The Persian Gulf is an ecosystem already severely stressed. Beaches along the Gulf are reportedly caked with oil, the result of two decades of massive oil transport through the Gulf which has given rise to many large spills. One spill at Nowruz during the Iran-Iraq war created an oil slick 1000 kilometers (600 miles) long, extending the entire length of the Gulf; that one spill released three times as much oil as the Exxon Valdez accident. This one spill reportedly decimated the shrimping industry in the Gulf. The number of spills per year in the Gulf nearly doubled during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war because of hazards to navigation created by sunk ships, floating mines, and increased maritime traffic. The present U.S.-Iraq conflict seems certain to increase the number of oil spills for some or all of the same reasons.
During the course of even a short war, oil spills could reasonably be expected to exceed the size of the Exxon Valdez spill by a factor of 10 to 100. [And has already occurred!] As is well-known, oil spills on such a scale will kill birds, fin fish, shell fish, sea turtles, sea snakes, dolphins and dugongs (an endangered Manatee-like mammal) and other wildlife. Longer- term negative effects on marine food chains, and consequent loss of productivity, should also be expected. Oil contamination implies contamination by not only hydrocarbons (many of which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic) but also by toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic.
Oil well fires in Kuwait, Iraq, and perhaps even in Saudi Arabia could have serious long-term consequences. Before the U.S. attack on Baghdad, it was reported that Saddam Hussein had placed explosive charges on 300 of Kuwait's 1000 oil wells; detonating these explosives--on purpose or as an unintended side-effect of war--would be expected to start oil well fires. Missile attacks or other bombardment could also ignite well-head fires. There are only about a half-dozen experienced fire-fighting crews in the world capable of putting out oil well fires; Red Adair leads the best-known of these. Therefore, in the event of several hundred simultaneous oil-rig fires, rigs could be expected to burn for weeks or perhaps even months. The accumulated smoke from these fires could have effects similar to those that occurred in the northwestern United States during summer of 1987 when smoke from forest fires blanketed an enormous area, filtering out sunlight and reducing surface temperatures as much as 20 degrees Celsius. British scientists have suggested that regional smoke clouds (perhaps 1000 miles or more in diameter) from oil well fires in the Gulf region might affect the onset, duration, and character of the Asian monsoons which are an essential component of the agricultural systems that feed about a billion people on the Indian sub- continent. Since food stocks are marginal on the Indian subcontinent, a disruption of crop yields could cause famine among large numbers of innocent people.
Bombing strikes against chemical-biological warfare (CBW) agent manufacturing facilities would almost certainly release those agents into the local environment. Such agents known or strongly suspected to be manufactured in Iraq include mustard gas, the nerve gases tabun, sarin, and phosgene, and a bacterial agent that causes the fatal disease anthrax. While mustard gas will bioaccumulate, Tabun, Sarin and phosgene will disperse when released; they are acutely toxic but will not persist in the environment and presumably will not bioaccumulate. Anthrax, on the other hand, is an acute infectious bacterial disease of sheep and cattle caused by Bacillus anthracis; the disease is fatal and can be transmitted easily to humans. Reportedly Bacillus anthracis can make land uninhabitable by humans or domestic animals for up to 40 years.
According to a careful analysis by Greenpeace, the U.S. now has close to 1000 nuclear warheads in the Gulf region. Even if none of these weapons is intentionally detonated, a direct hit on a warhead by conventional artillery or by rocket fire could release significant quantities of radioactive plutonium into the local environment (and possibly for many miles downwind, depending upon specific conditions at the moment of impact), permanently contaminating the area.
There are up to five U.S. Naval nuclear reactors in the Persian Gulf and two to three nuclear power reactors operating in Iraq. The destruction of power reactors could release large amounts of radioactivity. The spread of this radioactivity could be limited to ship's crew or spread thousands of miles depending on weather conditions. Presently many U.S. nuclear reactors are within range of Iraqi missiles and bombs. At least one newspaper report has recently indicated that U.S. air attacks have already hit the Iraqi reactors. No plan for dealing with a potential nuclear accident has yet been put forth by the U.N. or the U.S. administration.
Adverse environmental effects of underwater explosions include deposit of chemical products in the water, destruction of fragile coral reefs and the killing of marine life. Depending on many variables such as size and depth of an explosive charge and composition, any underwater explosion will affect marine species close to the impact.
Even military bases operated on a permanent footing during peacetime are notorious polluters, releasing large quantities of gasoline, kerosene (jet fuel) and fuel oil into the local environment, along with significant quantities of other toxic chemicals (benzene and degreasing compounds such as trichloroethylene, for example). Many of these compounds are human carcinogens and have the potential for contaminating water supplies on a massive scale. Contamination of groundwater, once it occurs, must be considered permanent because attempts at cleanup in many locations in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world have failed. The military bases operated by the U.S. and its allies constitute a temporary city larger than Miami, Florida. The wastewater and sewage treatment needs of such a temporary encampment have a major potential for long-term degradation of local water supplies and the spread of disease through contamination of drinking water.
This is a resource war; it not being fought for high ideals so much as it is being fought for oil. President Bush's aides said this openly during the early days of August though recently they have emphasized more noble reasons for attacking Iraq. A U.S. victory in the Gulf will solidify the U.S.'s commitment to a petroleum-based economy. [It is interesting to note that the U.S. Energy Policy adopted this fall, far from starting us down the road to conservation and switching to clean, renewable energy sources, reaffirmed reliance on fossil fuels!] This may well lead to further international instability as we find ourselves required to "secure" other supplies of oil, a diminishing and nonrenewable resource. Other environmental consequences will include expanded oil drilling on the continental shelf, in the Antarctic, and on lands owned by native peoples.
According to recent newspaper estimates, Congress will soon be asked to appropriate more than $85 billion dollars to fund the initial stages of this war; the longer-term costs of maintaining a presence in the Gulf to protect our oil interests will certainly be larger. These costs, factored into the true price of oil will mean that a barrel of Middle Eastern crude is really costing us up to $100 per barrel. Energy conservation can be achieved for only about $5 per barrel; furthermore, conservation avoids international conflict and environmental degradation as well. Our petroleum-based economy is contributing significantly to the serious worldwide problem of global warming; it is contributing to regional-scale destruction of forests and agricultural lands in Europe and North America because of acid rain. Petroleum forms the building blocks of nearly all the toxic chemicals that have created the nation's Superfund dumps, which are contaminating local water supplies, frightening people, destroying property values, making people sick, and disrupting communities.
It is time for Americans to take back their futureÑto insist on sensible energy and materials policies that free us from bondage to the oil companies, liberating us from a petroleum-based economy and setting us onto a new road toward sensible, safe alternatives that minimize environmental destruction and do not require half a million young Americans to risk their lives on foreign soil.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2004
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited