This is on a par with New Zealand’s annual CO2 emissions and higher than 135 other countries and territories including Sri Lanka, Lebanon, and Uruguay." As we know this conflict doesn't happen in a vacuum and that's the point the article makes very clear. It offers these numbers: 274,000 tons of emissions to build the iron wall, 176,000 tons of emissions to build underground tunnels, and 133,000 tons from the recent delivery of military equipment. A flash point crisis is never just that especially talking about the United States and Israel's positioning in the middle east. It's the whole geopolitical paradigm that is the problem. The attitude of "I will kill whomever I want, whenever I want, and don't ask me to constrain my military emissions, activity, and agenda for the greater good" is exactly the attitudinal problem the world is dealing with in failing to restrain emissions. This quote illustrates the agenda that many of us find so disturbing: they are planning for the warmed world while they warm it to the rest of our horror. "According to Crawford, about 20% of the US military’s annual operational emissions go towards protecting fossil fuel interests in the Gulf region – a climate change hotspot, warming twice as fast as the rest of the inhabited world. Yet the US – like other Nato countries – is mostly focused on the climate crisis as a national security risk, rather than on its contribution to it." If it was just a numbers game it would be one thing but there are deeply entrenched and abusive power dynamics that are acute blockers to addressing global warming that are under-addressed because you can't turn them into a climate tech solution. I would never win an argument against Jonathan on probably anything but thought I'd share nonetheless.

I support the point by Jonathan Foley, that war and military emissions relative to human suffering, loss of life, and genocide, are utterly inconsequential. Furthermore, I think that the size of emissions does not matter. Living in Ukraine, have some ground to speak. With my country at war for almost 2 years, the biggest in Europe since WWII, the GHG emissions are probably significantly higher than the 'catastrophic' ones in Gaza. But should Ukrainians care about reducing them now? That would mean ceasing to defend ourselves, losing our freedom, country, and identity, and making millions displaced or subjected to occupation. Russians did not invade Ukraine to bring peace or sustainability, I doubt they care about ecocides either; many vivid examples are from Bucha, Mariupol, Kakhovka dam, and many more places in Ukraine, unfortunately, still counting. As long as russia, Iran, N.Koria, and other likewise ‘terrorist’ countries pose risk, military emissions are the price for your security, unless the military decarbonizes themselves (and that is realistic, right?). I don’t know how to stop or prevent military conflicts across the globe so we can reduce military emissions. I think humanity is not yet at the stage to solve this challenge. Wars, conflicts, and climate will continue to coexist, this is the unfortunate reality that the climate/sustainability community should not ignore, or be unrealistic about.

Have you ever wondered why the conflict in Gaza hasn't been a part of our climate conversations? As we speak up about our #netzero targets, it's time to acknowledge that the impact of conflict on the environment is real and significant, we need to start talking about how to accelerate our efforts towards humanity and our planet. #climatechange #environment #sustainability

#Russia’s #war with #Ukraine accelerating #global #climate #emergency, report shows | Climate crisis Nina Lakhani Climate justice reporter | The Guardian https://lnkd.in/gnYBai5G ...The climate cost of the first two years of Russia’s war on Ukraine was greater than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated individually by 175 countries, exacerbating the global climate emergency in addition to the mounting death toll and widespread destruction, research reveals. Russia’s invasion has generated at least 175m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), amid a surge in emissions from direct warfare, landscape fires, rerouted flights, forced migration and leaks caused by military attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure – as well as the future carbon cost of reconstruction, according to the most comprehensive analysis ever of conflict-driven climate impacts. The 175m tonnes includes carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), the most potent of all greenhouse gases. This is on a par with running 90m petrol cars for an entire year – and more than the total emissions generated individually by countries including the Netherlands, Venezuela and Kuwait in 2022. "...

Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe Exclusive: First months of conflict produced more planet-warming gases than 20 climate-vulnerable nations do in a year, study shows The climate costs of war and militaries can no longer be ignored Nina Lakhani Climate justice reporter The planet-warming emissions generated during the first two months of the war in Gaza were greater than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations, new research reveals. The vast majority (over 99%) of the 281,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2 equivalent) estimated to have been generated in the first 60 days following the 7 October Hamas attack can be attributed to Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis by researchers in the UK and US. According to the study, which is based on only a handful of carbon-intensive activities and is therefore probably a significant underestimate, the climate cost of the first 60 days of Israel’s military response was equivalent to burning at least 150,000 tonnes of coal. Read on at https://lnkd.in/eRWp5B_R.