What the war in Ukraine means for the climate Battle against the press: Prince Harry arrived at court for the second day

Destroyed power stations, burning forests and ruined apartment buildings: with its war of aggression in Ukraine, Russia is robbing people of their homes or even of their lives. The focus is less often on what the war means for the climate – but the effects should not be underestimated.

A detailed calculation by international researchers comes to the conclusion: in the first year alone, the war in Ukraine caused about the same amount of emissions as a country like Belgium in the same period, namely 120 million tons of CO2 emission equivalents. This means that the emissions of other climate-damaging greenhouse gases – such as methane – are converted into CO2 emissions for better comparison.

Major environmental damage

“It is, of course, first and foremost a human tragedy,” said leading Dutch climate researcher Lennard de Klerk in an interview with the German news agency. “But there is also major environmental damage.” The scientist has lived in Moscow and Kiev in the past. When Russia invaded Ukraine, he wondered: what can I do? He quickly realized that hardly anyone had addressed the environmental footprint of wars – and got to work. At the UN climate negotiations in Bonn this Wednesday, he wanted to present what he had discovered with an international team.

The experts estimate the share of emissions caused by direct combat operations at 19 percent of the total emissions in the first year of the war – the bulk of which came from the fuel consumption of Russian troops in particular, but also Ukrainian troops. Similarly high emissions, according to de Klerk and his colleagues, also came from fires, which often break out near the front lines — accounting for 15 percent, according to the estimate.

Climate-damaging reconstruction

Most of the emissions – about 50 million tons – are estimated for post-war reconstruction, when power plants, industry and buildings have to be rebuilt. The construction sector, in which a lot of concrete is processed, is generally one of those sectors with very high greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the calculation also takes into account the leaks in the Nord Stream pipelines and the emissions caused by aircraft as a result of their long-haul routes via Asia since the sanctions against Russia came into effect.

The recent destruction of the Kachowka Dam clearly shows that the environmental damage is increasing day by day. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dymtro Kuleba tweeted on Tuesday that his country was “facing a major humanitarian and environmental crisis”. For example, the irrigation system, which is important for agriculture in southern Ukraine, is affected.

“Big holes in the data”

British mathematician Stuart Parkinson, who heads the organization Scientists for Global Responsibility, has been trying for years to get to the bottom of the role of the military in the climate crisis – and has repeatedly encountered obstacles. “There are huge gaps in the data,” he said in an interview with the German news agency. “A lot of data is confidential.” It’s too late for the military to make its way to carbon neutrality because: “Military investments are designed for decades.” The EU, Great Britain and the US want to be climate neutral by 2050.

“It is a blind spot for anyone who does climate research,” says the Dutchman de Klerk. In the past, the military had little interest in the climate, even though climate change had a decisive influence on its activities.

Carbon neutral armies?

The military is slowly becoming aware that the armies must also adapt. But the process is still in its infancy. It is a dream for the future that fighter jets or tanks can operate on a large scale with climate-neutral fuels. Four years ago, military representatives and experts from the US, France and the Netherlands, among others, came together to see how the army should deal with the climate crisis.

In a report published last year, the group calling itself the International Military Council on Climate and Security (IMCCS) argues that there is no standardized method at all for measuring greenhouse gas emissions from armies. The military is excluded from the Paris climate agreement. Until now, there has often been concern that too much transparency could strategically weaken armies.

The group calls on NATO and the EU to work together and set common standards. NATO is important for setting standards and the EU should include the military in its “Green New Deal”.

Used sources:

Other interesting articles: