Every year on June 5th, World Environment Day serves as a reminder of the environmental challenges we face—and the solutions we already know. The theme changes each year, but the core message remains: How can we better protect nature and ensure a more sustainable future?
Environmental protection comes at a cost – but who’s really paying?
We hear it all the time: Consumers must take responsibility. We need to sort our waste, eat less meat, drive electric cars, and use less plastic. But why do sustainable choices so often feel like the hardest—and most expensive—ones to make?
Because our economy is built for growth and consumption, not preservation and balance.
- As long as it’s more profitable to destroy nature than to protect it, we will continue to do so.
- As long as it’s more profitable to sell you a new phone than to let you repair your old one, we’ll keep buying new.
- As long as it’s more profitable to cut down the forest than to let it stand, the trees will fall.
And as long as we keep blaming individuals for the climate crisis, the major players can continue business as usual without making the changes that actually matter.
From plastic bags to bulldozers – we’re focusing on the wrong things
We love simple fixes. “Bring a tote bag,” “Drive less,” “Sort your trash.” And yes—plastic pollution is a massive problem. This year’s World Environment Day theme reminds us of just that. Every minute, the equivalent of a garbage truck full of plastic ends up in the ocean. Microplastics are found in everything from fish to amniotic fluid. It’s not just scary for the animals—it affects us humans who rely on nature for food, water, and health.
But why is the finger always pointed at consumers?
We are consumers. We’re influenced by advertising, marketing tricks, and psychological mechanisms our brains weren’t built to resist. I’ve written a lot about how producers manipulate us—and yet, we’re the ones held accountable.
Yes, we do need awareness about how we consume, what we buy, and how we dispose of plastic. But real change doesn’t start at the kitchen counter—it starts with the producers. At the top of the value chain. Where the decisions are made.
And while we argue about straws and shopping bags, the biggest destruction happens quietly.
- We drain wetlands—and increase flooding.
- We cut forests—and lose natural landslide protection.
- We blast mountains—and create unstable slopes.
And when disaster strikes? We blame the climate. Not the bulldozer—after all, it runs on electricity…
Then comes the war
We talk a lot about emissions from cars, cows, and planes. But what about bombs? Rockets? Tanks running on diesel 24/7?
A single artillery shell emits over 130 kilos of CO₂. Tens of thousands are fired every day. One hour of flight in a fighter jet can cause more emissions than a regular car does in a whole year.
Yet we almost never talk about the environmental impact of war. Maybe because it feels insensitive to mention emissions when people are dying and everything is falling apart. Maybe because climate change seems small next to bombs, displacement, and death.
But that’s exactly why we must talk about it. If we don’t raise these issues, we risk losing everything—not just for those affected now, but for future generations too. The fact is: War is a climate bomb.
Studies show that just one year of full-scale warfare in a major conflict zone—like Ukraine—produces emissions on par with a medium-sized European country, like Switzerland or Denmark. The difference? These emissions aren’t counted in any climate accounting. They end up in other ledgers—while we’re told to sort more paper or drive less to “do our part.”
And this is just the weapons. We haven’t even started counting:
- Forest fires and destruction of ecosystems and agriculture
- Oil and gas infrastructure being blown up
- Chemical and toxic waste from ammunition
- Massive CO₂ emissions from post-war reconstruction
The defense sector is one of the world’s largest consumers of fossil fuels—yet it’s often exempt from international climate agreements. The U.S. military alone is the world’s largest institutional fossil fuel consumer—even during peacetime.: At selv i møte med globale kriser som klimaendringer, er det fortsatt penger og makt som styrer skuta. Ikke visjoner. Ikke etikk.
Why aren’t we talking about this? Why isn’t the climate impact of war part of the environmental debate?
Perhaps because it reveals something uncomfortable: That even in the face of global crises like climate change, it’s still money and power steering the ship. Not vision. Not ethics.
How can we make sustainability profitable?
We know nature needs protection. But real change won’t happen until we make it economically more rewarding to protect nature than to destroy it.
- What if developers—not society—had to pay for the damage they cause?
- What if we rewarded companies that made a real difference—instead of those that just greenwash their image?
- What if innovation meant creating less consumption, not more?
We’re facing a critical moment. World Environment Day should be about asking the hard questions: Who profits from environmental destruction—and how can we change the system so that protecting nature is the most profitable path, before it’s too late?
Read more on how development projects are destroying nature’s own safety mechanisms—and why we must start seeing the full picture: It’s not just the climate—we’re the ones creating the disasters.
