October 1, 2025 • 30 mins
Every day we see more devastating news coming out of on the wars in Gaza and the Ukraine. We see photos of cities and towns turned into piles of rubble and people who have lost their loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods.
But there are other insidious ramifications of these wars that we seldom discuss. And those are the effects on the environment. To discuss this, ellie Kinney joins us this week from the UK based organization, conflict and Environment Observatory. This organization was launched in 2018 with the primary goal of increasing awareness and understanding of the environmental and derived humanitarian consequences of conflicts and military activities.
Listen on Apple , Spotify, our website, or pretty much anywhere you listen to podcasts!
I'd like to thank our sponsors:
Gulf of Maine Research Institute and Bold Ocean Ventures have partnered to create a mission-driven venture capital fund, supporting the growth of innovative, sustainable ocean-related businesses.
Startup Marin Skincare has rocketed thanks to products made with Maine-lobster-derived glycoprotein that work on eczema and dry skin. Former guest on our show and co-Founder Patrick Breeding is offering listeners a 20% discount on their skincare products. Type HAPPYPLANET into the coupon code field!
Spark No. 9, ensures that companies - and startups - have successful product launches by testing their products online. Remove the guesswork before you launch!
Promotional and program partners include ...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Abigail (00:00):
Welcome to the podcast where we celebrate innovation
for a happy planet.
I am your host, Abigail Carroll.
Every day we see moredevastating news coming out of
on the wars in Gaza and theUkraine.
We see photos of cities andtowns turned into piles of
rubble and people who have losttheir loved ones, their homes
(00:20):
and their livelihoods.
But there are other insidiousramifications of these wars that
we seldom discuss.
And those are the effects on theenvironment.
To discuss this, ellie Kinneyjoins us this week from the UK
based organization, conflict andEnvironment Observatory.
This organization was launchedin 2018 with the primary goal of
(00:44):
increasing awareness andunderstanding of the
environmental and derivedhumanitarian consequences of
conflicts and militaryactivities.
Welcome to the podcast
Ellie (00:56):
and thank you so much for having me.
It's great to be here
Abigail (00:59):
I am delighted to have you here.
We have conflicts going on allover the world and some are
absolutely devastating.
And I am delighted to get intothis really heavy and
under-discussed topic of theclimate impacts of these global
conflicts.
(01:20):
So.
Tell me a little bit first aboutthe conflict and environment
observatory.
Ellie (01:25):
So we are an NGO a charity based in the UK in a
tiny little place called, whichis kind of between Manchester
and Leeds in the north ofEngland.
A really beautiful area.
And from our office we aim toprovide a voice for the
environment and everyone.
Who depends on it, all of uswhen it faces harm from armed
(01:48):
conflict and military activity.
So basically we look at the waythat war or military activity
impacts on the environment andthen we aim to do something
about that.
Abigail (02:01):
We hear about the human toll all the time.
We have all those stats fromWorld War I, world War ii, and
it, and it's very obvious to us.
While we're looking at sort ofmedia coming from Gaza or the
Ukraine why is it, that wehaven't been talking about the
environmental impact?
(02:22):
Why are we overlooking this?
Ellie (02:24):
I think, well, I think there's a few, there's a few
areas really.
I think when it comes to thekind of, there is the real human
horror.
Of, of a war that is kind of,it's what you see first and
foremost.
And it's the, you know, it's thepictures that you connect with
in the, in the news and thingslike that that really kind of
(02:45):
hammer home the, the atrocitiesthat are going on.
And I think it's that, thatpeople naturally connect to
first the real kind of immediatehumanitarian crisis.
But then I think there is, yeah,then there is this hole or the
picture going on.
And a lot of times it's just notvisible.
And I think part of that,something being less visible
(03:08):
makes it harder for people toconnect with and to kind of
think about it.
And if anything, theenvironmental damage that is
more visible, I think gets moreattention.
For example, like if you havelike.
Abigail (03:19):
Right.
Ellie (03:20):
Huge fires from from walls.
That's the kind of stuff thatyou might think of a bit more,
more obviously.
Whereas something like, like,like greenhouse gas emissions,
it's not particularly visible.
You're not really thinking aboutit.
But it's very much part of theimpact of a war.
And if anything, you know, itreally just adds to this
(03:41):
long-term humanitarian impact towhen you have these, these
lasting impacts to theenvironment and to the climate.
Abigail (03:50):
For sure.
So how do you measure this?
Ellie (03:53):
So when we think about the environmental impacts more
directly we have, I have a, a,you know, a team of.
Hugely intelligent colleagues ofmine who are able to, monitor
the environmental impact ofconflicts from our office in Roy
or from wherever they live.
They can use.
(04:13):
Open source intelligence,satellite imagery, remote
sensing technologies.
There's all sorts of very cleverthings that they do that mean
that they can monitor theenvironmental impact of a wall
from wherever they are.
So that's kind of the, theconflict monitoring side of
stuff from an environmentalperspective.
And then from, I guess like aclimate.
(04:35):
It's, trickier.
So because there is, I mean thekind of core fundamental thing
that we struggle with is thefact that there is very little
information out there aboutmilitary and conflict emissions
in terms of military emissions.
This, this is an issue kind ofdates back to.
(04:57):
When the Kyoto protocol wasbeing developed the US lobbied
for military emissions to beexempt from reporting and
successfully got that whichmeant that
Abigail (05:09):
We're always on the right side of these
Ellie (05:12):
somewhere, somewhere the US is lurking.
Yeah, so then that when it,when.
Fast forward a little bit to theParis Agreement, and this
wording changes from exempt tovoluntary.
So governments can, if they wantto give information, report
their military greenhouse gasemissions.
(05:32):
But we know if,
Abigail (05:34):
But then that adds up to that, that's added to their
general greenhouse emissions.
And then of course.
That could put them over theline or, you know, that could
make them non-compliant.
So why would
Ellie (05:46):
And if so, yeah, if it's voluntary.
They don't have to do it.
Or if they do do it, they don'thave to do it very well.
'cause no one's gonna tell themoff otherwise.
So yeah, if you can hide alittle bit of something from,
from your reporting, you know,you would do, or that's
definitely what happens.
The issue is it's not a littlebit of something, it's quite a
(06:08):
big bit of something.
So by our estimations, globalmilitaries are responsible for
5.5% of.
Global emissions, which is, Imean, to put that into
perspective, like civil aviationis what, like two and a half to
3%.
And we all kind of associateflying with being bad for the
(06:29):
environment and bad for theclimate.
We don't necessarily have thisassociation with militaries
because there is this data gap.
So.
Yeah.
When it comes to counting theclimate impact of conflicts and
militaries, but kind ofconflicts in particular, being a
little bit more creative aboutit is kind of, yeah, how we go
(06:49):
about it.
Abigail (06:53):
Well, it's fascinating.
You know, we're looking, youknow, I get to see these
pictures of, of.
From the Ukraine and Gaza and,you know, just fields and fields
of rubble.
And I think about the, theimpact.
Well, what was the CO2 emissionsto build all of that?
What is the CO2 emission ofdestroying all of that?
(07:17):
And what are, what are, what arethe impacts of having to
Ellie (07:20):
Complete.
Yeah, completely.
That is so much the,
Abigail (07:23):
it just seems unfathomable.
Ellie (07:27):
yeah, I mean, if we look at in particular, it's say.
Ukraine, so Russia's invasion ofUkraine.
I think this was kind of thefirst time that researchers had
set about estimating the climateimpact of a conflict in kind of
like, like a live ongoingconflict.
So.
The initiative of the greenhousegas accounting of war was set
(07:50):
up.
And they publish reports kind ofevery year, I think on the
anniversary.
So the last one there, by theirestimations, three years of
Russia's invasion of Ukraine hasresulted in the same amount of
greenhouse gas emissions ashaving 120 million fossil fuel
cars on the road every year.
(08:12):
These are huge and yeah, you'realso, you're looking at what the
costs are of destroying placesand then the necessary
rebuilding eventually, as wellas things like.
Fuel use for tanks and, and jetsand, and the kind of the things
that you might think of moreobviously.
And then, you think of placeslike Gaza and huge amounts of
(08:34):
destruction that's going onthere at the moment, which feel
this again, this kind of like, Ithink with conflict missions in
particular, it's just this real,like needless amount of
emissions.
There's no need to destroy theseareas.
Abigail (08:50):
Hmm.
Ellie (08:50):
To then, you know, have to rebuild them again.
So then you're grappling withreally large quantities of
emissions that realisticallyaren't the best way that we
should be spending our limitedcarbon budget at the moment.
Abigail (09:08):
So you create incredible data, incredible
research projects.
You, are demonstrating a realmassive global problem here.
Are there, are there tools inyour toolbox that you can use to
help remedy, help make change?
Ellie (09:24):
I think one of the.
Really key things I think aboutwhat we do is having this real
direct link from the researchthat we do and the research of
the partners that we workclosely with, and feeding this
directly into the advocacy thatwe work on.
So for example, our project, theMilitary Emissions Gap, we work
(09:47):
with a whole network ofacademics and experts in
different ways who pulltogether.
Bits of data and pull togetherestimations about militaries,
about conflicts, about trainingexercises, and they fill these
data gaps and then that directlyfeeds what I do.
(10:08):
Going to things like cop andclimate talks and talking to
policy policymakers about thechanges that need to happen.
Yeah.
And that's like, yeah, from theclimate side of things.
And you can apply a similarthing across all of Sea Os that
we see the destruction that isgoing on, and then specifically
(10:28):
try to change it to change thesituation.
So for example, we've beeninvolved in initiatives like the
Para Act principles, theprotection of the environment
and relations, armed conflicts,and the development of of.
Initiatives like that, that aredirectly fueled by the research
that, and the partners that wework with have been feeding in
Abigail (10:53):
can you tell me a little bit more about that?
What's
Ellie (10:55):
the peric principles, the protection of the environment in
relation to armed conflict.
Just basically, a set ofprinciples which aim to change
the conduct of wars in relationto how militaries operate during
wartime in a way that doesn'tnecessarily need to be as
destructive to the environmentas it currently is.
Abigail (11:19):
So you know, if armies would already apply the other
rules, that would be good.
So is it the UN that is that isaccepted the, the principles of
the,
Ellie (11:31):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I think it's, it's a, it's aUN initiative which has Yeah.
Been fed into by all sorts ofsort of civil society and
ourselves.
Yeah.
But yeah.
Then you do, oh, gone.
Abigail (11:42):
And are they different?
No.
Are they different if you'redefending yourself than they are
if you're on the attack?
Or is it basically everybody'smeant to follow the same,
Ellie (11:52):
That's a good question.
I dunno to what extent it doesseparate defense and attack, but
I think it, it's just kind oflargely like the best practice
things that, that we follow.
But yeah, I suppose if you lookat the way that wars are kind of
a few key large scale wars atthe moment.
You might have set out things ininternational humanitarian law
(12:12):
that are aimed to keepconflicts.
With limited interruption oflimited harm to civilians, but
that really does require statesto follow those initiatives.
Abigail (12:26):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So.
We've got the immediate toll ofthese conflicts, but they have
long lasting ramifications.
So you've got a big, a big, youknow, upset.
But are there, are there thingsthat we should be keeping in
mind about the longer termimplications other than just
(12:49):
having to rebuild the longerterm environmental.
Implications of a conflict likeGaza or the
Ellie (12:57):
Yeah, I think part of the, the kind of research we
gather and yeah, others who, whowork on this sort of thing is
really key in being able tofacilitate, you know,
environmental remediation andfacilitate, kind of what happens
next.
Environmental damage doesn'tstop the, the second that the
fighting stops there are, likeyou say, lasting implications.
(13:19):
Those processes have to befacilitated by information.
You have to have people kind oflooking and knowing what's going
on there.
And I think that comes from areal mix of, of academics, of on
the ground expertise and of likecivil society organizations like
ourselves.
Abigail (13:36):
Yeah.
And then there's sort of theproblem of we've got the
buildings and everything fallapart, but there is a real toll
on just the destruction ofwildlife and, and ecosystems.
Ellie (13:50):
Yeah, massively.
I think, habitats that get tostart destroyed during wartime
the way that habitats arechanging because of climate
damage.
There's a whole chain of eventsand it's the things that aren't
always necessarily as thatvisible to us.
I mean, we've done this,colleagues of mine have done
research into the way that.
(14:10):
Excuse my cat.
She's, she's also verypassionate about this.
She is definitely the wild partof wildlife.
Yeah.
Colleagues of mine who've lookedat the way that conflicts impact
on, you know, like marine life.
There's all sorts of things thatwe might not think of just'cause
it's, it's not the kind ofvisible side of things.
Abigail (14:33):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So how did you get interested inthis subject?
Ellie (14:37):
My background was had been more around kind of nuclear
disarmament.
When I was a student, I was kindof just.
Began thinking about yeah,nuclear disarmament.
I've been thinking about thefact that so based in the uk we
are one of the very fewcountries in the UK that in the
world that have nuclear weapons.
And kind of, it's that thing.
(14:58):
You start to pull at a threadand, and you start to challenge
policies like that and you kindof just feel like it doesn't
really hold up against theethics and the morals that we
claim to have as a country.
And that kind of got me quitecurious about.
Yeah, I think the fact thatdefense policy does kind of get
a free pass because peoplearen't particularly comfortable
(15:22):
challenging it, you kind ofjust, you assume that the higher
powers than the government aredoing what, what's in your best
interest there?
But I think definitely lookingin UK history of the past sort
of 10, 20 years, I, I think thatthat hasn't always been the
case.
And I think it's that kind ofmilitary exceptionalism that
(15:42):
lends itself to situations likewe're in now where militaries do
not have to report theiremissions, and as a result, you
kind of have this whole sectoroperating kind of untracked.
Whilst in theory all the sectorsare really trying to, you know,
push forward.
Decarbonization climate actionis seen as a global thing, but
(16:03):
yet you have this sector that'sjust.
Doing its own thing.
Abigail (16:07):
mm.
Ellie (16:08):
And I think it's important that we're able to
kind of question and challenge,and that's how, you know, that's
how we make change.
Abigail (16:18):
So how long has this organization
Ellie (16:20):
So, yeah, the Conflicts Environment Observatory was set
up around 20 17 20 18.
So we are relatively, relativelynew.
But we are kind of built onprojects before roles like the
toxic remnants of war projectand things like that.
So it's not an entirely newarea, but it's definitely a kind
of really increasinglysnowballing area.
(16:42):
I think the invasion of Ukrainein particular marked a real
milestone in the, the way thatpeople started thinking and
talking about the environmentaland climate impacts of of wars.
And then that as I think, set aprecedent for how we talk about
other conflicts.
Yeah, that it's that we do takethese factors into consideration
(17:06):
still, maybe not as much as weshould, but still way more than
we did for other conflicts.
Abigail (17:13):
So.
You're in it, you have thisagenda, you're trying to push
it.
Where do you hope this ends?
What's the big dream if yourwork were having, if your
organization's work were havingthe impact that you hoped, what
would the end game of that be?
Ellie (17:30):
I think we kind of work on a few levels, I think.
So the military emissions gap,which is the project that I
coordinate, our kind of main aimwith that is that militaries
the.
Across the world should betransparent about the emissions
that they produce and that thatshould facilitate emissions
(17:54):
reductions in line with theParis Agreement, bringing
militaries into the scope as ofevery other sector where you
report your emissions and.
You reduce them in line with theParis Agreement in order for us
to secure this livable futurefor all in order for us to limit
warming to 1.5 degrees and, andnot go over that.
(18:16):
This is kind of, yeah, that'sthe, the, the aim of.
The military emissions gap.
But I think also what what youhave in the kind of broader
picture as well is the more thatyou recognize quite how
destructive wars are on aclimate and an environmental
level, the more that thishopefully facilitates and like
(18:38):
adds to the argument forconflict prevention as much as
possible, and the fact thatthere are so many reasons why.
Walls are damaging and beyondthe things that we might just
initially think of, andtherefore we, yeah, we just need
to have as much investment in,in conflict prevention, in peace
(18:58):
building as you know, a greenform of defense to protect our
futures.
Abigail (19:06):
Yeah.
Well, I hope I hope that works.
Are you, so on the, like, getback to the Ukraine, will you
continue to monitor the, youknow.
Should these wars ever end,would you, will you continue to
monitor the, the reconstructionand that global impact?
Ellie (19:28):
Yeah, I think it's an interesting one because we are a
relatively new organization.
And the invasion of Ukraine iskind of the first sort of time
that we seem to be following awar throughout its entirety that
for us it's, you know, where arewe, where are we useful?
At what point it's, you know,how are we supporting this?
(19:54):
Process of gathering informationthat's necessary.
So I think for as long as thatinformation continues to be
useful to facilitate greenrecovery in Ukraine then I will
continue to, to be here doingthat kind of thing.
It doesn't stop with, withUkraine, every war looks
different and has differentimpacts we don't, we don't have
(20:16):
the,
Abigail (20:16):
just wondering if it's like,
Ellie (20:19):
We would aim in an, in an ideal world where, I mean,
we're, we're a small team, we'rea small organization.
Ideal world, we would have theresources to be able to, to do
this with, with every, you know,lots of different conflicts and
the different forms that theytake.
Abigail (20:34):
Yeah.
Ellie (20:34):
So we'll see to what extent we,
Abigail (20:36):
But I think
Ellie (20:36):
huge organization and, and, and take over the world.
We'll see.
Abigail (20:41):
well, I certainly hope that's true.
But no, but I feel like it, itkind of.
Rings home that may be part ofreconstruction is rewilding.
You know, it's likereforestation.
Like there are, there are somany different parts of you
know, just looking at it throughthe lens of climate and the
(21:01):
environment just makes it soclear, not just the devastation,
but the other actions thatreally need to be taken to
restore.
This,
Ellie (21:15):
Yeah, definitely.
And I think there are, you know,there are examples where.
Conflicts have led to land beingused for purposes that are more
damaging to the environment thanthey may have been before.
Where land that maybe pripreviously had been kind of
agricultural or something likethat then gets turned into other
(21:37):
things.
And I think that's, yeah,there's a whole, there's a lot
that you have to be careful witharound, around that.
And there is, you know, I thinkif this, it's a long term.
Process of managing theenvironment and af after a
conflict.
If you think of, for example, touse Ukraine again, but there's
(21:58):
lots of different countrieswhere this is applicable.
The presence of landmines andunexploded ordinance after
conflict and the way that thatimpacts communities.
And it's an environmental riskthat has a real human risk.
So things like that and theamount of Ukraine that's mined,
but similarly across lots ofother conflicts where you've had
(22:19):
that real lasting impact.
Abigail (22:24):
And you're probably not gonna use that land for
agricultural purposes if there'shidden landmines.
Ellie (22:29):
Then it's a matter of, I know in Ukraine at the moment,
there's a lot of talk of how youclear, because Ukraine had such
a, an agricultural basedeconomy, how you clear landmines
you know, effectively to then beable to return that land back to
the communities.
And that kind of process is, isreally important, but it's also
really important that we do thatin a way that is protecting of
(22:51):
the environment and the climate.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, that would be the ideal.
Wouldn't but I think this isit's the importance of, of
working within multilateralprocesses.
Like I work on, on COP and, andthe UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
And, you know, differentcolleagues work on, you know,
the UN General Assembly.
And it's important that, I thinkthat the kind of, yeah, the, the
(23:15):
presence of.
People like Putin and othercurrent war mongers around
Netanyahu the importance ofreally bolstering multilateral
systems and really kind ofbolstering these international
norms is, is so crucial to,yeah, to ensure these other, you
(23:38):
know, these are anomalies ratherthan the norm.
Abigail (23:44):
I mean, can you have an eco-friendly war?
Ellie (23:47):
I think wars are inherently destructive.
They will always be destructiveand there will never be a thing
such a thing as an eco-friendlywar.
But there are definitely.
Things that you can do withinwars that limit the destruction
both to, to people and to theenvironment.
I think if you look at thingslike the O EPA declaration, the
(24:11):
explosive weapons and populatedareas declaration you can kind
of, you see the.
It does what it says on thetint.
It's a bad idea to use explosiveweapons in populated areas
because of the damage, the, therisk to civilians, but also on
an environmental level.
And you have these kind ofdeclarations and treaties that
(24:33):
have been brought in through UNsystems kind of some and
treaties, whether that's clustermunitions and things like that,
where we have stopped or reducedusing things because we know
that they have.
They come at a greater risk topeople, to the environment.
And there are those kind ofprocesses that can and should
continue to go.
(24:53):
We can change the conduct ofwars to make it slightly better,
well, that's the wrong word,potentially less damaging to
people and the environment.
But with the huge kind ofoverarching theme that.
The best case scenario forpeople and environment is less
wars and more investment inpeace building and conflict
(25:16):
prevention and diplomacy.
Abigail (25:22):
But if we can at least hold people accountable to the
emissions, that's,
Ellie (25:26):
Yeah.
Yeah, and that's a whole otherquestion of, of accountability
of what happens now that we arestarting to talk about the
environmental impacts within thecontext of war you have.
In the same way there, there arelegal frameworks around war
crimes.
On a kind of personal level,what does that look like in the
future from an environmentalperspective?
(25:47):
We have people talking about ecoside in the context of, of war
and that kind of thing, andyeah.
What does that look like?
Legally moving forward is a bigquestion.
Okay.
Abigail (25:59):
They have to plant a lot of trees.
Ellie (26:02):
I think we might need more than that.
Abigail (26:03):
Maybe that's the punishment.
Ellie (26:05):
Might need more than a few trees for some of these, I
think.
But yeah, there's, yeah.
Big questions of accountabilityand, and big questions of
reparations and things likethat.
And yeah.
What is, what's the next step?
There's a lot of big questionsto grapple with.
Abigail (26:20):
well it is because it's happening over there, but as we
know, like, you know, whathappens across the planet
impacts everybody.
So we all suffer
Ellie (26:30):
yeah, definitely.
I mean, the Russian invasion ofUkraine in the emissions will be
felt by small island states andrising sea levels.
Like these, these things are allconnected.
Abigail (26:44):
Of course.
Well that's fascinating.
Well are you, are you optimisticabout.
The planet just generally withrespect to climate change.
Ellie (26:57):
I think it's a, it's a yes and no answer.
I think we, we know what to do.
Science scientists know what todo.
The paths are there.
The IPCC has laid out.
The path of what needs tohappen.
What is important now is that wedo it, I think, which feels,
much easier said than done.
(27:18):
I think things like diplomacyand countries coming together to
work through these problems hasreverberating benefits we're
able to pull together aroundclimate change.
At a point when multilateralismkind of seems to be struggling,
(27:40):
each goes to show what, whatkind of intergovernmental
coordination we're able to do.
And that kind of would make meoptimistic about, about the
future.
But I think importantly, I amalso just really optimistic
about the, it's the cliche, butthe younger generations, I
think.
(28:01):
People are kind of being raisedto challenge and question
because they're being broughtinto this world that looks so
different to the world thatanyone really wants to be, to be
operating in at the moment.
And we've really seen the waythat young people have risen to
the really unfortunate challengethat's been set to them by the
older older decision makersthrough, for example, it was
(28:24):
there.
The recent case that was broughtto the ICJ around establishing
state's responsibility andresponse to the climate.
Crisis and really like, fun,like cementing in this, this big
case, genuinely what it is thatgovernments have to do.
Clear cut.
(28:44):
So they don't have to, theycan't escape their
responsibilities.
And it was young people whobrought that to the, to the ICJ.
So it's things like that where Ithink young people are, breaking
out the mold and being like,actually things need to change.
And that, that makes meoptimistic.
I always come back from cop witha real mixed.
Sort of feeling of like, oh,it's such a difficult process to
(29:07):
watch this slow progress, butevery time I just meet the most
amazing activist yeah, that,that gives me hope.
Abigail (29:15):
great.
Well, that's, that's wonderful.
And you can't fix a problemunless you identify it.
So you're at least getting theword out there.
And then hopefully it willbecome part of our generalized
thinking about or, and theenvironment.
Thank you so much Ellie, forcoming on this podcast.
(29:36):
It's such an important subjectand I know that listeners are
gonna be really interested tohear what you've
Ellie (29:42):
Thank you so much for having me.
Abigail (29:44):
and
Ellie (29:44):
Thank you so much.
And yeah, if anyone does want toyeah, hear more about what we do
they can follow the MilitaryEmissions Gap project.
Or the Conflict EnvironmentObservatory.
Abigail (29:56):
Wonderful.
Welcome to the podcast where we celebrate innovation
for a happy planet.
I am your host, Abigail Carroll.
Every day we see moredevastating news coming out of
on the wars in Gaza and theUkraine.
We see photos of cities andtowns turned into piles of
rubble and people who have losttheir loved ones, their homes
(00:20):
and their livelihoods.
But there are other insidiousramifications of these wars that
we seldom discuss.
And those are the effects on theenvironment.
To discuss this, ellie Kinneyjoins us this week from the UK
based organization, conflict andEnvironment Observatory.
This organization was launchedin 2018 with the primary goal of
(00:44):
increasing awareness andunderstanding of the
environmental and derivedhumanitarian consequences of
conflicts and militaryactivities.
Welcome to the podcast
Ellie (00:56):
and thank you so much for having me.
It's great to be here
Abigail (00:59):
I am delighted to have you here.
We have conflicts going on allover the world and some are
absolutely devastating.
And I am delighted to get intothis really heavy and
under-discussed topic of theclimate impacts of these global
conflicts.
(01:20):
So.
Tell me a little bit first aboutthe conflict and environment
observatory.
Ellie (01:25):
So we are an NGO a charity based in the UK in a
tiny little place called, whichis kind of between Manchester
and Leeds in the north ofEngland.
A really beautiful area.
And from our office we aim toprovide a voice for the
environment and everyone.
Who depends on it, all of uswhen it faces harm from armed
(01:48):
conflict and military activity.
So basically we look at the waythat war or military activity
impacts on the environment andthen we aim to do something
about that.
Abigail (02:01):
We hear about the human toll all the time.
We have all those stats fromWorld War I, world War ii, and
it, and it's very obvious to us.
While we're looking at sort ofmedia coming from Gaza or the
Ukraine why is it, that wehaven't been talking about the
environmental impact?
(02:22):
Why are we overlooking this?
Ellie (02:24):
I think, well, I think there's a few, there's a few
areas really.
I think when it comes to thekind of, there is the real human
horror.
Of, of a war that is kind of,it's what you see first and
foremost.
And it's the, you know, it's thepictures that you connect with
in the, in the news and thingslike that that really kind of
(02:45):
hammer home the, the atrocitiesthat are going on.
And I think it's that, thatpeople naturally connect to
first the real kind of immediatehumanitarian crisis.
But then I think there is, yeah,then there is this hole or the
picture going on.
And a lot of times it's just notvisible.
And I think part of that,something being less visible
(03:08):
makes it harder for people toconnect with and to kind of
think about it.
And if anything, theenvironmental damage that is
more visible, I think gets moreattention.
For example, like if you havelike.
Abigail (03:19):
Right.
Ellie (03:20):
Huge fires from from walls.
That's the kind of stuff thatyou might think of a bit more,
more obviously.
Whereas something like, like,like greenhouse gas emissions,
it's not particularly visible.
You're not really thinking aboutit.
But it's very much part of theimpact of a war.
And if anything, you know, itreally just adds to this
(03:41):
long-term humanitarian impact towhen you have these, these
lasting impacts to theenvironment and to the climate.
Abigail (03:50):
For sure.
So how do you measure this?
Ellie (03:53):
So when we think about the environmental impacts more
directly we have, I have a, a,you know, a team of.
Hugely intelligent colleagues ofmine who are able to, monitor
the environmental impact ofconflicts from our office in Roy
or from wherever they live.
They can use.
(04:13):
Open source intelligence,satellite imagery, remote
sensing technologies.
There's all sorts of very cleverthings that they do that mean
that they can monitor theenvironmental impact of a wall
from wherever they are.
So that's kind of the, theconflict monitoring side of
stuff from an environmentalperspective.
And then from, I guess like aclimate.
(04:35):
It's, trickier.
So because there is, I mean thekind of core fundamental thing
that we struggle with is thefact that there is very little
information out there aboutmilitary and conflict emissions
in terms of military emissions.
This, this is an issue kind ofdates back to.
(04:57):
When the Kyoto protocol wasbeing developed the US lobbied
for military emissions to beexempt from reporting and
successfully got that whichmeant that
Abigail (05:09):
We're always on the right side of these
Ellie (05:12):
somewhere, somewhere the US is lurking.
Yeah, so then that when it,when.
Fast forward a little bit to theParis Agreement, and this
wording changes from exempt tovoluntary.
So governments can, if they wantto give information, report
their military greenhouse gasemissions.
(05:32):
But we know if,
Abigail (05:34):
But then that adds up to that, that's added to their
general greenhouse emissions.
And then of course.
That could put them over theline or, you know, that could
make them non-compliant.
So why would
Ellie (05:46):
And if so, yeah, if it's voluntary.
They don't have to do it.
Or if they do do it, they don'thave to do it very well.
'cause no one's gonna tell themoff otherwise.
So yeah, if you can hide alittle bit of something from,
from your reporting, you know,you would do, or that's
definitely what happens.
The issue is it's not a littlebit of something, it's quite a
(06:08):
big bit of something.
So by our estimations, globalmilitaries are responsible for
5.5% of.
Global emissions, which is, Imean, to put that into
perspective, like civil aviationis what, like two and a half to
3%.
And we all kind of associateflying with being bad for the
(06:29):
environment and bad for theclimate.
We don't necessarily have thisassociation with militaries
because there is this data gap.
So.
Yeah.
When it comes to counting theclimate impact of conflicts and
militaries, but kind ofconflicts in particular, being a
little bit more creative aboutit is kind of, yeah, how we go
(06:49):
about it.
Abigail (06:53):
Well, it's fascinating.
You know, we're looking, youknow, I get to see these
pictures of, of.
From the Ukraine and Gaza and,you know, just fields and fields
of rubble.
And I think about the, theimpact.
Well, what was the CO2 emissionsto build all of that?
What is the CO2 emission ofdestroying all of that?
(07:17):
And what are, what are, what arethe impacts of having to
Ellie (07:20):
Complete.
Yeah, completely.
That is so much the,
Abigail (07:23):
it just seems unfathomable.
Ellie (07:27):
yeah, I mean, if we look at in particular, it's say.
Ukraine, so Russia's invasion ofUkraine.
I think this was kind of thefirst time that researchers had
set about estimating the climateimpact of a conflict in kind of
like, like a live ongoingconflict.
So.
The initiative of the greenhousegas accounting of war was set
(07:50):
up.
And they publish reports kind ofevery year, I think on the
anniversary.
So the last one there, by theirestimations, three years of
Russia's invasion of Ukraine hasresulted in the same amount of
greenhouse gas emissions ashaving 120 million fossil fuel
cars on the road every year.
(08:12):
These are huge and yeah, you'realso, you're looking at what the
costs are of destroying placesand then the necessary
rebuilding eventually, as wellas things like.
Fuel use for tanks and, and jetsand, and the kind of the things
that you might think of moreobviously.
And then, you think of placeslike Gaza and huge amounts of
(08:34):
destruction that's going onthere at the moment, which feel
this again, this kind of like, Ithink with conflict missions in
particular, it's just this real,like needless amount of
emissions.
There's no need to destroy theseareas.
Abigail (08:50):
Hmm.
Ellie (08:50):
To then, you know, have to rebuild them again.
So then you're grappling withreally large quantities of
emissions that realisticallyaren't the best way that we
should be spending our limitedcarbon budget at the moment.
Abigail (09:08):
So you create incredible data, incredible
research projects.
You, are demonstrating a realmassive global problem here.
Are there, are there tools inyour toolbox that you can use to
help remedy, help make change?
Ellie (09:24):
I think one of the.
Really key things I think aboutwhat we do is having this real
direct link from the researchthat we do and the research of
the partners that we workclosely with, and feeding this
directly into the advocacy thatwe work on.
So for example, our project, theMilitary Emissions Gap, we work
(09:47):
with a whole network ofacademics and experts in
different ways who pulltogether.
Bits of data and pull togetherestimations about militaries,
about conflicts, about trainingexercises, and they fill these
data gaps and then that directlyfeeds what I do.
(10:08):
Going to things like cop andclimate talks and talking to
policy policymakers about thechanges that need to happen.
Yeah.
And that's like, yeah, from theclimate side of things.
And you can apply a similarthing across all of Sea Os that
we see the destruction that isgoing on, and then specifically
(10:28):
try to change it to change thesituation.
So for example, we've beeninvolved in initiatives like the
Para Act principles, theprotection of the environment
and relations, armed conflicts,and the development of of.
Initiatives like that, that aredirectly fueled by the research
that, and the partners that wework with have been feeding in
Abigail (10:53):
can you tell me a little bit more about that?
What's
Ellie (10:55):
the peric principles, the protection of the environment in
relation to armed conflict.
Just basically, a set ofprinciples which aim to change
the conduct of wars in relationto how militaries operate during
wartime in a way that doesn'tnecessarily need to be as
destructive to the environmentas it currently is.
Abigail (11:19):
So you know, if armies would already apply the other
rules, that would be good.
So is it the UN that is that isaccepted the, the principles of
the,
Ellie (11:31):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I think it's, it's a, it's aUN initiative which has Yeah.
Been fed into by all sorts ofsort of civil society and
ourselves.
Yeah.
But yeah.
Then you do, oh, gone.
Abigail (11:42):
And are they different?
No.
Are they different if you'redefending yourself than they are
if you're on the attack?
Or is it basically everybody'smeant to follow the same,
Ellie (11:52):
That's a good question.
I dunno to what extent it doesseparate defense and attack, but
I think it, it's just kind oflargely like the best practice
things that, that we follow.
But yeah, I suppose if you lookat the way that wars are kind of
a few key large scale wars atthe moment.
You might have set out things ininternational humanitarian law
(12:12):
that are aimed to keepconflicts.
With limited interruption oflimited harm to civilians, but
that really does require statesto follow those initiatives.
Abigail (12:26):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So.
We've got the immediate toll ofthese conflicts, but they have
long lasting ramifications.
So you've got a big, a big, youknow, upset.
But are there, are there thingsthat we should be keeping in
mind about the longer termimplications other than just
(12:49):
having to rebuild the longerterm environmental.
Implications of a conflict likeGaza or the
Ellie (12:57):
Yeah, I think part of the, the kind of research we
gather and yeah, others who, whowork on this sort of thing is
really key in being able tofacilitate, you know,
environmental remediation andfacilitate, kind of what happens
next.
Environmental damage doesn'tstop the, the second that the
fighting stops there are, likeyou say, lasting implications.
(13:19):
Those processes have to befacilitated by information.
You have to have people kind oflooking and knowing what's going
on there.
And I think that comes from areal mix of, of academics, of on
the ground expertise and of likecivil society organizations like
ourselves.
Abigail (13:36):
Yeah.
And then there's sort of theproblem of we've got the
buildings and everything fallapart, but there is a real toll
on just the destruction ofwildlife and, and ecosystems.
Ellie (13:50):
Yeah, massively.
I think, habitats that get tostart destroyed during wartime
the way that habitats arechanging because of climate
damage.
There's a whole chain of eventsand it's the things that aren't
always necessarily as thatvisible to us.
I mean, we've done this,colleagues of mine have done
research into the way that.
(14:10):
Excuse my cat.
She's, she's also verypassionate about this.
She is definitely the wild partof wildlife.
Yeah.
Colleagues of mine who've lookedat the way that conflicts impact
on, you know, like marine life.
There's all sorts of things thatwe might not think of just'cause
it's, it's not the kind ofvisible side of things.
Abigail (14:33):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So how did you get interested inthis subject?
Ellie (14:37):
My background was had been more around kind of nuclear
disarmament.
When I was a student, I was kindof just.
Began thinking about yeah,nuclear disarmament.
I've been thinking about thefact that so based in the uk we
are one of the very fewcountries in the UK that in the
world that have nuclear weapons.
And kind of, it's that thing.
(14:58):
You start to pull at a threadand, and you start to challenge
policies like that and you kindof just feel like it doesn't
really hold up against theethics and the morals that we
claim to have as a country.
And that kind of got me quitecurious about.
Yeah, I think the fact thatdefense policy does kind of get
a free pass because peoplearen't particularly comfortable
(15:22):
challenging it, you kind ofjust, you assume that the higher
powers than the government aredoing what, what's in your best
interest there?
But I think definitely lookingin UK history of the past sort
of 10, 20 years, I, I think thatthat hasn't always been the
case.
And I think it's that kind ofmilitary exceptionalism that
(15:42):
lends itself to situations likewe're in now where militaries do
not have to report theiremissions, and as a result, you
kind of have this whole sectoroperating kind of untracked.
Whilst in theory all the sectorsare really trying to, you know,
push forward.
Decarbonization climate actionis seen as a global thing, but
(16:03):
yet you have this sector that'sjust.
Doing its own thing.
Abigail (16:07):
mm.
Ellie (16:08):
And I think it's important that we're able to
kind of question and challenge,and that's how, you know, that's
how we make change.
Abigail (16:18):
So how long has this organization
Ellie (16:20):
So, yeah, the Conflicts Environment Observatory was set
up around 20 17 20 18.
So we are relatively, relativelynew.
But we are kind of built onprojects before roles like the
toxic remnants of war projectand things like that.
So it's not an entirely newarea, but it's definitely a kind
of really increasinglysnowballing area.
(16:42):
I think the invasion of Ukrainein particular marked a real
milestone in the, the way thatpeople started thinking and
talking about the environmentaland climate impacts of of wars.
And then that as I think, set aprecedent for how we talk about
other conflicts.
Yeah, that it's that we do takethese factors into consideration
(17:06):
still, maybe not as much as weshould, but still way more than
we did for other conflicts.
Abigail (17:13):
So.
You're in it, you have thisagenda, you're trying to push
it.
Where do you hope this ends?
What's the big dream if yourwork were having, if your
organization's work were havingthe impact that you hoped, what
would the end game of that be?
Ellie (17:30):
I think we kind of work on a few levels, I think.
So the military emissions gap,which is the project that I
coordinate, our kind of main aimwith that is that militaries
the.
Across the world should betransparent about the emissions
that they produce and that thatshould facilitate emissions
(17:54):
reductions in line with theParis Agreement, bringing
militaries into the scope as ofevery other sector where you
report your emissions and.
You reduce them in line with theParis Agreement in order for us
to secure this livable futurefor all in order for us to limit
warming to 1.5 degrees and, andnot go over that.
(18:16):
This is kind of, yeah, that'sthe, the, the aim of.
The military emissions gap.
But I think also what what youhave in the kind of broader
picture as well is the more thatyou recognize quite how
destructive wars are on aclimate and an environmental
level, the more that thishopefully facilitates and like
(18:38):
adds to the argument forconflict prevention as much as
possible, and the fact thatthere are so many reasons why.
Walls are damaging and beyondthe things that we might just
initially think of, andtherefore we, yeah, we just need
to have as much investment in,in conflict prevention, in peace
(18:58):
building as you know, a greenform of defense to protect our
futures.
Abigail (19:06):
Yeah.
Well, I hope I hope that works.
Are you, so on the, like, getback to the Ukraine, will you
continue to monitor the, youknow.
Should these wars ever end,would you, will you continue to
monitor the, the reconstructionand that global impact?
Ellie (19:28):
Yeah, I think it's an interesting one because we are a
relatively new organization.
And the invasion of Ukraine iskind of the first sort of time
that we seem to be following awar throughout its entirety that
for us it's, you know, where arewe, where are we useful?
At what point it's, you know,how are we supporting this?
(19:54):
Process of gathering informationthat's necessary.
So I think for as long as thatinformation continues to be
useful to facilitate greenrecovery in Ukraine then I will
continue to, to be here doingthat kind of thing.
It doesn't stop with, withUkraine, every war looks
different and has differentimpacts we don't, we don't have
(20:16):
the,
Abigail (20:16):
just wondering if it's like,
Ellie (20:19):
We would aim in an, in an ideal world where, I mean,
we're, we're a small team, we'rea small organization.
Ideal world, we would have theresources to be able to, to do
this with, with every, you know,lots of different conflicts and
the different forms that theytake.
Abigail (20:34):
Yeah.
Ellie (20:34):
So we'll see to what extent we,
Abigail (20:36):
But I think
Ellie (20:36):
huge organization and, and, and take over the world.
We'll see.
Abigail (20:41):
well, I certainly hope that's true.
But no, but I feel like it, itkind of.
Rings home that may be part ofreconstruction is rewilding.
You know, it's likereforestation.
Like there are, there are somany different parts of you
know, just looking at it throughthe lens of climate and the
(21:01):
environment just makes it soclear, not just the devastation,
but the other actions thatreally need to be taken to
restore.
This,
Ellie (21:15):
Yeah, definitely.
And I think there are, you know,there are examples where.
Conflicts have led to land beingused for purposes that are more
damaging to the environment thanthey may have been before.
Where land that maybe pripreviously had been kind of
agricultural or something likethat then gets turned into other
(21:37):
things.
And I think that's, yeah,there's a whole, there's a lot
that you have to be careful witharound, around that.
And there is, you know, I thinkif this, it's a long term.
Process of managing theenvironment and af after a
conflict.
If you think of, for example, touse Ukraine again, but there's
(21:58):
lots of different countrieswhere this is applicable.
The presence of landmines andunexploded ordinance after
conflict and the way that thatimpacts communities.
And it's an environmental riskthat has a real human risk.
So things like that and theamount of Ukraine that's mined,
but similarly across lots ofother conflicts where you've had
(22:19):
that real lasting impact.
Abigail (22:24):
And you're probably not gonna use that land for
agricultural purposes if there'shidden landmines.
Ellie (22:29):
Then it's a matter of, I know in Ukraine at the moment,
there's a lot of talk of how youclear, because Ukraine had such
a, an agricultural basedeconomy, how you clear landmines
you know, effectively to then beable to return that land back to
the communities.
And that kind of process is, isreally important, but it's also
really important that we do thatin a way that is protecting of
(22:51):
the environment and the climate.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, that would be the ideal.
Wouldn't but I think this isit's the importance of, of
working within multilateralprocesses.
Like I work on, on COP and, andthe UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
And, you know, differentcolleagues work on, you know,
the UN General Assembly.
And it's important that, I thinkthat the kind of, yeah, the, the
(23:15):
presence of.
People like Putin and othercurrent war mongers around
Netanyahu the importance ofreally bolstering multilateral
systems and really kind ofbolstering these international
norms is, is so crucial to,yeah, to ensure these other, you
(23:38):
know, these are anomalies ratherthan the norm.
Abigail (23:44):
I mean, can you have an eco-friendly war?
Ellie (23:47):
I think wars are inherently destructive.
They will always be destructiveand there will never be a thing
such a thing as an eco-friendlywar.
But there are definitely.
Things that you can do withinwars that limit the destruction
both to, to people and to theenvironment.
I think if you look at thingslike the O EPA declaration, the
(24:11):
explosive weapons and populatedareas declaration you can kind
of, you see the.
It does what it says on thetint.
It's a bad idea to use explosiveweapons in populated areas
because of the damage, the, therisk to civilians, but also on
an environmental level.
And you have these kind ofdeclarations and treaties that
(24:33):
have been brought in through UNsystems kind of some and
treaties, whether that's clustermunitions and things like that,
where we have stopped or reducedusing things because we know
that they have.
They come at a greater risk topeople, to the environment.
And there are those kind ofprocesses that can and should
continue to go.
(24:53):
We can change the conduct ofwars to make it slightly better,
well, that's the wrong word,potentially less damaging to
people and the environment.
But with the huge kind ofoverarching theme that.
The best case scenario forpeople and environment is less
wars and more investment inpeace building and conflict
(25:16):
prevention and diplomacy.
Abigail (25:22):
But if we can at least hold people accountable to the
emissions, that's,
Ellie (25:26):
Yeah.
Yeah, and that's a whole otherquestion of, of accountability
of what happens now that we arestarting to talk about the
environmental impacts within thecontext of war you have.
In the same way there, there arelegal frameworks around war
crimes.
On a kind of personal level,what does that look like in the
future from an environmentalperspective?
(25:47):
We have people talking about ecoside in the context of, of war
and that kind of thing, andyeah.
What does that look like?
Legally moving forward is a bigquestion.
Okay.
Abigail (25:59):
They have to plant a lot of trees.
Ellie (26:02):
I think we might need more than that.
Abigail (26:03):
Maybe that's the punishment.
Ellie (26:05):
Might need more than a few trees for some of these, I
think.
But yeah, there's, yeah.
Big questions of accountabilityand, and big questions of
reparations and things likethat.
And yeah.
What is, what's the next step?
There's a lot of big questionsto grapple with.
Abigail (26:20):
well it is because it's happening over there, but as we
know, like, you know, whathappens across the planet
impacts everybody.
So we all suffer
Ellie (26:30):
yeah, definitely.
I mean, the Russian invasion ofUkraine in the emissions will be
felt by small island states andrising sea levels.
Like these, these things are allconnected.
Abigail (26:44):
Of course.
Well that's fascinating.
Well are you, are you optimisticabout.
The planet just generally withrespect to climate change.
Ellie (26:57):
I think it's a, it's a yes and no answer.
I think we, we know what to do.
Science scientists know what todo.
The paths are there.
The IPCC has laid out.
The path of what needs tohappen.
What is important now is that wedo it, I think, which feels,
much easier said than done.
(27:18):
I think things like diplomacyand countries coming together to
work through these problems hasreverberating benefits we're
able to pull together aroundclimate change.
At a point when multilateralismkind of seems to be struggling,
(27:40):
each goes to show what, whatkind of intergovernmental
coordination we're able to do.
And that kind of would make meoptimistic about, about the
future.
But I think importantly, I amalso just really optimistic
about the, it's the cliche, butthe younger generations, I
think.
(28:01):
People are kind of being raisedto challenge and question
because they're being broughtinto this world that looks so
different to the world thatanyone really wants to be, to be
operating in at the moment.
And we've really seen the waythat young people have risen to
the really unfortunate challengethat's been set to them by the
older older decision makersthrough, for example, it was
(28:24):
there.
The recent case that was broughtto the ICJ around establishing
state's responsibility andresponse to the climate.
Crisis and really like, fun,like cementing in this, this big
case, genuinely what it is thatgovernments have to do.
Clear cut.
(28:44):
So they don't have to, theycan't escape their
responsibilities.
And it was young people whobrought that to the, to the ICJ.
So it's things like that where Ithink young people are, breaking
out the mold and being like,actually things need to change.
And that, that makes meoptimistic.
I always come back from cop witha real mixed.
Sort of feeling of like, oh,it's such a difficult process to
(29:07):
watch this slow progress, butevery time I just meet the most
amazing activist yeah, that,that gives me hope.
Abigail (29:15):
great.
Well, that's, that's wonderful.
And you can't fix a problemunless you identify it.
So you're at least getting theword out there.
And then hopefully it willbecome part of our generalized
thinking about or, and theenvironment.
Thank you so much Ellie, forcoming on this podcast.
(29:36):
It's such an important subjectand I know that listeners are
gonna be really interested tohear what you've
Ellie (29:42):
Thank you so much for having me.
Abigail (29:44):
and
Ellie (29:44):
Thank you so much.
And yeah, if anyone does want toyeah, hear more about what we do
they can follow the MilitaryEmissions Gap project.
Or the Conflict EnvironmentObservatory.
Abigail (29:56):
Wonderful.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com