The climate costs of war and militaries can no longer be ignored

However morbid: for anyone (military or civilian) killed in a conflict, the ecological footprint of what would have been the rest of their lives, gets striken from the record, right? I'd expect that to work out to big numbers - people go through a lot of stuff over their lifetime.

In that sense a bloody conflict would be bad for the environment short-term (due to all the military operations etc), but beneficial long-term (due to population reduction).

Of course a lot of environmental damage also results from random destruction of vehicles, buildings, industrial sites & so on.

This is first time I see this from the main-stream news. It is pre-posterous to think that anything will be done about this, but perhaps it will finally finds its (dominant) place in the discourse on the topic. Any serious debate about environmental pollution and damage must start and end with stern and non-apologetic numbers how these two processes/institutions dominate the said environmental effects.