Tehran-Belem’s COP30 summit approaches, the fundamental gaps in the global climate governance system will once again be revealed. Environmental damage caused by armed conflict.
Despite traffic, intergenerational and measurable outcomes, this issue still lacks in climate agenda, policy, or international early warning systems. Advanced remote sensing technologies, such as Sentinel and Landsat satellite imagery and vegetation analysis tools, have enabled accurate identification of fires, gas leaks and habitat destruction.
However, there is no fair and consistent international framework for documenting and analyzing the environmental impact of war. Destruction of Iran’s more than 9,000 hectares of protected areas during the recent 12-day war (source: July 2024), refinery explosions, liberation of contaminants, contamination of water and soil resources, and the destruction of ecosystem balance at the local level, this ineffective existence is due to the presence of technology and international presence, thus balancing ecosystems at the local level.
In this memo, the term “climate attack” is used to describe intentional or unintentional military action. This naturally causes extensive and permanent damage.
The term serves as a conceptual tool to highlight the structural and ethical gaps in the existing climate literature, where climate is a quiet and unrepresented victim of the international legal system. Documents such as the ENMOD Convention (1976), the first additional protocol to the Geneva Convention (Articles 35 and 55), and Article 8 of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Roman Law. As a result, there is no obligation to document or declare the condition of the environment during wartime.
To fill this void, it is proposed to launch a global dialogue to operate independently of veto structures and form a multi-stakeholder coalition, as well as the duties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Committee of International Committees of International Organizations (ICRC) (ICRC), as well as the mission of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Committee of International Organizations (ICRC). Center. The goal of this coalition is not political judgment, but scientific and ethical documentation of the environmental impact of war. This is a step towards transparency, accountability and climate justice.
In this perspective, an early conceptual framework entitled Emergency Climate Response Mechanism (ECRM) can launch new dialogues. This idea represents a mechanism for rapid response in wartime conditions. This means quick documentation, early warnings, and global notification of climate damage caused by conflict. So, in human-like climates, there are voices and observers in emergencies.
The environmental destruction caused by war is not merely a technical issue. It is a threat to global logic, the balance of nature, and the future of future generations. Looking down at this dimension, we can vent the world-class efforts for climate justice from within. The international community can no longer view war as a security or political issue. The destruction of ecosystems caused by war is a real threat to climate sustainability, global health, and the rights of future generations. Ignoring this voice not only raises doubt on the effectiveness of international organizations, but also increases the risk of negating years of efforts for climate justice.
The COP30 Summit presents a historic opportunity to raise this issue and launch a multi-stakeholder process to remedy this gap. This voice could be lost between technical and financial agendas, but it could form the cornerstone of a global coalition to link peace, climate and environmental sustainability in the 21st century.
The author is a senior advisor to the head of the Ministry of the Environment.