Interview on GloboNews
Wars also destroy nature, and almost no one realizes it
I was invited by journalist André Triguedo to speak about this topic on the program "Cities and Solutions" alongside the president of COP30, André Corrêa do Lago, and Caetano Scaravino, to discuss a theme that remains invisible in the global debate: the impacts of wars on biodiversity and climate.
And the data is alarming.
Armed conflicts have doubled in recent decades and today:
affect 70% of the planet's protected areas
affect more than 80% of priority regions for biodiversity
impact 85% of bird species
But what is most worrying is that these impacts go far beyond the explosions.
Wars silently contaminate the air, water, and soil. In the Black Sea, for example, the use of sonar and underwater explosions led to the death of approximately 48 thousand dolphins. In Africa, conflicts have halved populations of large mammals. In Vietnam, the effects of Agent Orange persist decades later on insects.
And there's a critical point that rarely enters the climate equation:
Wars are major emitters of greenhouse gases — but these emissions are not reported.
If they were a country, military emissions would be among the world's largest emitters.
At the same time, the most profound impacts are not direct—they are institutional. When governments collapse:
weapons become accessible
illegal hunting skyrockets
protected areas cease to exist in practice
In Angola, for example, I found landscapes where large mammals were almost eliminated by the war—and today, even with peace, these animals face a new threat: minefields.
In other words, war does not end when conflict ends.
In the interview, we discussed how wars directly impact the energy transition—the process of reducing the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and replacing them with renewable sources.
War acts in two opposing directions.
Wars and energy transition
We live in a time when:
the climate crisis is worsening
but global investments in armaments are increasing
We know what works:
✔ prevention
✔ environmental restoration
✔ strengthening health systems
✔ support for local communities
We also know that there is money for this.
What is lacking is not a solution — it's prioritization.
On the one hand, it can accelerate the transition. Conflicts expose the fragility of global energy dependence. About 20% of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and crises raise prices and pressure countries to invest in renewable energy and diversification.
On the other hand — and predominantly — war delays this agenda.
First, because it directly increases emissions: military activities account for about 5.5% of global emissions, often unreported.
Second, because it diverts resources. The world spends about US$2.7 trillion a year on military activities — more than US$1 trillion above climate investment. Just a fraction of that would finance adaptation in the most vulnerable countries.
The paradox is clear: war exposes the need for energy transition, but at the same time creates the conditions that delay it.
Third, because crises lead countries to prioritize immediate energy security. This often means returning to coal, oil, and gas, as happened in Europe after the war in Ukraine.
