The last time the ecological cost of war was a hot topic we were still worried about the ozone layer and George Michael’s “Praying for Time” was on the radio. That was 1991, when the Gulf War became a talking point in eco circles for inflicting maximum environmental damage in a remarkably short space of time. The angst began in the run-up to the conflict when scientists expressed concern about 750 Kuwaiti oil wells going up in flames. Ultimately 10m barrels of oil went into the Persian gulf and researchers linked the subsequent fluctuation in temperatures to the devastating Bangladesh typhoon of 1991.

In the aftermath there were calls for a Fifth Geneva Convention, to cover the environment. But like the smoke, resolve dissipated. Laws to protect the biosphere during conflict remain muddled and difficult to enforce. Green Cross International (GCI), founded by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993, tries to address environmental issues in a way that transcends national borders. GCI recognises that the environment can be a threat multiplier if not the root cause of conflict, but it has a battle on its hands. The national budget allocations for the environment in many Arab countries is very low. By contrast military spending is amongst the highest in the world.

Much responsibility has been devolved to the military. BAE, one of the world’s largest weapons manufacturers, has developed a “green munitions” range which received at least one ecological “razzie” award for the most insincere ecological innovation of the century.

But to the eco pragmatist this is logic. If you can’t halt war, change the instruments.

Some even insist that, looked at purely on a ecological level, war can be good for the planet, citing the spontaneous reforestation of post-conflict Puerto Rico from the 1950s and the lush, biodiverse hotspot in the demilitarised zone between North and South Korea.

Of course, this is a ridiculously narrow view. For every “good” story there are many trashed landscapes contaminated by depleted uranium (Kosovo) or toxic gases (Afghanistan). Advocacy groups, such as the Military Toxics Project in the US, deal with the environmental legacy of explosives and heavy metals left behind in military training zones. They continue to fight because evidence shows the Earth is usually another casualty of war.

Green crush

Sam and Nick Clark are forest lovers and design obsessives. Their passions come together quite beautifully in their Moat House eyewear collection which is handmade in Derbyshire. Sunglasses are big business for multinational brands which crank out acetate frames in the Far East. So it’s refreshing to find an ethical version with a clear supply chain – from English and European oak and walnut to sustainably harvested Ebony macassar. Moat House gets the maximum yield from each precious log – using veneer from valuable surface material – and an extensive replanting project puts back more timber than is used. The frames are also a fashion hit, as Moat House balances aesthetics and ethics.

Prices start at £150. For more information, visit moat-house.com

Greenspeak: Airport kitchen {ǽ pðr:t kit∫in,-t∫(∂)n/} noun

Where the bulk of ingredients in a kitchen comes with a flight footprint (having been air freighted from all over the world). The antithesis of local eating, it leaves us vulnerable to food-security issues.