Who would have thought that the commemoration of Earth Day (22 April\n2026) would arrive in an atmosphere that is not entirely optimistic?\nAmid rising global awareness of the climate crisis, the world is instead\nconfronted with escalations in armed conflicts in various regions.\nTensions between America-Israel and Iran, for example, not only leave\ngeopolitical issues but also bring ecological implications that often\nescape attention.<\/p>\n
Modern warfare can no longer be understood merely as a military\nevent. It has become part of the global environmental problem. Every\nlarge-scale military operation involves extremely high consumption of\nfossil energy\u2014from troop mobilisations, use of combat vehicles, to\nairstrikes. In this context, the carbon footprint from military\nactivities increases sharply in a short time, especially during open\nconflicts.<\/p>\n
When the world is still striving to keep global temperature rises\nfrom exceeding the 1.5\u00b0C threshold, military activities have the\npotential to erode achievements built through various decarbonisation\npolicies. Herein lies the irony: on one side, civil society is\nencouraged to reduce carbon footprints through lifestyle changes; on the\nother, the carbon footprint from military activities often falls outside\nthe framework of global climate accountability.<\/p>\n
This condition shows that the climate crisis and armed conflicts have\na deeper interconnection. Both are rooted in global dependence on fossil\nfuels. Oil and gas are not only energy sources but also objects of\nstrategic interest disputes between countries. As long as fossil energy\nremains the main foundation of economic and defence systems, the\npotential for conflict will remain open.<\/p>\n
Carbon Footprint of War<\/p>\n
In several international media reports, the ecological impact of\nmilitary operations is even evident on a striking scale. Emissions\nproduced in a short time can match the annual carbon footprint of\ncertain countries. This fact shows that war not only causes physical\ndestruction but also accelerates the environmental crisis with\nintergenerational impacts.<\/p>\n
Awareness of this is beginning to emerge among the global civil\nsociety. Climate activist Greta Thunberg, for example, calls this\nphenomenon \u201cthe normalisation of ecological genocide\u201d. The term may\nsound harsh, but it carries a strong moral message: that environmental\ndestruction in the context of war can no longer be considered a normal\nconsequence.<\/p>\n
If the public has so far been asked to reduce individual carbon\nfootprints, the question that is rarely asked is: how large is the\nongoing carbon footprint of war that continues outside the global\nawareness radar? At this point, what we face is no longer just an\nemissions issue, but the massive burning of fossil energy legitimised in\nthe name of conflict and security.<\/p>\n
From a policy perspective, this situation demands a more integrated\napproach between environmental agendas and global security. The\ntransition to renewable energy can no longer be understood merely as a\ntechnical effort to lower emissions, but also as a strategy to reduce\ndependence on resources that often trigger conflicts.<\/p>\n
Clean Energy and National Sovereignty<\/p>\n
This is where the direction of solutions needs to be emphasised.\nFirst, the international community needs to promote transparency of\ncarbon footprints from military activities as part of global climate\ncommitments. Without including this sector in emissions calculations,\nclimate change control targets will always be uneven from the start.<\/p>\n
Second, countries, including Indonesia, need to accelerate the\ntransition to renewable energy as part of national resilience\nstrategies. Energy independence not only impacts economic stability but\nalso reduces vulnerability to global conflicts triggered by fossil\nresource disputes.<\/p>\n
Third, strengthening domestic capacity in clean energy technology\nbecomes an urgent agenda. Dependence on imports of renewable energy\ncomponents risks creating new forms of dependence. Therefore,\ninvestments in research, innovation, and national industry must be\npositioned as part of long-term strategies.<\/p>\n
Fourth, civil society needs to continue pushing for global\naccountability, including in the use of military budgets with ecological\nimpacts. Strong public awareness will become both moral and political\npressure for countries to no longer ignore the environmental dimension\nin every conflict.<\/p>\n
For Indonesia, this momentum is important to read strategically.\nDependence on imported fossil energy not only affects the economy but\nalso vulnerability to global dynamics. Therefore, investments in\nrenewable energy need to be viewed as part of efforts to strengthen\nnational sovereignty.<\/p>\n
Earth Day should be a moment of reflection as well as course\ncorrection. The future of the environment cannot be separated from\nglobal political and economic choices. As long as war remains an\ninstrument for resolving conflicts, and as long as fossil energy remains\nthe main foundation of national power, efforts to save the Earth will\nalways face serious obstacles.<\/p>\n
Amid such a situation, the transition to sustainable clean energy is\nnot only an ecological need but also a rational path to escape the cycle\nof recurring conflicts. As long as energy is positioned as an object of\ncontention, war will always find reasons to exist.<\/p>\n
Therefore, saving the Earth is not enough by reducing emissions at\nthe individual level, but demands the courage to correct the direction\nof civilisation. We are determining: whether the future will be built on\nthe energy of life, or continue to be held hostage by the carbon\nfootprint of war.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/war-energy-and-the-future-of-the-earth-1776905460", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }