The problem I have chosen is the “environmental impact of war[1]”. This, obviously, is a matter of environmental sustainability. Although it does encompass all parts of sustainability, I see this as now, as an environmental problem. Say Israel/Palestine conflict[2](a subject and example I will use throughout this text), from October 2023 to February 2024, each side has released around 282 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide. These numbers are from US/UK researchers [3]studying airplane emissions, tanks, transport, bombs (exploding and manufacturing), artillery and rockets. However, half the emissions were deemed to be from American cargo planes delivering military weapons to Israel. During the period of the 282k tonnes, Palestine only emitted 1/282 of the total. No wonder, global warming is deemed as such a disturbing crisis. Furthermore, according to some sources[4], Ukraine’s environment has suffered an obscene, 36 billion in damages. This includes the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam[5], eventually resulting in the lack of farming water in Crimea, Russia.
Instead of directly fighting, I suggest for each side to engage in diplomatic talks and preferably, If they agree, no conflict will happen and avoid conflicts all together. However, I understand this is unlikely in most situations, and might escalate tensions[6] if neither side settles, and I cannot imagine say the US[7] and say Mali[8] fighting with flower cannons or dropping petal bombs while wearing hippie[9] clothes, but perhaps each sides could, instead target in more of a specific location as to a larger blanket[10] attack. This would also include the ICC[11] having another type of classification of crime (crimes against humanity[12] etc.) perhaps “Crimes towards the living world” for specific targeted attacks against fuel storage facilities, detrimental ecosystems[13], and conservation areas[14] etc. Where committing these crimes will enforce a serious fine on a country (say 1/15000 of a nation's GDP[15]). This should demotivate nations to attack natural areas.
In the conflict from Israel and Palestine[16], The largest producer of CO2[17] is actually from the USA[18], over a time period of October 2023 to February 2024 producing an incredible 133,650 tonnes of CO2 on supply flights to Israel (some reports claim numbers 8 times more[19]), providing supplies and weaponry whilst "disagreeing" or promoting retaliation as self defence. Furthermore, on March 29, President Biden authorized a transfer of billions of dollars of bombs[20], planes and other weaponry to Israel. Thusly, I present my solution of a prohibition in foreign influence in conflicts, to a certain limit, say up to one billion dollars, and excluding humanitarian aid. This is to be regulated and enforced by the ICC (international criminal court). This hopefully to prevent long and winded conflicts that all suffer from and prevent 3rd parties “launching fuel into the flames of war".
Picture 1. Tanks moving across the border of the Gaza strip.
Graph 1. CO2 Emissions from Israel Palestine conflict from October 2023 to February 2023.Picture 3. An American C-17 Globemaster delivering what I presume to be a tank, two personal transport vehicles and two light utility vehicles.
My chosen solution is the latter of the two. To prohibit foreign influence, in conflicts. This should do one of two things, A, punish a country for going into war while ill prepared, and B, prevent situations such as the one happening now with Israel and Palestine, Where the US is emitting half of the total CO2 emissions of the specified period. This solution would have caveats, however since it is nearly impossible to regulate countries to a 'T' so this would be more of a “under 500m dollar aid” are allowed, maximum. This would also not include defence pacts or alliances, such as NATO (as they would further complicate issues) and also leave out humanitarian aid (for obvious reasons). This should NOT impact aid, but only prevent the American situation of using over 50 million litres of aviationfuel, from delivering 10,000 tonnes of weapons in the 60-day period it was tracked. This should, at least prevent the unscrupulous actions, causing such an obscene threat to the environment for the sake of killing people‽
Picture 2. F-16 in general are relatively common especially considering that they are the highest populated military aircraft in service today. They are built by Lockheed Martin and have been produced since 1976.
This solution is beneficial by most means, with the most difficult part being the enforcement and definition both, burdened by the ICC (International Crime Court). This should prevent nations, such as the US, being ‘two faced’ by both, delivering munitions[21] to one side, while condemning them with the most scandalous accusations and yet absent themselves from a ceasefire vote at the UN. They also have supplied the largest military assistance since WWII and have the largest collection of the American fighter plane F-16, having 362. This solution however should not affect smaller conflicts however, especially since they have less of an environmental impact. This solution is most beneficial on a larger international scale, as smaller conflicts would be minimal in efficacy by the 500m dollar limit and the fact that they would not escalate to the point that a 3rd party might have to fuel the fire or “intervene” for the sake of ‘peace’. This, once implemented, should affect the situations that matter most, in larger conflicts that do produce more greenhouse gases.
Soot samples, from C-17 aircraft (one of the planes which the US uses to transport military supplies to countries). The samples were taken from 7.1 litres of raw exhaust fumes released by the four massive Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 Turbofan engines. The exhaust was then laid out to this soot. The top numbers, (Idle (4%), 33% etc.) are thrust, and the vertical are fuel variants used. I could not find any information regarding the emissions of the C130 Hercules aircraft, however, the main aircraft used by the United States for transport purposes.UN security council, voting to set up an emergency general assembly on ongoing conflicts. The members, China, Russian Republic, United Kingdom, United States, France (permanent, with powers to veto) and Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Switzerland. (elected by the general assembly to serve 2 year terms.)
This problem of the environmental impact from war is a current factor and one likely to occur more and more in the future, especially as the world becomes more interconnected and tensions arise, and conflicts are more likely to occur. Compared to other options, such as promoting peace talks or war in the sense of communications. I believe that my solution is somewhat, by the meekest of means, viable, and perhaps slightly interesting especially compared to the former, as it gives leeway, affects major conflicts, the ones that the people actually care about, the ones which the news cover. However the former solution would be already happening, and it is cheaper and easier to implement, however likely being extremely ineffective, by merely suggesting for the parties to communicate. And so, through my un-creative mind, this is my best solution to the environmental impact of war.
