Virtually no forests!

I was truly amazed to find out that Afghanistan has practically no forests, what so ever. Afghanistan had, apparently, only 3% of its territory covered with forests in 1980, which has dropped to less than 0,5% by now. That is a very serious side-effect of the wars, but then again one could argue that they barely had any forests in the first place. Nevertheless, there are entire regions where forest-wood is used as firewood for heating and cooking, so it is a necessity. It seems as if it is a big problem, but one never really hears about that. The soil is as well very much affected by trees, so I would assume that the soil from the deforested areas is getting worse every year. According to the CIA Factbook soil degradation is a big problem in Afghanistan, with deforestation for fuel and building materials…

Here are the links of the sources:
http://www.lenntech.com/environmental-effects-war.htm#Asia
http://www.igreens.org.uk/afghanistans_forests.htm

Landmines In Afhgnistan Threaten the Environment

This article is about the impact of land mines on the environment and the people of Afghanistan. According to this article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL43003

"Up to a 150,000 people have been killed or wounded by landmines or explosive remnants since 1989. On average, 45 to 50 people are killed or wounded by landmines in Afghanistan every month, compared to 150, three years ago."

This definitely shows the connection between human needs and the environment. Not only are the land mines bad for the people, they are also devastating for the environment, which (as we can see in all the other articles) is already suffering.

This link gives a more in depth account of the environmental impacts of land mines in globally (such as how they pollute water and the soil).

Here is a Link to an article about the impacts of the decades long wars that have devastated Afghanistan. Like most places that have undergone war for such a lengthy time period, the countryside here has been severely degraded. The article has one particularly striking image on the right hand side showing a boy walking through the disgustingly dirty and polluted river. Just as in Iraq there are problems with people stealing, smuggling and taking advantage of the unlawfulness.

It is reasonable to expect some sort of environmental protection during times of war? Would there be a difference between a war in or between developing countries and one with more developed countries where environmental protection may be a bigger issue and priority?

Shock and Awe

‘Modern warfare damages ecosystems’

Modern Warfare Causes Unprecedented environmental Damage

These articles talk about some of the environmental impacts of using shock and awe tactics like the U.S. has in Iraq. Not only do they appear to be not very effective, but the consequences of blanketing an area with potent munitions appear quite large. 

Shock & Awe

Article

This article goes over some of the ways the U.S. could halved helped the environment in preventing global warming if it invested as much in the environment as it did in war.

US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends.

2. 141 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) emissions since March 2003 and still counting…
• CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year. These stem from fuel-intensive combat, oil well fires and
increased gas flaring, the boom in cement consumption due to reconstruction efforts and security needs, and heavy use of explosives and chemicals that contribute to global warming.
• If the war was ranked as a country in terms of emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world’s nations do annually. Falling between New Zealand and Cuba, the war each year emits more than 60% of all countries.
• Emissions from the Iraq War to date are nearly two and a half times greater than what would be avoided between 2009 and 2016 were California to implement the auto emission regulations it has proposed, but that the Bush Administration has struck down.

I thought that this was pretty interesting. I had never stopped to think about how else the U.S. could have been spending money and the affects that it could have on the rest of the world.

Environmental Issues linked to Health Issues

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/84318_10084318.html

The environmental implications in any country usually play second fiddle to the human consequences. The environment, generally, is only important in so far as it affects human beings. So while it is all well and good to worry about the impact of war on the landscape, what it ultimately boils down to is the people. The article discusses various health problems US army service women have experienced since being on tours of duty in Iraq. The health issues include hair loss, fatigue and fever. While the symptoms could be attributed to extreme stress, as war understandably puts its combatats under emotional duress, the sheer number of US airwomen suffering from similar symptoms begs the question, does environment have something to do with it? The study does not explore the illness, which it dubs "Gulf War Syndrome" after the illness that struck many troops during the 1991 Gulf War,any further, and it would be interesting to know whether or not the syndrome affects women living in the area, or foreign aid workers, if the women living in the area have built up an immunity to whatever viral strain is causing the syndrome. The only reason to not attribute it to war stress is that thus far the syndrome has not affected male air troops.

I know we are discussing the environmental impacts, but because the environment is so obviously inextricably linked to the people, it is interesting to see what impacts the war has on people via the environment.

Destroying the Garden of Eden

The following is a link to a video report on the environment in Iraq from the United Nations Environmental Programme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASfxGC7ZO0

The video explains how in 1991, after the United States withdrew forces from Iraq, the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq were forced to continue the fight against Saddam Hussein on their own. In order to demolish these forces and their resources, Hussein damned and drained the marshes in the South, which were once called “the Garden of Eden” and as a result, driving the Marsh Arabs into internal exile. After the second U.S. invasion in Iraq and once Sadddam Hussein’s regime fell, the southern Iraqis immediately destroyed the dams and returned the marshes to these areas. Unfortunately, the water has been greatly affected. For example, Stalinization levels have changed and now, the water is not safe to drink directly from its source. In response, six water treatment plants have been implemented to purify the water—the water is once again available and useable, but it took great pains and pricy reforms to bring the marshes back.

I found this video interesting because it specifically focuses on war tactics that actually exploit environmental degradation, as opposed to simply the negative impacts that the environment experiences due to warfare. This environmental warfare appears much more intentional and deliberate, but I am forced to question, if you can in fact compare the two, whether it is worse than the United State’s influence on the Iraqi environment. American forces are not actively destroying river systems to devastate Iraqi livelihoods, but they are, nevertheless, waging a war that still has its own environmental consequences. The United States is also extremely invested in the production of oil, which is a large factor in environmental degradation. Can exploitation of a land and its resources for the United State’s own interests be compared to deliberate environmental warfare?