The War That Fights Climate Goals with Missiles

Minh Anh Hoang

Trade Union University, Hanoi, Vietnam

*Contact: anhhm@dhcd.edu.vn

01-06-2026

© Jeff Kingma

For years, governments around the world have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, slow climate change, and build a safer future. International summits gather leaders to negotiate carbon targets. Scientists warn about shrinking carbon budgets. Citizens are encouraged to recycle, conserve energy, and reduce their environmental footprints.

Then a war begins.

According to a recent analysis by researchers at the Climate and Community Institute, the first two weeks of the 2026 conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran generated nearly 5.6 million tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If emissions continued at that pace for a full year, they would rival the combined annual emissions of the world’s 84 lowest-emitting countries (Bigger et al., 2026). In just fourteen days, the conflict produced more greenhouse gases than Iceland emits in an entire year (Otu-Larbi et al., 2026).

At first glance, the emissions seem to come from obvious sources: fighter jets, bombers, missiles, warships, and military logistics. Yet the largest contributor was not combat itself. It was destruction.

Thousands of homes, schools, hospitals, and commercial buildings were damaged or destroyed. Once the fighting ends, debris must be cleared and infrastructure rebuilt. Concrete must be produced. Steel must be manufactured. Construction equipment must operate. The researchers estimated that rebuilding alone could account for approximately 2.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to the Maldives’ annual emissions (Pare, 2026).

The second-largest source came from attacks on oil infrastructure. Exploding storage facilities, refineries, and tankers released greenhouse gases equivalent to the annual emissions of Malta.

One refinery attack also produced another environmental shock. Satellite observations revealed that fires at several Iranian oil facilities released approximately 33,000 tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere in one day (Yin et al., 2026). The emission was even greater than Iceland's 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption which released around 22,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in three-day period. The resulting pollution plume traveled thousands of kilometers, reaching as far as East Asia. Some residents near the affected areas reported headaches, respiratory problems, eye irritation, and a bitter taste in the mouth. Sulfur dioxide is a major contributor to acid rain, which can damage ecosystems, soils, and waterways.

Despite the devastating consequences that war inflicts on Earth's ecosystems, its environmental costs are often treated as little more than side effects. Yet this framing conceals a profound absurdity.

Imagine a village worried that its water reservoir is running dry. The villagers gather daily to discuss conservation strategies. They install efficient pumps, carefully monitor consumption, and celebrate every liter saved. Then, during an argument, they begin smashing holes in the reservoir walls. The villagers continue discussing water conservation while water pours away faster than any conservation measure could possibly recover.

The scenario sounds ridiculous. Yet something remarkably similar occurs when nations invest heavily in climate mitigation and environmental protection while simultaneously engaging in ecocide activities (Vuong, 2025; Khuc & Nguyen, 2026).

The absurdity becomes even more striking when considering the purpose of war itself. Wars are often justified as efforts to secure safety, stability, prosperity, or national survival. Yet climate change and ecosystem degradation increasingly threaten all of these goals. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, food insecurity, water scarcity, and ecosystem collapse are themselves major sources of future instability.

This does not mean that geopolitical conflicts have simple solutions. Security concerns are real, and nations often face difficult choices under conditions of uncertainty. However, the climate consequences of warfare reveal an uncomfortable reality: environmental damage is not merely collateral damage but a long-term legacy.

The missiles may eventually stop flying. The carbon dioxide, however, will remain in the atmosphere for generations. A war lasting only weeks can leave environmental consequences that outlive the people who fought it.

Then, how can humanity address an ever-worsening ecological crisis?

Perhaps, through the very technological might that has enabled the creation of increasingly powerful bombs, missiles, and weapons? (Nguyen, 2026)

References

Berdugo, S. (2026, May 28). A single day of attacks on Iranian oil refineries released as much sulfur dioxide as a volcanic eruption. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/a-single-day-of-attacks-on-iranian-oil-refineries-released-as-much-sulfur-dioxide-as-a-volcanic-eruption

Bigger, P., Neimark, B., & Otu-Larbi, F. (2026). Two weeks of war in Iran unleashed more carbon pollution than Iceland does in a year. Climate and Community Institute. https://climateandcommunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Research-Snapshot_Iran-Emissions-Methodology.pdf

Khuc, V. Q., & Nguyen, M. H. (2026). Cultural Additivity Theory. Available at SSRN 6767760. https://ssrn.com/abstract=6767760 

Nguyen, M.-H. (2026). Ayn Rand and Kingfisher on zero-carbon bombs and a sustainable future. Visions for Sustainability, 25(13474), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/13474  

Otu-Larbi, F., Bigger, P., & Neimark, B. (2026, March 21). Two weeks of war in Iran unleashed more carbon pollution than Iceland does in a year. https://climatecommunityinstitute.substack.com/p/iran-war-pollution

Pare, S. (2026, March 24). Iran war has already released a staggering amount of CO2 — and the destruction of schools, homes and buildings is the biggest source. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/iran-war-has-already-released-a-staggering-amount-of-co2-and-the-destruction-of-schools-homes-and-buildings-is-the-biggest-source

Vuong, Q. H. (2025). Wild Wise Weird. AISDL. https://books.google.com/books?id=C5dDEQAAQBAJ

Yin, Z., et al. (2026). Analysis of SO2 Emissions and Dispersion from the Fire at the Oil Storage and Refining Plant in Tehran, Iran, in March 2026. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-026-6252-9