3.1. Political Instability in Kabul City

The history of Kabul has been shaped by decades of political instability, marked by conflict, power struggles, and regime changes that have deeply affected its people and environment. The Soviet invasion in December 1979, aimed at supporting a pro-Soviet government, triggered a decade-long war that led to the deaths of nearly one million Afghan civilians and forced millions to flee to neighboring countries [13].

After the Soviet-backed government collapsed in 1992, Afghanistan plunged into a brutal civil war (1992–1996), as Mujahideen leaders fought for control. This period saw intense power struggles, further displacement, and widespread destruction in Kabul [13]. The rise of the Taliban in 1996 brought a strict and repressive regime, which lasted until 2001, when they were ousted by U.S. and allied forces following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York [14].

The U.S.-led intervention sought to establish a new government, but the following two decades were marked by persistent insurgency and political uncertainty [14]. In 2021, the withdrawal of American and NATO forces led to the Taliban’s swift return to power, once again plunging the country into crisis. Under Taliban rule, governance remains highly restrictive, with significant limitations on minorities’ rights and freedoms [13].

The current political situation in Kabul is characterized by Taliban control, with Haibatullah Akhundzada religious leader of the Taliban, wielding significant influence over decision-making [15]. Their rule has become increasingly authoritarian, focusing on Pashtun exclusivity and leading to repression of opposition and minorities. The Taliban actions, such as banning girls and women from education, work, and public life, have had severe consequences for individual rights and humanitarian aid [15]. Additionally, the Taliban struggles to contain terrorism, particularly from the Islamic State in Khorasan-ISK, and the situation remains delicate with external powers cautious about supporting anti-Taliban groups [15].

The political landscape of Afghanistan is also heavily influenced by its regional neighbors, especially Pakistan, Iran, India, and China. These countries play significant roles in Afghanistan’s political issues, often using commercial imports and migrants as instruments of political pressure [16]. The recent security situation has led to a large migration of citizens, particularly those associated with the previous government and social networks, to neighboring countries. These countries often use Afghan migrants as tools of political leverage, impacting Afghanistan’s domestic stability and the well-being of the region [17].

The challenges facing Kabul and Afghanistan as a whole are immense. Restoring internal political efficacy, combating insurgency and terrorism, reducing poverty, and advancing the peace process are critical [18]. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic [19], the climate crisis [20], and the water crisis [21] further complicate the situation. While the Taliban claim that their primary achievement is stability and centralized power after decades of war [22], other aspects, including internal power struggles and ongoing crises, continue to challenge the progress of the nation.

Recent regional studies highlight that the environmental degradation driven by political instability is not unique to Kabul. Across South Asia, for example, countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh have struggled with the environmental consequences of persistent governance failures, significantly elevated carbon emissions, and ecological degradation in these settings [23]. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, a broader study covering eighteen countries between 1985 and 2016 found that ongoing political upheaval has eroded environmental quality over time, when fragile institutions and recurring conflict have been key barriers to implementing effective environmental protections [24].

3.2. Treadmill of Production Dynamics

The Treadmill of Production theory posits that modern societies, driven by capitalist or socialist imperatives, pursue relentless economic growth, which leads to systematic environmental degradation, resource depletion, and social inequality [25]. This dynamic is strongly visible in Kabul, where political instability has weakened environmental governance, embedding the city into a cycle of unsustainable development. Following decades of war, reconstruction was urgently prioritized, but with limited public funding and international aid mostly directed toward security, the Afghan government adopted a growth-first recovery strategy. As a result, environmental sustainability received limited attention, further entrenching Kabul in the treadmill of production [4].

At the core of the treadmill of production theory is the growth imperative: governments and institutions prioritize GDP and physical expansion to create jobs and assert legitimacy [26]. In Kabul City, this materialized through widespread private sector investment in housing and infrastructure, encouraged by the municipality. However, most of these developments were unregulated and driven by short-term economic recovery goals, rather than long-term environmental considerations. As a consequence, outdated construction technologies and resource-intensive practices were deployed, leading to deforestation, unregulated mining, and groundwater depletion [5,6,7].

As production intensified, technological fixes were applied in place of deeper reforms. For example, pollution control and housing policies were implemented without altering the city’s core dependence on fossil fuels, informal construction, and poor urban design. These “solutions” merely displaced problems, such as shifting pollution burdens to low-income districts or increasing wood and coal burning due to unaffordable clean energy [25,27]. Similar patterns have been observed in Sri Lanka, where politically driven but poorly planned sustainability transitions, like the shift to organic agriculture, led to system-wide food and environmental crises [28].

Institutional weaknesses sustain the treadmill. The Kabul fragmented governance structures lack the authority and expertise to enforce environmental regulation. Additionally, media and educational institutions reinforce the idea that economic recovery is paramount, sidelining environmental narratives [29,30,31]. This is similar to the Somali context, where conflict-induced governance collapse has resulted in uncontrolled deforestation and erosion, reinforcing how institutional decay feeds unsustainable production and consumption [32].

Finally, the Kabul chaotic urban expansion has further intensified environmental degradation. Industrial emissions, air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and agricultural overuse have created a multidimensional ecological crisis [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. All of these outcomes illustrate the treadmill of production theoretical logic in action: when economic growth is pursued in the absence of strong, sustainable institutions, environmental costs escalate rapidly.

The environmental degradation observed in Kabul, driven by political instability and weak governance, mirrors patterns identified in other conflict-affected regions. For instance, in Sri Lanka, the government’s abrupt national transition to organic farming in 2021, implemented without adequate institutional readiness or technological infrastructure, significantly reduced agricultural yields and triggered a food crisis. This reform effort, driven by nationalistic growth narratives amid political upheaval, highlights how poorly planned technological fixes, without addressing systemic governance issues, can deepen environmental and social vulnerabilities [41].

3.3. Impact on Environmental Sustainability

The effects of political instability on the treadmill of production dynamics are profound, especially in regions like Kabul. When political turmoil disrupts economic activities, it pushes the production treadmill into overdrive. Uncertainty and unrest deter investments and hamper business operations, leading to economic stagnation or decline. Consequently, the pursuit of continued economic growth becomes increasingly frenetic as governments struggle to compensate for losses and maintain stability [42]. This relentless drive often exacerbates environmental degradation, as natural resources are exploited at an unsustainable pace to fuel economic recovery efforts [43]. Moreover, political instability can create social tensions and inequalities, complicating efforts to address environmental challenges [44]. As discussed in the treadmill of production subsection, this aligns with this theory, where systemic pressures to sustain growth override environmental considerations, particularly when institutions are weakened or absent.

Economically, political instability in Kabul impacts investment patterns, job opportunities, and resource allocation. An uncertain political-economic environment deters both domestic and international investors, reducing investment and causing currency depreciation, which can lead to higher inflation [45,46]. Political instability also negatively affects economic growth; empirical data shows that higher degrees of political instability are associated with lower growth rates of GDP per capita and reduced productivity growth rates [42]. In Kabul, as has happened many times in recent years, additional cabinet changes have significantly reduced the growth rate of annual real GDP per capita, affecting the accumulation of physical and human capital. Economic freedom and ethnic homogeneity are beneficial for growth, while democracy may have a small negative effect [42]. These economic fluctuations create a cycle of growth anxiety—a treadmill dynamic—where accelerated exploitation of resources is used as a temporary solution, yet without regulatory planning, it undermines long-term sustainability.

Socially, political instability in Kabul weakens social cohesion, community resilience, and access to essential services, while also having significant psychosocial impacts. It often leads to division, polarization, and mistrust among different groups, weakening social bonds and increasing conflict [47]. Instability disrupts essential services, weakens institutions, and undermines social networks, reducing community resilience [48]. In terms of healthcare and education, instability often leads to under-resourced hospitals, fleeing healthcare workers, and closed schools, denying children access to education and hindering long-term community development. Infrastructure damage further hinders access to basic services like water, electricity, and transportation, while economic services are adversely affected, leading to unemployment and limited access to financial services [49]. The psychosocial impact includes stress, anxiety, and trauma from violence, displacement, or economic hardship, often driving migration and complicating integration into new communities [50].

Environmentally, political instability in Kabul leads to land use changes, exploitation of resources, and pollution, exacerbating environmental degradation. Disruptions in governance and planning result in rapid urbanization and agricultural expansion, affecting biodiversity, soil quality, and water availability [51]. Deforestation for urban or agricultural development contributes to habitat loss and soil degradation [52], while weak regulation increases resource exploitation, water management issues, and conflicts over water resources [53]. Mining and oil production during instability damage ecosystems and increase pollution, hampering conservation efforts and leading to biodiversity loss [54]. Weak governance also results in inadequate waste management, air and water pollution, and hindered climate action, worsening global warming [55,56]. Violent conflicts further damage ecosystems, disrupt agriculture, and cause displacement, with displaced populations often exploiting natural resources unsustainably, exacerbating deforestation, soil erosion, and water scarcity [54]. This is consistent with findings from other fragile regions, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Yemen, where prolonged conflict and institutional breakdown have accelerated deforestation and water stress under weak environmental oversight [57,58,59,60]. In each case, including Kabul, the treadmill effect intensifies when growth pressures operate without regulatory restraint or technological solutions to mitigate harm.