US-Israel-Iran War: Emissions Already Rival Iceland’s Yearly Carbon Footprint

The ongoing conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran is not only a humanitarian crisis but also a significant, and often overlooked, contributor to climate change. A new analysis reveals that the first two weeks of the war – between February 28th and March 14th, 2026 – released almost 5.6 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This represents a staggering amount, exceeding the annual carbon emissions of Iceland and rivaling those of 84 of the world’s lowest-emitting countries combined.

The study, published March 21 by the Climate and Community Institute, highlights a grim reality: even as global efforts focus on reducing emissions, armed conflict is rapidly accelerating environmental damage. The researchers, led by Patrick Bigger, a research director at the Climate and Community Institute, found that the emissions stemmed from a combination of direct impacts – bombing of infrastructure – and indirect consequences, like the destruction of buildings and the use of fuel for military operations. Bigger emphasized to The Guardian that “every missile strike is another downpayment on a hotter, more unstable planet, and none of it makes anyone safer.”

The Hidden Carbon Footprint of Conflict

While the immediate consequences of war – loss of life, displacement, and infrastructure damage – are readily apparent, the environmental toll is often less visible. This analysis breaks down the sources of emissions, revealing that the largest single contributor during the initial phase of the conflict was the destruction of civilian infrastructure. Approximately 2.7 million tons of CO₂ were attributed to the razing of homes, schools, commercial buildings, and medical centers. According to data from the Red Crescent Society of Iran, over 16,000 residential buildings, 3,384 commercial units, 77 medical centers, and 69 schools have been damaged or destroyed. The sheer volume of rubble necessitates extensive rebuilding, a process that will generate substantial further emissions.

The second largest source of emissions – around 2.1 million tons of CO₂ – came from the bombing of oil facilities, including storage sites, refineries, and tankers in the Gulf region. Researchers estimate that between 2.5 and 5.9 million barrels of oil were destroyed during the first two weeks of the war. This equates to roughly Malta’s annual carbon emissions. The disruption to oil infrastructure also has broader economic implications, potentially leading to increased fuel prices and energy insecurity.

Fuel consumption by military forces – powering fighter jets, bombers, and ships – accounted for approximately 583,000 tons of CO₂. The U.S. And Israel conducted over 6,000 strikes on targets within Iran during the initial period, requiring an estimated 150 to 270 million liters of fuel. The loss of military equipment – three U.S. F-15 fighter jets, one KC-135 refueling aircraft, and reported losses of 28 Iranian planes, 21 ships, and 300 missile launchers – also contributed to the carbon footprint, with the manufacturing of replacements adding an estimated 190,000 tons of CO₂.

Beyond Immediate Emissions: A Cascade of Climate Impacts

The initial emissions are only part of the story. The analysis points to a potential cascade of climate impacts stemming from the conflict. As countries attempt to secure their energy supplies in the wake of disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz – a critical waterway currently under Iranian control – there is a risk of increased investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. As reported by the Associated Press, Iran’s chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz has already sent fuel prices skyrocketing and threatens the global economy. This could lead to a surge in drilling for oil and gas, as well as the construction of new liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals, effectively locking in further carbon dependence.

The war also threatens to exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions and divert resources away from climate mitigation efforts. The focus on military spending and security concerns may overshadow the urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy. The conflict could create new humanitarian crises, leading to increased displacement and strain on resources in neighboring countries.

What the Numbers Mean: A Comparative Perspective

To position the emissions from the first two weeks of the war into perspective, consider the following comparisons. The 5.6 million tons of CO₂ released is equivalent to Iceland’s entire annual carbon footprint (4.7 million tons in 2024). It also surpasses the combined annual emissions of 84 of the world’s lowest-emitting countries. The emissions from destroying oil facilities alone are comparable to Malta’s yearly emissions. The fuel used by military operations is roughly equivalent to Greenland’s annual carbon output. These comparisons underscore the significant climate impact of even a relatively short period of armed conflict.

It’s important to note that these are estimates, and the actual emissions may be higher. The analysis relies on available data and modeling assumptions, and there is inherent uncertainty in quantifying the environmental impact of war. Yet, the findings provide a clear indication that armed conflict is a major contributor to climate change, and that its environmental consequences are often underestimated.

The Broader Context: Conflict and Climate Vulnerability

The Middle East is already one of the most climate-vulnerable regions in the world, facing challenges such as water scarcity, desertification, and extreme heat. The ongoing conflict is likely to exacerbate these challenges, further destabilizing the region and increasing the risk of humanitarian crises. As The Guardian reported, researchers are concerned that the war will hinder efforts to address climate change in the region and could lead to a vicious cycle of conflict and environmental degradation.

The situation highlights the interconnectedness of climate change, security, and human well-being. Addressing these challenges requires a holistic approach that integrates climate action into peacebuilding efforts and prioritizes sustainable development. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels, investing in renewable energy, and promoting international cooperation are essential steps towards building a more resilient and peaceful future.

What Comes Next: Monitoring, Assessment, and Potential for Increased Emissions

The Climate and Community Institute plans to continue monitoring the emissions from the conflict and updating its analysis as new data grow available. Researchers are also investigating the potential for long-term environmental impacts, such as the release of toxic chemicals from damaged infrastructure. Further studies are needed to assess the full extent of the climate consequences of the war and to identify strategies for mitigating its environmental impact. As Fred Otu-Larbi of Lancaster University noted, “We expect emissions to increase rapidly as the conflict proceeds, mainly due to the speed [at] which oil facilities are being targeted at an alarming rate.” The situation remains fluid, and the potential for escalation – and further emissions – remains a significant concern.