COLUMN ONE : War Affects Ecology--But How? : Scenarios range from oil field fires threatening the atmosphere to damage to agriculture and fisheries. Environmentalists are split over whether to oppose the conflict.

A growing and unprecedented effort is under way to measure the environmental consequences of the Persian Gulf War, spawned in part by the devastation of Vietnam and increased understanding of the global ramifications of pollution.

The scenarios being painted by scientists, oil analysts and environmentalists vary in their extremes. They range from predictions of destructive climate anomalies around much of the world because of smoke pollution to massive oil spills in the gulf’s waters.

At the very least, many scientists and environmentalists warn, the conflict threatens the region’s fisheries, water supplies and agriculture. Some of the consequences could be felt for years.

“War in the Middle East could result not only in the loss of many thousands of human lives but extend to a scorching of the Earth,” Michael S. Clark, president of Friends of the Earth, warned in a letter last month to Secretary of State James A. Baker III.

Some oil industry experts have downplayed the threats, arguing that they are based on worst-case scenarios. Environmental groups have been divided over whether to speak out against the war.

The more dire forecasts stem from fears that the region’s oil wells could burn for months at a time if they are ignited. Military experts believe that the Iraqis have wired Kuwait’s hundreds of oil wells with explosives. Some oil industry experts concede that months could pass before the massive fires are extinguished.

“What ensues is nothing so severe as a nuclear winter but still something extremely dangerous on a regional scale and possibly on a global scale,” said Carl Sagan, director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University and a leader in developing the theory of the devastating prospect of nuclear winter.

Sagan and UCLA atmospheric scientist Richard Turco contend that the smoke could trigger unseasonable frosts or other climatic changes, much like what occurred after the eruption of the Tamboro volcano in Indonesia in 1915.

That eruption spewed particles into the air that spread worldwide, preventing some of the sun’s heat from reaching the ground. Average global temperatures declined by almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit--enough to ruin crops in parts of the United States and Europe, the scientists said. Frost appeared even in spring and summer.

Turco predicts that a systematic burning of oil wells would produce enough sooty smoke to block heat and disrupt the climate over half of the Northern Hemisphere. Crops would fail if the fires continued into spring.

“My main fear is that if Saddam (Hussein) retreats, then he might ignite all of the oil wells and stored oil in Kuwait in some sort of retribution,” Turco said.

Sagan said their predictions of climatic shifts are not based on a worst-case scenario. “If you look at the history of war . . . you see how many dreadful events (occur) that no one expected and no one wanted,” he said.

Welsh chemical engineer John Cox and other scientists have been even gloomier in their assessments. Cox believes that an immense smoke cloud could cause daytime temperatures in the gulf region to drop as much as 20 degrees Centigrade.

The cooling would disrupt the Indian monsoons and possibly spark crop failures beyond the region, Cox said. He also argues that the smoke could release toxic substances that would eat away at the equatorial ozone layer, causing catastrophic thinning.

Cox published his analysis in the Environmental Protection Bulletin of the Institution of Chemical Engineers. Besides being a director of that institute, he is vice president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Great Britain.

Some oil industry representatives have derided his forecasts as extremist and unrealistic. Other scientists discount his prediction of an ozone catastrophe.

F. Sherwood Rowland, a UC Irvine scientist and pioneer researcher on ozone depletion, said the fires would be “unlikely to generate an intense enough column of smoke that would carry it . . . into the stratosphere where 90% of the ozone is.”

Cox said recently in an interview from Wales that he is simply trying to make the case for further study and research.

“I was trying to argue that we should warn Saddam Hussein that Iraqi agriculture could be devastated and that he shouldn’t do this (mine the oil fields), and then all these idiots started saying, ‘Don’t worry. Blow up all these oil wells and it won’t hurt,” Cox complained of his critics.

Environmentalists point to Vietnam as an example of how war can ravage the environment. In a statement opposed to the gulf conflict, Friends of the Earth noted that a million acres of Vietnam’s rain forest were lost, another 5.5 million acres were devastated by napalm attacks and toxic weapons, and the Earth was scarred by 25 million bomb craters.

In the gulf, the amount of atmospheric pollution from the fires would depend on how much and for how long the oil burned, how much soot the fires produced and how high the pollutants traveled.

Several scientists contend it is not unreasonable to expect that fires could involve the burning of at least 3 million barrels of oil a day for months. Some oil industry analysts say they doubt that more than 1 million to 2 million barrels would burn.

“Any time you put anything into the environment it probably isn’t healthy,” said Bob Hall, director of production in Dallas for the American Petroleum Institute. “But is there going to be catastrophic consequences? I can’t believe it.”

Industry analysts note that the underground oil reserves will not burn unless the oil reaches the surface and that many wells in Kuwait will flow freely only if control valves have been opened. If the wells have not been wired by the Iraqis, the oil would be difficult to ignite during aerial bombings because the small control valves would not make easy targets, these industry officials say.

UC Irvine’s Rowland also is skeptical that the Iraqis could ignite enough oil to produce the climate changes others have predicted.

A major oil spill in the gulf, considered to be one of the most fragile ecosystems in the world, may be a more likely outcome of the war. Such a spill could disrupt the region’s economic activities by threatening its precious water supply.

“Hussein has the option to hold the environment as his hostage,” Richard S. Golob, publisher of Golob’s Oil Pollution Bulletin, said in a recent analysis of the war’s impacts.

Golob contends that “catastrophic damage” to the marine environment will occur if Hussein decides to attack oil facilities as he did during the Iran-Iraq war.

A major spill could cause immense problems for Hussein’s enemies by shutting down the desalination plants that gulf countries--and the allied troops-- depend on for their drinking water. It also could cripple power plants, factories and the commercial fishing industry.

“Although the Exxon Valdez spill is the largest spill in U.S. history, its release of 10.9 million gallons of oil represents only a small fraction of the total spillage possible during a gulf war,” Golob wrote.

Likely Iraqi targets include tankers, offshore platforms and wells, according to Golob. Damaged pipelines and storage tanks, often located near the shoreline, could release oil into the gulf that would contaminate miles of coral reefs, sea grass beds, mangroves and beaches.

Friends of the Earth cites Iraq’s 1983 attack on an oil facility in Iran as an example of the kind of environmental destruction this war may bring. Fires burned for nearly a year and 5,000 barrels of oil poured into the gulf every day, even after the fires were extinguished, the environmental group said.

Desalination plants--where salt is removed from seawater to make it drinkable--had to be shut down and fenced off from floating oil. Sea turtles and other marine life were decimated.

Sean Connaughton, senior transportation associate for the Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, said he does not expect major oil spills from tanker bombings or minings because he assumes most of the oil transporters will avoid the gulf during the war. Even when hit, he said, tankers are “extremely resilient” because the oil absorbs the shock and limits the damage.

Less devastating than a major spill but still worrisome to environmentalists is the potential damage to the desert landscape from tanks and the movements of troops. Activists say desert wildlife--including jackals, hares, sand cats, insects, reptiles and birds--could suffer. The loss of desert plant cover could cause erosion and bring more sandstorms in the future.

Faced with such prospects, Greenpeace has decided to devote most of its efforts during the war to monitoring the ecological impacts and to lobbying for peace.

“This war is simply the single most important thing for the environment . . . in our lifetime,” said Greenpeace spokesman Peter Dykstra.

Some other environmental groups also are becoming active in the anti-war effort. Officials of David Brower’s Earth Island Institute, Environmental Action, the Rainforest Action Network and Earth First! have signed a statement calling for an end to the conflict and urging the United Nations to consider the ecological implications of the war.

The flurry of anti-war sentiment has not been expressed by all environmental groups.

“Most of the other groups don’t like to get involved in discussions of war,” said Brent Blackwelder, vice president for policy at Friends of the Earth.

Indeed, some activists were not supportive of the letters Friends of the Earth sent to government officials warning that the ecological consequences could be severe.

A conservationist who saw one of the letters described the concerns about environmental damage as “kind of silly” when compared to the prospect of massive casualties from battle.

A spokeswoman for the Sierra Club said its board of directors declined to sign the letter or comment about the war. “The feeling is that the war is not an environmental issue,” said spokeswoman Roni Lieberman. “Now, once the war affects the environment, then we can comment.”

The movement appears far more united in its frustration over U.S. energy policies and oil dependence, which conservationists say are to blame for the world’s air pollution, fouled waters, possible global warming and--now--war.

Activists plan to use the conflict in lobbying for a national energy policy that stresses conservation.

“The addiction to oil that our country is afflicted with may become a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans, Iraqis and other nationals who will be trading their blood for oil,” said Dykstra of Greenpeace.

In making its anti-war case, Friends of the Earth has noted that an improvement of 7 miles per gallon in the vehicle fleet average would be enough to eliminate 1.9-million barrels of oil a day--nearly the amount the United States imported daily in 1989 from Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia combined.

THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL FEARS

The war in the Persian Gulf has raised ancillary fears about its potential effect on the environment. Among the worst problems: BURNING OIL WELLS

The region’s oil wells could burn for months if ignited by explosives.

A systematic burning of oil wells could produce enough sooty smoke to block heat and disrupt the climate over half of the Northern Hemisphere. Crops could fail.

An immense smoke cloud could significantly lower daytime temperatures.

MAJOR OIL SPILL

The gulf is considered to have a fragile ecosystem.

A significant oil spill could threaten the region’s drinking water and its desalination plants.

It could cripple power plants, factories and commercial fishing.

DAMAGE TO THE DESERT

Tanks and troops will harm desert wildlife. Jackals, hares, sand cats, insects, reptiles and birds could suffer.

The loss of desert plant cover could cause erosion and bring more sandstorms.