Connect with us

Published

on

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.

    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

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

    Published

    on

    The world saw the lowest amount of new coal mine capacity brought online for at least 10 years in 2025, according to a new report, as clean energy displaces coal for electricity generation in East Asia.

    A report by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) found that new coal mine capacity declined by nearly 40% from 2024, the second consecutive year new mine capacity has hit a decade low. This represents an acceleration of a steady decline that began in 2019.

    The slowdown in new coal mine openings was driven by China and Australia, where new additions fell by 44% and 96%, respectively. In China, the report said this was partly due to solar and wind displacing coal for electricity generation – although coal rebounded in the first half of 2026 – and the National Energy Administration implementing new rules to curb new mine openings.

    In Australia, a 96% reduction in new coal mine capacity was driven by shrinking demand from the countries that import Australian coal for electricity, like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the report said.

    This trend is likely to continue, according to GEM, as the Australian state of New South Wales recently banned new coal mines on undeveloped greenfield land. South Korea has promised to stop building coal-fired power plants that cannot capture and store the emissions produced. Meanwhile, Japan is pushing for a post-Fukushima nuclear revival to displace coal.

    This Australian coal community is co-designing its own green future

    Globally, growth in coal demand has slowed over the last few years and the International Energy Agency expects it to plateau through to 2030 because of the growth of renewable energy, nuclear and fossil gas.

    Openings down, pipeline up

    But while new coal mine openings fell, the amount of global coal mine capacity proposed increased by 11%. This was almost entirely driven by a spate of projects in the eastern Indian states of Jharkhand and Odisha.

    “If built,” the GEM report says, “the projects would commit India – a country with no formal coal phaseout timeline – to years of coal expansion and would put a 1.5C-aligned transition away from fossil fuels farther out of reach”.

    The Indian government says it needs to increase coal production to meet growing electricity demand from economic growth and from dealing with heatwaves. It plans to open more than 20 new coal mines to meet its coal production targets.

    Because of energy security concerns, India is also aiming to produce chemicals with Indian coal rather than imported gas. China is also pursuing this strategy, although the Global Energy Monitor report said that Indian coal’s high ash content means the South Asian nation will find it harder to make chemicals from coal.

      Nations agreed at COP26 five years ago to “phase down” coal power – a commitment that China and India successfully pushed to weaken from “phase out”. At COP28 in 2023, governments agreed to transition away from all fossil fuels in energy systems.

      Since then, wealthy nations have partnered with coal-producing countries like South Africa, Vietnam and Indonesia on plans to transition from coal to clean energy. But, after preliminary talks, India and these governments did not agree a JETP.

      The post New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus appeared first on Climate Home News.

      New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      The Stakes for the ISA and Deep Sea Mining for 2026 and Beyond

      Published

      on

      An unprecedented territory grab for extraction

      Deep sea mining is a speculative industry. Everywhere it has tried to launch, it has failed. From Norway to New Zealand, efforts to exploit the seabed have crashed into a wall of opposition: legal challenges, parliamentary blocks, and fierce resistance from local communities, scientists, the fishing industry, and environmental groups. The world is not waiting for deep sea mining; it is actively mobilising against it.

      From left: Solomon “Uncle Sol” Kaho`ohalahala, Kanaka Maoli cultural practitioner and Indigenous Knowledge Keeper,
Kanaka Maoli mural artist, Kaiʻili Kaulukukui
Brittany Lehua Kamai, Kanaka Maoli Ph.D., Astrophysicist, apprentice navigator, and ocean advocate (Mana Moana Institute) 
Edwin “Ekolu” Lindsey III, Director & Co-Founder, Maui Nui Makai Network


Kanaka Maoli artist Kaiʻili Kaulukukui, Native Hawaiian leaders, and cultural practitioners dedicate a 6,500-square-foot mural in Kapālama Kai on Oʻahu inspired by the Kumulipo, the Hawaiian genealogical creation chant. The artwork reflects Native Hawaiian relationships with the ocean and comes as Indigenous leaders across the Pacific call for greater representation in decisions about ocean protection and deep sea mining.
      © Marco Garcia / Greenpeace

      As scientists increasingly warn of potentially irreversible ecological destruction to the planet’s last pristine wilderness, independent financial audits have exposed the industry’s underlying economic model as it underestimates its own financial and legal risks. A powerful coalition of over 43 governments, Indigenous activists, hundreds of scientists, and corporate giants, from the fishing industry to major automakers, has formed a global line of defence to keep the deep ocean off-limits to mining.

      Greenpeace International activists protest against deep sea mining company Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR), a subsidiary of the Belgian company DEME, in the Pacific Ocean. 
The activists deploy a flying banner reading “Stop Deep Sea Mining!” from an inflatable boat.  The banner  is displayed in front of the ship Normand Energy, chartered by GSR, while the Patania II nodule collector is deployed. The company is currently testing mining gear roughly 1,000 nautical miles off Mexico’s west coast in the Clarion Clipperton Zone – with the aim of future commercial extraction of minerals from the seabed. This new industry could cause devastating effects on the environment and people, including the livelihoods of Pacific island and coastal communities. 

The Rainbow Warrior is in the Pacific to bear witness to the  deep sea mining industry. Part of the ongoing 'Protect the Oceans' campaign.
      © Marten van Dijl / Greenpeace

      Major global banks such as BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and the Asian Development Bank have refused to finance these projects. Faced with international deadlock and financial stress, key players in an increasingly desperate industry have abandoned multilateral diplomacy. Instead, they have pivoted to a dangerous geopolitical gamble: teaming up with the Trump administration to unilaterally claim the global commons in blatant defiance of international law.

      Ahead of the upcoming meeting of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), Greenpeace Mexico issued a strong call to participating nations, including Mexico, not to yield to unilateral pressure and not to allow the United States (U.S.) government, led by Donald Trump, to authorize undersea mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), violating international agreements and jeopardizing the region’s marine biodiversity.                 
From Santiago Beach in Manzanillo, Colima, the organization unfurled a massive underwater image on the  sea depicting the face of Donald Trump, representing the main “sea monster” that stalks the oceans,  “thirsty” to extract minerals from the seabed for economic gain, despite the existing global restrictions and the irreversible, long-term environmental costs  that such mining would entail.
      © Greenpeace

      A unilateral power grab

      Deep sea mining isn’t just an environmental disaster, it is a unilateral power grab disguised as a resource war, and a modern iteration of colonial history in the Pacific. For centuries, Western empires exploited Pacific nations; today, Global North corporations are attempting a new wave of “blue colonisation.” By treating the Pacific Ocean as an empty warehouse of commodities, tech ventures are undermining the sovereign rights, cultural heritage, and birthright guardianship of Indigenous Pacific peoples who have protected and been sustained by these waters for generations.

      Victor Pickering, a Greenpeace International activist from Fiji  displays a banner reading “Our Pacific Is Not Yours To Destroy” in front of the Maersk Launcher, a ship chartered by DeepGreen, one of the companies spearheading the drive to mine the barely understood deep sea ecosystem.

The Rainbow Warrior is in the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific to bear witness to the deep sea mining industry. Part of the ongoing 'Protect the Oceans' campaign.
      © Marten van Dijl / Greenpeace

      Time and time again we’ve been reminded that decisions are already being made about us, without us. It’s a never-ending pattern of colonial oppression and extraction… The people of Guam [are] not asking or slow progress. They are asking not to be sacrificed.

      Sheila Babauta (Northern Marianas) / Delegate James Moylan (Guam)

      But the rush by global superpowers and corporations to seize deep sea minerals has become a critical catalyst for unity across the Pacific. While a few states (such as Nauru, Cook Islands, and Tonga) sponsor exploration contracts, a powerful regional front is forming to resist what local leaders and Indigenous advocates describe as a new wave of resource exploitation.

      Key Priorities for the July 2026 ISA Session

      The July International Seabed Authority (ISA) Council session represented a critical crossroads for the protection of our global commons. This gathering offered a pivotal opportunity for responsible governments to wrestle control of the timeline away from commercial actors, reject corporate bullying, and prioritise precaution for the common good. Fast- tracking the Mining Code is not a neutral administrative step; it is a monumental, irreversible trigger that opens the floodgates to commercial exploitation. The only way to finalise these regulations this year would be for governments to abandon their legal obligations to protect the marine environment and deny safeguarding global equity. Rushing this process would permanently erode multilateral norms and inadvertently validate lax, unilateral mining pathways.

      Governments have the opportunity and tools to diffuse this threat and demonstrate global cooperation for the common good at the International Seabed Authority.

      • Governments have the tools to create major barriers to unlawful mining efforts and defend this global commons. The legal obligations of 170+ governments to constrain any companies or nationals from participating in unlawful deep sea mining are clear. This provides the opportunity to shut off access to personnel, offshore engineering, ports, financing, processing, refining, and markets for unlawful mining. A recent legal opinion concludes that Allseas’ May 2026 contract to operate deep sea mining machinery for The Metals Company under unilateral U.S. authorisation triggered the obligation under international and Dutch law for the Dutch government to intervene against this corporate violation.123 Failing to do so would constitute a breach of its binding obligations under UNCLOS.
      • Unless the ITLOS Seabed Disputes Chamber decides to order a suspension of the ISA’s inquiry into any contractors involved in unilateral mining, the ISA’s advisory commission and governments should conclude the ISA inquiry into whether any contractors are supporting unilateral efforts, and support punitive consequences for any companies breaching their obligations. It would be untenable for contractors to retain internationally legitimate rights to exploration while simultaneously participating in a violation of international law.
      • This common ground across delegations is that the international community does not want mining to start right now, and is not ready to adopt a Mining Code that would open the gates to exploitation applications. Governments can join the 43-strong coalition calling for a moratorium, and show their support for the centrality of science-based decision-making at the Assembly by supporting a resolution tabled by Vanuatu.
      • The ISA Council is due to establish a roadmap for the next phase of its work. Progressive governments must stand united to ensure this decision formalises strong pre-conditions before any mining can begin – including having enough scientific knowledge to make informed decisions. Adopting flawed, premature regulations will not stop unilateralism; it will only legitimise bad faith action. Rushing to adopt weak regulations means falling into a trap set by corporate actors who are trying to make a mockery of international law. Whereas agreeing a clear set of conditions for international approval of mining would help the ISA to shield itself from receiving commercial mining applications submitted under false expectations of the Mining Code being ready for adoption.

      A line in the sand

      As geopolitical tensions rise and the erosion of international norms by a few rogue actors breeds global instability, it is vital that governments act decisively to safeguard the collective interest. There is no better place to demonstrate the power of international cooperation than over the high seas, the waters that connect all continents. This collective strength is already proven, buoyed by the historic success story of the Global Ocean Treaty dedicated to protection, which triumphantly entered into force in January 2026.

      The biggest threat to our oceans is not industrial fisheries or deep sea mining machines. It is the infection of doom and gloom that fools us into thinking we are powerless to stop things from getting worse.

      But people power and international cooperation are showing their resilience. Despite intense corporate headwinds, the Global Ocean Treaty is now law, and deep sea mining has been successfully held back from the Arctic to the Pacific. We can win big together—even in the toughest of times.

      Cook Island activists peacefully confront the Nautilus at Rarotonga port as it returns from a 21-day deep sea exploration expedition visiting sites in the mineral exploration areas licensed by the Cook Islands authorities, who are consistently supporting the development of deep sea mining.
      © Robin Hammond / Greenpeace

      As Greenpeace, we know we can win historic victories for the oceans. People before us in our movement had a harder time and they fought – and won. Putting Antarctica off-limits to mining and drilling during the Cold War.

      Stopping deep sea mining through international agreement can signal a shift. It builds on the growing momentum that when Indigenous peoples are included and involved in decision-making, nature and the life-support system it provides for us all win. It’s a site battle where we can agree to limit private greed for the common good.

      Governments who believe in the importance of international cooperation, the rule of law and science need to stand up and make progress where they can.

      The threat of deep sea mining represents a new potential source of conflict over minerals, environmental degradation, and unilateral efforts to seize resources and territories in breach of international law. This is the last thing the world needs right now.


      Published by Greenpeace International, July 2026

      The Stakes for the ISA and Deep Sea Mining for 2026 and Beyond

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia?

      Published

      on

      Starting on Monday, about 10,000 government negotiators, scientists, journalists and campaigners will gather at a purpose-built venue in a national park in Mongolia’s capital Ulaanbaatar to discuss how to stop land turning into desert as the world warms.

      Drought is currently sweeping much of the Northern hemisphere, leaving normally green urban parks looking like dry savannah, causing crops to fail, food prices to rise and billions to be shaved off economic output.

      On Wednesday, Britain’s prime minister chaired an emergency meeting of the government’s Cobra committee. These are usually reserved for wars, terrorist attacks, riots and pandemics – but this one was on the extreme heat and drought the UK has been suffering since May. 

      With many countries facing far worse with fewer resources than the UK, the issues to be discussed at the UN’s COP17 summit in Mongolia – often overlooked – should be nearer the top of policy-makers minds.

      But what is COP17?  What will be decided and announced there over the next two weeks? How does it relate to climate change and how will it help restore the lands on which we all rely for our food, water and other essential resources? Climate Home News explains all below.

      What is COP17?

      It is the conference of parties (COP) to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The parties are 196 governments, which includes all of the countries recognised by the UN.

      The convention was conceived at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, at the same time as the other two larger “Rio trio” conventions on climate and biodiversity. 

      While the climate convention’s COP takes place every year, the UNCCD COP happens only once every two years. COP17 will be its seventeenth gathering.

      Negotiators at COP16 in Riyadh (Photo: IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou)

      What is desertification?

      It is the process by which land degrades and becomes more like a desert, making it harder – and sometimes impossible – to grow crops or graze livestock there.

      Climate change and other human activities – like excessive irrigation which depletes ground water – are making this process worse, causing poverty, hunger, health problems, forced migration and loss of species.

      It’s a widespread problem. The UN estimates that half a billion people live within areas that have experienced desertification since the 1980s and that two-fifths of the world’s land is degraded.

      What has it got to do with climate change?

      The planet’s climate is heating up, mainly due to humans burning fossil fuels, and drying out its land. This kills plants and exposes the soil which can then be blown away by wind and washed away by water.

      Without a top layer of soil, plants struggle to grow again and the land gets closer to being a desert. So combating desertification is a way of adapting to climate change.

      It is also a way of lessening the pace of climate change, as land degradation releases carbon dioxide previously stored in healthy soils and plants.

      What will be negotiated at COP17?

      The main issue is what form a new initiative to tackle drought could take. The last COP saw Africa push hard for this to be a protocol – a kind of binding sub-treaty to the UNCCD.

      But the US, Europe, Argentina and others argued that would take too long to set up, cost too much and take money away from what can be spent on the ground. They prefer a legally weaker alternative – a framework instead of a protocol. 

      Negotiations went late into the last night of talks in Riyadh, with the Saudis hosting informal consultations, but eventually governments had to agree to disagree and pick up talks again in Ulaanbaatar. 

      As Earth dries out, countries fail to reach drought agreement

      Governments will also negotiate a new policy on protecting rangelands and pastoralists from degradation. Rangelands are areas where animals graze. They cover around half the Earth’s land and include almost everything other than forest, deserts, farms, glaciers and cities. Pastoralists are people who herd animals on these rangelands, often moving from place to place to find fresh pasture. 

      COP17 host country Mongolia has a lot of both – and pushed successfully for the UN to declare 2026 the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists. It is keen to agree a decision at COP17 bringing those issues more to the forefront of the UNCCD.

      Negotiators will also debate the UNCCD’s post-2030 strategic framework, which they hope to adopt at COP18 in 2028. Campaign groups like the World Wildlife Fund want a stronger focus on biodiversity and nature-positive food systems.

      What will happen when?

      The COP will formally open with a ceremony on Monday August 17, followed by opening statements by governments and the adoption of the agenda.

      Negotiations will begin, mostly behind closed doors for two weeks until the closing plenaries on Friday August 28.

      While talks rumble on in the background, the second week will see senior government representatives including ministers get involved, with a “high-level segment” running from August 24-26.

      A delegate at COP16 in Riyadh (Photo: IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou)

      They will discuss issues like drought resilience, finance and pastoralist communities. This is likely to be when any announcements – of new funding, for instance – are made.

      On Monday August 24, there will also be an open dialogue between government officials and civil society members. Here, local practitioners are likely to share stories of how they are helping their communities reverse land degradation. UNCCD prides itself on being a bottom-up convention.

      Unlike climate COPs, which often end a day or two over time, UNCCD COPs usually finish on the evening of their last day and – while they have gone late into the night – have never run into the next day.

      What else should we watch out for?

      At the last COP two years ago, host Saudi Arabia led the creation of an initiative called the Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership to help 80 of the poorest nations deal with drought.

      It received $12 billion in pledges, mainly from Gulf-based development finance institutions. Saudi Arabia is expected to report back on whether these pledges have been delivered and how the money will reach those in need now.

      There are also hopes that governments will announce financial support for Mongolia’s Rangelands Flagship Initiative, which aims to mobilise investment in projects to fight land degradation.

      Who will preside over COP17?

      While the last five and the next two climate COPs have been or will be presided over by men, COP17 will be woman-led with Mongolia’s foreign minister, Battsetseg Batmunkh, as president.

      Mongolia’s foreign minister and COP17 president Battsetseg Batmunkh (Photo: Uugansukh Byamba)

      This will also be the first COP for the UNCCD’s new executive director Yasmin Fouad. Before being appointed environment minister in her native Egypt, Fouad was a scientist and lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on desertification. She played a key role at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt in 2022.

      Although Saudi Arabia’s UNCCD COP presidency is ending, the Gulf power house will likely continue to be influential. It has supported the COP financially as part of the Riyadh-Ulaanbaatar action agenda and will be following up on initiatives announced two years ago.

      While Saudi Arabia is often blamed for obstructing progress at climate talks, as a desert nation it is generally thought to have played a constructive role at UNCCD COPs.

      What are the negotiating dynamics?

      The UNCCD has six main negotiating groups: Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Northern Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe, and developed donor countries. Governments can also speak in their own capacities.

      While divisions between the Global North and Global South do exist at UNCCD COPs, they are not as stark as at climate COPs. The Global South’s umbrella group – the G77 and China – usually only speaks on finance issues, on which developing countries tend to be united.

        Civil society groups are present but not as vocal or as confrontational as at climate COPs. There are generally no protests and campaigners tend to try to hold governments accountable more quietly. There are likely to be far fewer journalists than at climate COPs too.

        What role will the US play?

        While the US has left the UN’s climate convention, it remains in the UNCCD and is expected to bring a delegation of officials from its departments of agriculture and state. It is likely to resist any renewed push from Africa for a drought protocol.

        The post Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia? appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia?

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com