Habitat loss  Agriculture  Pollution  Development  Transportation  War

Many have died fighting for independence, to gain control of others. This has been for the benefit of human beings, not wildlife. In many cases wildlife has sustained the greatest losses of all. Soldiers have wiped out animals, mainly as target practice. Forests have been cut down, burnt for firewood. When countries count their losses, these losses include human lives and economic losses due to the disruption of industries, but not animal losses and disruption to the natural diversity of the countries, including migration routes.

We all agree that war leads to widespread and direct destruction of the natural habitat, but it is usually the aftermath of war that does the most damage. This is a fact many seem to forget when we see a treaty being signed, praise the leaders for finding peace and start counting the costs of the war-torn areas before we actually should.

The armies of refugees, who follow both the victorious and the defeated armies of the warring parties, blaze a trail of destruction across the land. Disruption of normal rural activities, such as agriculture and even nature conservation occurs, leaving its own legacy of environmental damage, when the victims of war, thrown upon their own devices, plunder the environment around them.

The after effects do not only include destruction of wildlife directly, but indirectly as well. Toxic pollutants were recently found in the Danube River, having been discharged into the river due to the recent war in Yugoslavia. Oil refineries and chemical plants on the banks of the river and its tributaries were among targets destroyed by NATO bombing in Kosovo. This released large amounts of toxic chemicals and oil into the river. This river is not only a source of drinking water to ten million people, but also supports a few of the last remaining wetlands in Europe. These are very rich in diversity and it would be a disaster if they were to be destroyed.

The effect of nuclear weapons would change many factors, including the weather. If a nuclear war were to begin, the world's forests and drier areas would immediately be set ablaze. The heat would be high enough to sterilise the soil. Ungerminated seeds in the ground would be ruined. No one could count the number of populations and species that would be wiped out, and those that survived would have suffered the side effects of the war.

When the rains returned, soil would be washed away because no trees remained to anchor it down. With the absence of land, no plants can be reinstituted. The heavy amount of dirt would also stress shallow areas of the ocean and the mouths of rivers and streams. Smoke and dust would cover the sky and make the ozone layer even thinner. Little hope would remain of saving the rainforest and even if Soils and forests did eventually regenerate, natural resources such as minerals and petroleum would not reform quickly enough to benefit us. If thermonuclear war were to occur, humans would join the thousands of organisms already in danger of extinction.

Why not fight wars with words, battle them out in conference room. Normally the countries resolve their differences and eventually sign treaties of peace. Why not avoid the losses and fight verbally; it would save countless species and HUMAN LIVES AS WELL.