![]() Environmental destruction in war has resulted in declines in wildlife, deforestation, birth defects, and the introduction of new pollutants and pathogens. Once toxic substances have leaked into groundwater or a forest has been destroyed, the damage may continue to harm the health, livelihoods, and security of people living in the affected area for decades. However, wartime environmental destruction has long-term implications which, if left unattended, will extend far beyond the end of a conflict. So the idea of the environment as a subject with rights remains a radical idea. ![]() The environment and nature are often seen as property or a resource. Yet environmental damage has usually had a low policy priority in conflict settings, overshadowed by the urgent need to reduce human suffering. In Syria, the breakdown of the oil industry has led to severe pollution that threatens the health of nearby inhabitants and may have rendered some areas unfit to live in. In parts of Eastern Ukraine, for instance, hazardous substances have leaked into rivers and groundwater due to the destruction of vital infrastructure and hazardous industries. ![]() Images of burning oil fields and bombarded industrial plants have made it clear that armed conflict always causes environmental damage.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |