English references

Writer says for many years he has refused to use word but now must ‘with immense pain and with a broken heart’

CEOBS 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. In this, we seek to challenge the idea of the environment as a ‘silent victim of armed conflict’. Download our ‘About us‘ summary.

Militaries are huge energy users whose greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) make a significant contribution to the climate crisis. However, countries do not systematically record and report their military emissions so the real share of this source of emissions remains unclear. The Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) and Scientists for Global Responsibility estimate that everyday military activity could be responsible for around 5.5% of global emissions, meaning that if the world’s militaries were a country, they would be the fourth largest emitter in the world.6 Furthermore, as military spending increases and the rest of society decarbonises, that proportion is set to rise.

Russia’s war in Ukraine has encouraged a rapid increase in the deployment of drones that use fibre optic cables to protect them from being jammed or downed by electronic warfare: the drones trail kilometres of plastic cable across frontlines. In this post Leon Moreland explores the environmental risks posed by this new form of battlefield plastic pollution.

Iran’s parliament approved a measure to close the vital global trade route, through which more than a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through daily

Mark Lynas has spent decades pushing for action on climate emissions but now says nuclear war is even greater threat Climate breakdown is usually held up as the biggest, most urgent threat humans pose to the future of the planet today. But what if there was another, greater, human-made threat that could snuff out not only human civilisation, but practically the entire biosphere, in the blink of an eye?

The escalating tensions between Pakistan and India serve as a stark reminder that climate change is no longer a distant — it is now a force multiplier for geopolitical instability. As the climate crisis accelerates, so too does its capacity to deepen existing rivalries, strain fragile agreements, and inflame long-standing disputes. In South Asia, the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has long been a rare success story of transboundary cooperation between two nuclear-armed neighbours. However, as both climate pressures and political tensions mount, this once-resilient agreement is beginning to show signs of severe strain. The looming question is no longer just about water rights — it’s about whether climate change could be the catalyst for the world’s first true climate war.

Climate change will fuel contests—and maybe wars—for land and resources.

JD Vance was supposed to be the inconsequential vice-president. But his starring role in Friday’s blowup between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy – where he played a cross between Trump’s bulldog and a tech bro Iago – may mark the moment that the postwar alliance between Europe and the US finally collapsed.

An updated threat assessment warns of the consequences of a divided NATO and an absent U.S.

European and US oil and gas majors have made profits of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars since Russia invaded Ukraine, according to a new analysis by Global Witness marking two years since the conflict began. After posting record gains in 2022 off the back of soaring energy prices, the big five fossil fuel companies paid shareholders an unprecedented $111 billion in 2023. In the hottest year ever recorded, this figure is some 158 times what was pledged to vulnerable nations at last year’s COP28 climate summit.

In Munich I heard both Ukrainians and Alexei Navalny’s widow tell us why Putin must be defeated, says Guardian columnist Timothy Garton Ash

Christopher Lockyear, secretary general of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), called today on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to demand an immediate and sustained ceasefire in Gaza. Addressing the Council at its monthly meeting on Gaza, Lockyear also called for the unequivocal protection of medical facilities, staff, and patients. “Meeting after meeting, resolution after resolution, this body has failed to effectively address this conflict,” Lockyear said. “We have watched members of this Council deliberate and delay while civilians die. This death, destruction, and forced displacement are the result of military and political choices that blatantly disregard civilian lives. These choices could have been—and still can be—made very differently.” After more than four months of war, nearly 30,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza amid Israel’s constant bombing and attacks. Approximately 1.7 million people—nearly 75 percent of the population—are estimated to be forcibly displace

Exclusive: First months of conflict produced more planet-warming gases than 20 climate-vulnerable nations do in a year, study shows

Fearful that the Able Archer 83 exercise was a cover for a NATO nuclear strike, the U.S.S.R. readied its own weapons for launch

Land-based nuclear weapons are world-ending accident waiting to happen, and completely superfluous to a reliable deterrent.

If the system can’t contact military leaders, it checks for signs of a nuclear strike. Should its computers determine that an attack occurred, it would automatically launch all remaining Soviet weapons at targets across the northern hemisphere. As in the film, the Soviet Union long kept Dead Hand completely secret, eliminating any strategic benefit, and rendering it a pointless menace to humanity. You might think the United States would have a more sensible nuclear launch policy. You’d be wrong.

How do researchers gauge the probability and severity of nuclear war? Catastrophic risk expert Seth Baum explains.

In Europe, a large-scale war could cause the Baltic Sea to freeze over and severely compromise food security – potentially for decades and even centuries to come. An ever-growing body of work has shown that even a local nuclear conflict could usher in a climate catastrophe. As marine scientists, we have considered what this could specifically mean for the world’s oceans. In 1982, a group of scientists including Carl Sagan began to raise the alarm on a climate apocalypse that could follow nuclear war. Using simple computer simulations and historic volcanic eruptions as natural analogues, they showed how smoke that lofted into the stratosphere from urban firestorms could block out the sun for years.

Atmospheric soot loadings from nuclear weapon detonation would cause disruptions to the Earth’s climate, limiting terrestrial and aquatic food production. Here, we use climate, crop and fishery models to estimate the impacts arising from six scenarios of stratospheric soot injection, predicting the total food calories available in each nation post-war after stored food is consumed. In quantifying impacts away from target areas, we demonstrate that soot injections larger than 5 Tg would lead to mass food shortages, and livestock and aquatic food production would be unable to compensate for reduced crop output, in almost all countries. Adaptation measures such as food waste reduction would have limited impact on increasing available calories. We estimate more than 2 billion people could die from nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and more than 5 billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia—underlining the importance of global cooperation in preventing nuclear war.