Climate, Cost and Reconstruction: The Environmental Stakes of Destroying — and Rebuilding — Gaza

The scale of destruction in Gaza is unprecedented in recent memory and rebuilding presents an immense humanitarian imperative — but also an enormous environmental and climate challenge. Reconstruction will require tens of billions of dollars, generate large greenhouse-gas emissions from debris removal and new construction, and risks setting back progress on many UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) unless environmental considerations (material reuse, low-carbon design, waste and water management, and just governance) are baked into planning and financing from day one. This essay documents the scale of the damage and cost, explains the carbon and pollution pathways associated with destruction and rebuilding, connects these to specific SDGs, and offers practical recommendations to minimize climate harm while maximizing social and development outcomes.

Scale of destruction and the price tag

By multiple independent assessments, the damage in Gaza is both massive and concentrated. A joint Interim Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (IRDNA) by the World Bank, the UN and the European Union estimated reconstruction and recovery needs for Gaza at roughly $53 billion over the coming decade, with about $20 billion required in the first three years alone. That figure aggregates damages to housing, public infrastructure, services, health and education, and the economic losses from damaged productive capacity. (World Bank)

Beyond dollars, the physical scale is staggering. UN agencies and independent analysts reported that tens of millions of tonnes of rubble and debris — estimates vary but cluster around 30–40+ million tonnes — were generated in the most intense phases of the conflict. Clearing, processing, and safely disposing of that debris is itself a major logistical, public-health, and environmental task. (Yale E360)

Why does this matter? Because rebuilding is not merely replacing bricks with bricks: it is a long chain of material extraction, transport, processing, on-site construction, and then decades of operation. Each stage produces greenhouse-gas emissions and local pollution — meaning reconstruction decisions will imprint Gaza’s carbon footprint for decades.

The carbon and pollution footprint of modern war and post-conflict reconstruction

War’s immediate and direct emissions

Conflicts produce emissions in many ways: munitions manufacture and use, vehicle and aircraft fuel consumption, destruction of energy infrastructure (forcing fossil-fuel backup), fires that release stored carbon and toxic particulates, and the movement of humanitarian and military supply chains. Recent analyses estimate that the military campaign and associated activities around the Gaza conflict generated substantial CO₂e emissions in the hundreds of thousands to millions of tonnes range; one study put the campaign’s direct footprint at almost 1.9 million tonnes CO₂e and projected that the clearing and reconstruction phase could add tens of millions of tonnes more. These are not negligible numbers in global terms and can exceed the annual emissions of many small countries. (The Guardian)

Debris clearance — the hidden emission vector

Rubble clearance is often the first large-scale reconstruction activity. It requires machinery to demolish and crush, trucks to haul, sometimes chemical remediation, and energy to run all of it. A recent modelling study using remote sensing and scenario analysis estimated that clearing ~39 million tonnes of concrete and building debris in Gaza would involve millions of truck journeys and could — depending on methods — generate tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO₂e just from transport and processing. The study modelled two contrasting scenarios: one using large industrial crushers and concentrated sites (shorter time, lower emissions), and another using small crushers distributed across the enclave (much longer time, higher cumulative emissions). The difference is material: the how of rubble processing greatly affects the carbon cost. (The Guardian)

New construction and embodied carbon

Construction has a substantial embodied carbon footprint: producing cement and steel (the two big drivers), transporting them, and erecting new structures accounts for a large share of a building’s life-cycle emissions. Rebuilding entire neighborhoods with contemporary construction practices — at the scale envisioned for Gaza — could add millions of tonnes of embedded CO₂. Some rough global benchmarking suggests rebuilding the quantity of housing and infrastructure destroyed in Gaza could be roughly comparable to the annual emissions of mid-sized countries if standard materials and techniques are used. (Estimates vary by method and time horizon.) (PMC)

Pollutants and hazardous materials

Beyond CO₂, rubble often contains hazardous materials (asbestos, heavy metals, chemicals), and conflict creates unique contamination pathways (shrapnel, unexploded ordnance, chemical residue from munitions). Improper handling risks health and local environmental degradation (soil contamination, groundwater impacts, air-borne particulates), which complicates reconstruction and raises remediation costs. UN and NGO reports highlight contamination risks and the need for careful decontamination and protective measures for workers and residents. (Yale E360)

Destruction + Climate = Development reversal: SDG implications

The UN’s 17 SDGs are interlinked — environmental degradation and weakened institutions undermine progress across them. The Gaza case affects many SDGs simultaneously:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work & Economic Growth): The economy contracted sharply during hostilities, jobs were lost, and productive capacity was damaged. Rebuilding must create employment; otherwise, poverty will deepen. The World Bank/UN assessment quantified lost productive assets and estimated multi-billion dollar needs to restore livelihoods. (The World Bank Docs)
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 6 (Clean Water & Sanitation): Attacks damaged water and wastewater infrastructure, irrigation, and agricultural assets; contamination and fuel shortages have reduced potable water availability and food production capacity. These are immediate humanitarian and long-term food-security concerns. (Le Monde.fr)
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Pollution from rubble, damaged hospitals and clinics, and outbreaks that accompany large displacements undermine health. Hazardous dust and toxic residues create chronic health risks. (Yale E360)
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure): The central tension: rebuild quickly to rehouse people, or rebuild sustainably and resiliently? Rapid, fossil-fuel-intensive reconstruction can restore housing faster but locks in high emissions and potentially precarious infrastructure; slower, greener options can reduce long-term emissions but delay shelter and services. The UN has warned that the war has set back Gaza’s development by decades in some indicators — one UN analysis suggested development could be set back up to 69 years in certain metrics absent radical change. (UNDP)
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): War-related emissions are typically not counted in national inventories, and military emissions are often omitted from national climate planning. The Gaza example makes clear that conflicts contribute meaningfully to the global emissions budget and that reconstruction choices either add to or mitigate those emissions. (The Guardian)
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions): Governance and ownership are essential. Reconstruction financed or implemented without trusted, transparent institutions will exacerbate inequalities and undermine sustainable development aims.

In short, reconstruction is not neutral with respect to the SDGs — the methods and financing determine whether rebuilding is a pathway back to resilient development or a reinforcement of vulnerability and carbon lock-in.

Key technical levers for lowering the carbon and environmental cost of rebuilding

There are concrete technical and policy levers that can substantially reduce the climate footprint of reconstruction while meeting humanitarian needs:

 Prioritize rubble management strategies that minimize transport and reprocess locally

• Local processing and selective reuse. Crushing and sorting rubble on or near site to recover aggregates for road base, fill, and non-structural concrete can avoid large transport distances and reduce embodied carbon compared with virgin aggregates. The comparison of rubble-processing scenarios shows that centralized, industrially efficient crushing delivers lower GHGs per tonne processed than prolonged, decentralized approaches — but centralized approaches require secure corridors and proper hazardous-waste controls. (The Guardian)
• Hazardous material protocols. Because rubble may contain asbestos, unexploded ordnance, and chemical residues, safe removal, testing and containment protocols must precede reuse to safeguard public health. UN and NGO guidance documents emphasize protective equipment and specialized handling teams. (Yale E360)

Maximize reuse and adaptive repair instead of wholesale demolition and replacement

• Adaptive reuse saves embodied carbon. Studies and industry analyses consistently show that reusing existing structures and components can substantially cut embodied GHGs — some analyses suggest reuse can offset up to ~40–88% of embodied emissions compared to demolishing and building anew, depending on building type, material quality, and retrofit depth. In Gaza, where many partially damaged buildings may still have reusable elements, assessing and rehabilitating what can be salvaged reduces both cost and carbon. (living-future.org)

Use low-carbon materials and design for energy efficiency

• Lower-carbon cement and alternative binders: Cement production is among construction’s largest emission sources; substitution with blended cements (fly ash, slag), alternative binders, or low-carbon cement technologies can reduce embodied emissions. When new structural elements are necessary, choices about material mixes matter. (PMC)
• Passive design and renewable energy: Given Gaza’s solar potential, rebuilding with rooftop solar and energy-efficient envelopes can reduce operational emissions and reliance on diesel generators — which became prevalent after damage to grid infrastructure. Incorporating energy efficiency in schools, clinics, and housing delivers long-term emissions reductions and lowers energy costs for residents. (The Guardian)

Integrate waste, water and sanitation solutions early

Damage to water and sanitation systems creates public-health crises and complicates reconstruction. Restoring decentralized wastewater treatment, upgrading stormwater management, and implementing low-energy water purification can reduce environmental harm and promote resilience. These investments intersect directly with multiple SDGs (health, water, cities). (UNDP)

Adopt life-cycle procurement and standards (embodied + operational carbon)

Procurement rules that require suppliers to account for life-cycle emissions incentivize low-carbon choices: contractors that can document lower embodied carbon in materials and that reuse salvaged components should be favored. This requires measurement frameworks (embedded carbon calculators) and capacity building for engineers and procurement officials.

Economics: costs, co-benefits and tradeoffs

Price tags versus value

The $50–$53 billion estimates set the headline scale of financing needed. But costs are not just linear: choices change costs and value. For instance:

• Rehabilitating structurally salvageable housing is typically cheaper (and less carbon intensive) than full demolition and rebuild. It also returns people to homes faster.
• Quality low-carbon reconstruction may require higher upfront capital but yields lower lifecycle energy bills, greater resilience to climate shocks, and lower health costs from pollution and poor sanitation.
• Remediation of contaminated soils and safe handling of hazardous debris has an immediate fiscal cost but prevents long-term health expenses and lost productivity.

Who pays? Financing mechanisms matter for sustainability

The financing mix will shape incentives. If reconstruction is subsidized without environmental conditions, there is little incentive to reduce carbon. If funds are conditional on environmental standards (green building codes, reuse targets, waste-processing plans), then sustainability is encouraged — but such conditionality must be politically and ethically sensitive so it does not delay urgent shelter.

International financing instruments can include:

• Grants and concessional loans keyed to environmental performance.
• Dedicated funds for rubble processing and material recycling infrastructure.
• Technical assistance and capacity building (for life-cycle assessment, standards, and enforcement).
• Carbon-finance mechanisms or blended finance to close the gap on more expensive low-carbon options.

Local economic multiplier of green reconstruction

Sustainable rebuilding strategies — local rubble processing, rehabilitation trades, decentralized renewable energy — can have strong local employment multipliers. Investing in skills for adaptive reuse, building retrofit, and low-carbon technologies creates enduring jobs and builds local capacity, linking SDG 8 (decent work) with SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities). Analyses of post-disaster economies show that labor-intensive, low-carbon interventions typically deliver higher short-term employment per dollar than capital-intensive imports of materials and equipment.

Governance, justice and political constraints

Technical solutions exist, but two non-technical issues are decisive: access and governance.

Access, security and supply chains

Large-scale centralized rubble processing and importation of alternative materials require secure supply corridors, phased security arrangements and predictable access. In Gaza’s context, restrictions on material movement have historically limited reconstruction speed and design choices; any green reconstruction plan must grapple with the political realities that shape what materials and equipment can enter and who controls distribution. (Reuters)

Ownership, transparency, and participatory planning

Who sets rebuilding priorities — local communities, a reconstruction council, international donors, or external governments — will affect outcomes. Reconstruction plans must be Palestinian-led and inclusive (local engineers, municipalities, women’s groups, and affected communities) to align with SDG 16 (inclusive institutions) and to ensure investments meet social needs. Past reconstruction efforts in other contexts show that top-down projects risk corruption, misallocation, and social fragmentation; transparent procurement, community oversight and clear grievance mechanisms are essential.

Accountability for environmental damage and reparations

There are emerging debates about whether the environmental costs of conflict (rubble emissions, destroyed renewables, contaminated aquifers) should be accounted for in reparations and international legal processes. Quantifying the climate and environmental costs properly helps inform any reparative financing and makes it harder for states to externalize environmental liabilities. Recent studies calling for inclusion of military emissions in national and international accounting are directly relevant here. (The Guardian)

Concrete policy recommendations (operational and financial)

Below are pragmatic, prioritized recommendations that balance urgency (shelter and services) with long-term sustainability:

1. Immediate: Safe rubble triage and health protection. Launch rapid assessment teams to map contaminated sites, prioritize safe removal of explosives and hazardous materials, and provide protective equipment to workers. Invest in mobile labs and health monitoring for cleanup teams. (Health + safety preconditions to any reuse plan.) (arava.org)
2. Short term (0–3 years): Build local, high-efficiency rubble processing hubs. Wherever security and access permit, set up properly equipped hubs with industrial crushers, sorting, and testing to produce aggregates for roads, foundations and non-structural applications. Centralized hubs tend to produce lower GHGs per tonne processed and reduce the cumulative truck mileage. This requires donor funding and guarantee of secure access corridors. (The Guardian)
3. Prioritize rehabilitation/retrofit over wholesale demolition. Establish technical protocols to evaluate structural soundness and fast-track repair teams that rehabilitate habitable housing. Favor incremental housing solutions that allow families to return faster while longer-term planning proceeds. This saves embodied carbon and time. (living-future.org)
4. Green procurement and life-cycle standards. Tie a portion of reconstruction funding to life-cycle carbon thresholds, reuse quotas, and energy-efficiency targets. Provide upfront technical assistance and pre-qualified supplier lists to reduce procurement friction. (PMC)
5. Restore renewables and resilient energy systems early. Prioritize rooftop solar and microgrids for clinics, water pumping stations, and community centers — these investments reduce diesel dependence and lower operational costs and emissions. (UNDP)
6. Integrate water and sanitation upgrades with housing reconstruction. Rebuild decentralized wastewater treatment and water capture systems to reduce contamination and provide long-term resilience to climate impacts. Such systems are typically lower energy and can be built with local labor. (Le Monde.fr)
7. Transparent governance and community participation. Establish a Palestinian-led reconstruction governance body with international oversight, transparent procurement rules, and community feedback channels. Prioritize capacity building for local engineers and municipal staff. (The World Bank Docs)
8. Finance innovation: Use blended finance (grants + low-interest loans), green bonds earmarked for sustainable rebuilding, and results-based financing that rewards low-carbon outcomes. Consider carbon finance credits from verified emission reductions (e.g., avoided emissions from reuse) to supplement revenues — but only where robust MRV (measurement, reporting, verification) exists.

Challenges, tradeoffs and risks

No recommendation is politically or technically frictionless. Key risks include:

• Security vs. centralization: Centralized processing is efficient but requires secure movement. Insecurity may force decentralized methods that increase cumulative emissions and delay timelines. (The Guardian)
• Speed vs. quality: Urgent shelter needs push for rapid, low-spec construction that can lock in high emissions; conversely, stringent low-carbon rules can delay shelter. Borrowing policy instruments from emergency shelter practice — e.g., temporary transitional housing that is durable but low-carbon, combined with parallel longer-term redevelopment — can balance these priorities.
• Data and measurement gaps: Life-cycle accounting requires data (material mixes, transport distances, local emissions factors) that may be lacking. Investment in rapid LCA tools and capacity building is necessary.
• Political economy: Reconstruction is political. Donor conditionality perceived as external imposition can spark resistance; yet unconditional funds risk misallocation. Carefully designed participatory conditionality — where local stakeholders take the lead and donors provide climate-smart technical conditions — is essential.

Broader lessons: conflicts, climate and the global carbon ledger

Gaza is a striking case study of how armed conflict can produce concentrated, persistent environmental harm and how reconstruction decisions reverberate across climate and development objectives. Key lessons for the international community:

• Count war emissions. Military and conflict-related emissions — including destruction, rubble removal, and reconstruction — should be more systematically included in climate accounting and reparations frameworks. The Gaza estimates that place war-related emissions in the millions of tonnes underline the point. (The Guardian)
• Make reconstruction green by design. The opportunity to rebuild large parts of a city can be an opportunity to transition to sustainable infrastructure, if governance, access and finance align.
• Invest in resilient, locally-led capacity before the next crisis. Strengthening local institutions, recycling capacity, and low-carbon building expertise in peace time lowers the costs and carbon of recovery when disasters or conflicts strike.

Conclusion

Rebuilding Gaza is a moral and humanitarian imperative. But how reconstruction is pursued will either reinforce or mitigate an additional — and largely avoidable — cost: the climate and environmental burden. The IRDNA’s multi-billion dollar needs estimate and assessments of tens of millions of tonnes of rubble make the stakes unmistakable. Transparent, Palestinian-led reconstruction that prioritizes rubble triage and reuse, adaptive rehabilitation, low-carbon materials and renewable energy, and integrated water and sanitation can reduce embodied emissions, protect public health, and advance multiple SDGs together.

Two final, candid points: first, political and security realities will shape what is feasible; thus, technical recommendations must be pragmatic and phased. Second, there are no zero-cost fixes: greener options may require more upfront finance and careful coordination. But when the global community considers the costs of reconstruction, it should factor in lifetime benefits — lower energy bills, improved health outcomes, more resilient infrastructure, and reduced cumulative emissions. Investing a little more now to rebuild in a way that protects people and the climate will pay dividends for Gaza’s future generations and for the planet.

Key sources (selected)

• World Bank / UN / EU — Gaza & West Bank Interim Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (IRDNA) — reconstruction needs estimate ≈ $53.2 billion. (World Bank)
• The Guardian — modelling study on rubble clearing scenarios and emissions (tens of thousands–90,000+ tonnes CO₂e from debris processing; long timescales depending on method). (The Guardian)
• UNDP — report on the backsliding of development indicators (setbacks up to decades; references to impact on SDGs). (UNDP)
• Scholarly & technical literature on embodied carbon and the carbon savings from reuse/adaptive reuse; life-cycle studies showing large potential reductions when reuse is prioritized. (ScienceDirect)
• Yale Environment 360, WHO/UN technical assessments and UN agency briefings on environmental health impacts and rubble quantities. (Yale E360)