Dr Laura-Jane Nolan is a carbon consultant and operations director at BOM Systems.
War leaves destruction in its wake – cities levelled, economies disrupted, lives lost. But another cost rarely enters the conversation: carbon emissions.
As the conflict in the Middle East grinds on, the world’s attention remains fixed on geopolitics and the loss of life and infrastructure. Yet the climate impact of modern warfare is largely invisible in both reporting and policy.
Using UK government greenhouse gas accounting frameworks and publicly available expenditure data, it is possible to estimate the emissions generated and the far larger footprint likely to follow during reconstruction.
Iran war could boost fossil fuel phase-out push, says Colombian minister
According to researchers at Queen Mary University of London, in just the first 14 days, US-Israeli war with Iran generated more than 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). While this represents only part of the total, it provides a rare, quantified entry point into the scale of the environmental damage caused so far.
Let’s be clear, direct measurement is not simple. Military fuel use, logistics and procurement data are rarely disclosed in detail. Researchers therefore rely on spend-based estimates, that is, the amount of CO2 equivalent per pound or dollar spent.
Post-conflict reconstruction
According to Reuters, the United States alone spent at least $11.3 billion (around £8.5 billion) in the first six days of the conflict. Using a conservative estimate of around 0.4 kg CO₂e per pound spent, the first six days of documented operations correspond to roughly 3.4 million tonnes of CO₂e.
After another week of conflict, the conservative estimate of over 5 million tonnes of CO₂e is not a small amount of greenhouse gases. It is roughly equivalent to 1.1 million cars driven for a year – all the cars in a large European city. It is also comparable to a million transatlantic flights.
If this seems shocking, these estimates likely underplay the situation. We haven’t considered the rebuilding of the destroyed buildings and infrastructure yet. Evidence from past conflicts shows that emissions from rebuilding, through cement, steel, asphalt and heavy machinery, can exceed those generated during active combat.
UK government data indicates that every £1 billion spent on construction generates approximately 250,000 to 350,000 tonnes of CO₂e, before accounting for debris clearance and supply-chain disruption.
In policy terms, this should prompt critical questions about how reconstruction should be financed and delivered, as investing in the green economy for new infrastructure will positively shape long-term emissions trajectories. Rebuilding antiquated infrastructure will be good money thrown after bad.
Gap in climate policy governance
Despite this, the climate cost of war remains largely absent from international frameworks. A loophole in the Kyoto Protocol even allowed countries to exclude military emissions from their national reporting. While the Paris Agreement removed Kyoto’s limited, sector-specific reporting rules and its focus on only developed countries – which had enabled greenhouse gases from overseas military activity to be kept out of the equation – military emissions are still inconsistently reported and rarely disaggregated.
This creates a gap in climate governance at precisely the historical moment when the climate system is shifting from predictable, linear change to a regime in which self-reinforcing, potentially irreversible changes will likely occur.
-
Nigerians bet on solar as global oil shock hits wallets and power supplies
Fed up with an increase in outages and surging fuel prices, a growing number of homes and businesses are ditching their backup generators for solar systems -
Nepal’s EV revolution pays off as oil crisis causes pain at the pumps
Import subsidies, abundant hydropower and charging investments have spurred EV adoption, with electric vehicles now making up about three-quarters of new car sales
Systematic carbon accounting for conflict and reconstruction using internationally agreed-upon frameworks such as ISO 14064-1 could set a new precedent for environmental accountability. Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the United Nations Compensation Commission awarded billions of dollars for environmental damage, including oil fires and ecosystem loss. Carbon accounting could support post-conflict environmental assessments and contribute to just liability frameworks and reparations.
Assessing infrastructure finance
International institutions are already moving in this direction. Multilateral development banks increasingly apply climate conditions to infrastructure finance, and post-conflict reconstruction funding could follow similar principles. Embedding emissions accounting into these processes would align recovery efforts with existing climate commitments.
The economic case is also completely clear for most people. The £8.5 billion spent in the first six days of the Iran conflict could have financed large-scale clean energy deployment, solar, wind, electrified heating and transport, delivering long-term returns, reducing fossil fuel dependence and strengthening energy security.
Major oil producers among 46 nations joining fossil fuel phase-out summit
Unlike military expenditure, these investments generate ongoing economic value. Yet the absence of systematic accounting for all aspects of war means these trade-offs remain largely invisible to policymakers, markets and the public.
As debates grow around recognising ecocide as a crime under international law, the legal and institutional frameworks for addressing environmental harm are evolving. Integrating carbon accounting into conflict and reconstruction processes would be a pragmatic next step, reflecting both climate realities and existing policy trends.
The climate cost of war is not hypothetical. It is measurable, material and increasingly unavoidable. The question is whether it will continue to be ignored.
The post Carbon accounting can help tackle the hidden emissions of war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Carbon accounting can help tackle the hidden emissions of war
Nitrates, largely from agricultural runoff, are linked to cancers and birth defects. Research says areas with factory farms have higher levels of risk.
Close to 20 percent of Americans are exposed to water polluted with high levels of potentially cancer-causing nitrates, known to come mostly from agricultural runoff, according to new research published this month.
Nearly One-Fifth of Americans Are Consuming Water With High Levels of Nitrates
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Watch the hearing:
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
WATCH: ‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry
SYDNEY, Wednesday 22 April 2026 — A settlement has been agreed in a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace Australia Pacific against fossil fuel multinational Woodside, being heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific filed the lawsuit against Woodside in December 2023, alleging the fossil fuel giant had misrepresented both its prior emissions reductions, and its emissions reductions targets for 2025, 2030, and 2050.
Greenpeace alleged, among other things, that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets will achieve substantial reductions in its actual scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, when in fact Woodside will rely heavily on offsets to achieve a decrease in net emissions.
Greenpeace also alleged that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets are consistent with what the most recent climate science sets out as necessary to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement when in fact Woodside’s emissions reduction targets do not include Woodside’s scope 3 emissions (which account for over 90% of Woodside’s emissions) and Woodside has plans to significantly expand its oil and gas production and processing and thereby the sum of its actual scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions would not materially decrease by 2030 and may increase past 2030.
Greenpeace filed expert evidence which it alleges supported its claim and demonstrated why Woodside’s claims were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
Woodside has since changed how it represents its strategy to respond to climate change. For example, initially, Woodside displayed a ‘Net zero by 2050 or sooner’ banner on its website, but around July 2025, Woodside removed the banner from its website.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific cares about transparent and accurate climate disclosures, and in December 2023, took Woodside to court challenging its claims.
“During the course of the case, Woodside changed how it was presenting its plans on carbon emissions from what they had said prior to us bringing this case. We take that as a win and have decided to continue the fight against fossil fuel corporations outside of the courts.
“Settling this case does not signal the end of our fight against Woodside’s climate and nature-destroying gas projects. While we may have agreed to resolve our court action against Woodside, in which we alleged it made misleading and deceptive claims to investors regarding its climate plans, the fact is the court of public opinion will judge Woodside for the harm it inflicts on our climate.
“Woodside’s greed-driven appetite to expand fossil fuel production is accelerating the climate crisis, putting the environment and communities at risk.
“Greenpeace strongly supports public interest litigation as a crucial tool in democratic engagement to protect our planet and holding large corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change.
“Investors and the public deserve accurate information about a company’s true climate impact and strategy, especially when those strategies are presented as ‘Paris-aligned’ — an absurd claim for a company responsible for one of the largest LNG export terminals in Australia, and now the United States.
“The expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with a 1.5C-aligned world — Greenpeace will continue to campaign to fast-track the transition to homegrown, clean, affordable wind and solar energy, the only solution to the energy crisis we are currently all facing globally.”
Greenpeace and Woodside agreed for the proceeding to be dismissed on the basis that each party bears its own costs.
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Kimberley Bernard on 0407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
Greenpeace Australia Pacific settles in lawsuit against Woodside
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits