The ecology of war

Will ecology become an issue in human conflicts? Pierre Charbonnier, philosopher and researcher at Sciences Po, looks at the very notion of the ecology of war. After the horrors of the Second World War, European countries decided that the best way to avoid the same thing happening again was for nations to adopt a productivist logic. This meant the massive use of oil and coal to keep factories running at full capacity. In short, pollution was synonymous with peace.

The last few decades have changed this somewhat. For example, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has led European countries, often dependent on Russian oil and gas, to look elsewhere for cleaner sources of energy. We could thus speak of an ecology of war. The problem is that, at present, it is mainly based on a reaction to one side or the other. Nations will adopt environmental policies on the manufacture of objects to, let's imagine, slow down the Chinese economic boom, and vice-versa.

Moreover, as the researcher notes, we are generally more disturbed by the pollution that can be created by wars with shells, bullets, tanks and the like, whereas this is much more localized in time. Ultimately, it's even less pernicious than everyday pollution. The millions of people who get into their cars every morning contribute far more to the ecological footprint than the scuffles in Ukraine, Palestine or Lebanon. Which, incidentally, undermines the widespread adoption of environmental policies, since these polluting gestures are not seen as such.

Running time: 23min53