“A factor of ecological crisis”: the environment, an increasingly destructive weapon in conflicts | TF1 Info

• Pollution of soil and water, greenhouse gas emissions… In wars, in addition to the heavy human toll, the environment is a significant victim.
• More and more, it is even a weapon in its own right.
• With impacts that go far beyond the framework of these conflicts.

Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon… Four wars that have shaken the world in recent years. Four conflicts which helped to highlight the environmental dimension in conflicts. Beyond the dramatic human losses, the question of the destruction of ecosystems, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in the clashes indeed poses a major question for the future.

Iran and Lebanon did not hesitate to speak “d’écocide” recently. Tehran over the conflict between it and the United States and Israel, and Beirut over the war waged by the Jewish state against Hezbollah between 2023 and 2024.

In a document of around a hundred pages, the country of Cédre details how Tel Aviv’s military offensive “profoundly upset the physical and ecological balances” from the south and east of the country. NGOs had made similar accusations about the war in Gaza.

Because destroying the environment can destabilize a country – or even a region – for decades, to an extent perhaps never seen before in the context of climate change and the crises it causes, making ecosystems less and less resilient in the face of these impacts.

The trigger for the Vietnam War?

Historically, the “scorched earth” policy has been used in conflicts. But this dimension was perhaps really taken into account and brought to light during the Vietnam War. (nouvelle fenêtre) with the spreading of millions of liters of Agent Orange, a powerful herbicide, which devastated the forests in the south of the country, polluted agricultural land and caused the local disappearance of numerous animal species.

“This represented a new type of military intervention where we destroyed the environment to destroy the adversary”analyzes Fabien Locher, historian at the CNRS and specialist in the relationship between war and environment, for whom this episode was “a turning point” on these questions, moving the policy from scorched earth to a reflection structured around conflicts and the environment.

Read also

“Let’s not forget Sudan”: after three years of war, “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world”

Because the use of bombs, mines and other explosives of war, just like the targeting of certain infrastructures, leaves lasting ecological traces via toxic residues and heavy metals – such as lead, cadmium, nickel or chromium – which can contaminate soil, degrade land, infiltrate waterways, groundwater and water sources drinkable.Â

Damage to which is added atmospheric pollution, via fires caused by bombings and explosions which release large quantities of fine particles Рsuch as benzene, formaldehyde or hydrocarbons Рand toxic gases Рsuch as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide -, as was the case on the 8 and last March 9 above Tehran (nouvelle fen̻tre)and the bombing of oil installations which caused toxic rains.

So much long-term damage which makes Doug Weir, director of the Observatory of Conflicts and the Environment (CEOBS), say that in recent years, the environment has sometimes been “very clearly” used as a weapon of war.

Gaza, “We saw the deliberate destruction of agricultural areas, it was not collateral or accidental damage, it was a clear policy to destroy these areas, the orchards and the fields,” he explains.

In the small enclave, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (nouvelle fenêtre)97% of tree crops, 95% of shrubs and 82% of annual crops have disappeared since 2023. The water there is contaminated by munitions and wastewater, and 61 million tons of debris must be cleared.

Another example: Myanmar. “When the army attacked the Rohingya, it used the scorched earth policy to chase the populations and displace them”points out Doug Weir who nevertheless reminds that, “Most of the time, in many conflicts, environmental impact still remains incidental to broader military objectives.”

Impacts over decades

Whether deliberately targeted or “simple” collateral damage, the destruction of the environment generates long-term damage in the same way. “Polluted soil can sometimes be treated, washed or confined, but this decontamination is long, expensive and often partial. It does not clean itself spontaneously. As for the atmosphere, it does not make the pollutants disappear: it disperses them, transforms them or deposits them elsewhere”recalls Anne Sénéquier, researcher and co-director of the Iris Global Health Observatory, specializing in health and environment issues.

The pollution in the north of France from the First World War is still present today. The red zone – the name given to an area of ​​around 120,000 hectares of battlefield particularly affected by the after-effects of the fighting – is still polluted with heavy metals such as lead and mercury. A judged area “completely irrecoverable for agricultural activity”points out a document published in 2025 (nouvelle fenêtre) by the General Inspectorate of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

A scenario that could be repeated in Ukraine, whose trench warfare format is close to the First World War. “We have a very long front line which evolves slowly, with intensive use of explosive weaponswhich causes enormous damage to landscapes, nature reserves and protected areas”, pointe Doug Weir.

In the country, “There are some of the most fertile soils in Europe, but large areas have been damaged by war with contamination from heavy metals and explosives. Some may no longer be cultivable”, points out the CEOBS director.

New types of pollution are also emerging, notably with the increasing use of drones, particularly in the Ukrainian and Iranian conflicts. Exploding kamikaze drones cause significant soil contamination with nickel, lead, cadmium or heavy pollutants with the decomposition of their batteries.

Those with optical fiber cause extensive plastic pollution. “Tens of thousands of these devices are used every month, trailing behind them tens of kilometers of plastic fiber optic cables, covering front areas with pollution that will remain for years,” détaille Doug Weir.

The fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases

In addition to this pollution, conflicts also have an impact, this time global, on greenhouse gas emissions which fuel climate change. If military operations were a country, they would be the fourth largest transmitter in the world. And according to estimates, the world’s armed forces represent around 5.5% of emissions on Earth.

“In a world already constrained by planetary limitsenvironmental destruction linked to conflicts is an additional factor in global instability. (…) In this context, war appears more and more as a factor of ecological crisis in its own right.”says Anne Sénéquier for whom “at a time when we are debating the ecological and health responsibilities of the aviation, agricultural or road sectors, the environmental cost of conflicts and the persistent inability of our societies to resolve their differences other than through violence remain largely underestimated.”

Based on the war in Ukraine alone, it is estimated that greenhouse gas emissions over three years are equivalent to the annual emissions of France.

The ecology of war

But conflict can also have paradoxical effects. “For example, wars can lead to an increase in the price of a barrel of oil and therefore a drop in hydrocarbon consumption,” first emitters of greenhouse gases, points out Fabien Locher.

“Conflicts can influence energy policies. After Ukraine, some countries have returned to fossil fuels, but others have accelerated on renewables”underlines Doug Weir. An identical trend is emerging with the war in the Middle East.

In an interview given to Figaro (nouvelle fenêtre) At the beginning of April, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that the energy crisis linked to this conflict should ultimately accelerate the development of renewable energies. This is what we sometimes call “war ecology”.

Still, the concept is debated. For Fabien Locher, it is a “a somewhat optimistic idea which says that wars linked to hydrocarbons would push us towards the ecological transition and allow us to eliminate the vulnerabilities that we have”. More “war has complicated effects on the environment, some harmful, and some counterintuitive that are not easy to weigh”, tempère le spécialiste.

Read also

Soaring gas and oil prices: the discreet battle being played out in Brussels with Norway

The United States, for example, took advantage of the conflicts to relaunch the idea of ​​drilling for ever more oil and gas. (nouvelle fenêtre)under the leadership of Donald Trump. This also led to an intensification of the exploitation of shale gas – particularly costly for the environment – ​​to allow the country to be independent in terms of energy.

And the law in all this?

Faced with these data, the question of international law also arises. Could the environmental impacts of wars be subject to prosecution? It’s a bit complicated. If in theory the International Criminal Court (ICC) can judge crimes against the environment and ecology, the application is delicate in practice.

“International law is in pieces, the UN no longer really fulfills its role, and there does not really exist international justice, any body that can subject to sanctions a state that practices ecocide, even if it would be desirable,” points out Fabien Locher who already recalls the difficulty of condemning States for abuses committed against populations.

Last November, Charles C. Jalloh, member of the International Law Commission, estimated that if the Geneva Conventions prohibit wars “causing widespread, lasting and serious damage to the environment”, the threshold of proof remains “too high and too imprecise to be applied in most cases.”

Yet this data could be crucial as the world faces a quadruple planetary crisis: climate change, loss of biodiversity, desertification and pollution. 

“The attack on the environment has always been a weapon of war with the scorched earth policy, but it is gaining in scale because we are no longer just burning a valley, we have the possibility of impacting entire regions with much greater effects on a much more vulnerable environment,” points out Anne Sénéquier for whom “Armed conflicts can act as accelerators of environmental degradation”.