For nearly nine months, Putin has been causing death, suffering and destruction in Ukraine with his war of aggression. According to experts, the war almost led to devastating environmental disasters on several occasions: for example, when Russian troops bombed the Azov steel plant in the east of the port city of Mariupol for days.
Because in addition to the nuclear reactors, the many steel and chemical factories and mines also pose a danger in war zones: When under fire, toxic fumes and substances can be released – with fatal consequences for the environment.
Wars cause a lot of CO₂ – from bombs, but also from reconstruction
But war, armaments and the military not only have catastrophic consequences for the local population and the environment, they also cause another crisis with serious consequences: the climate crisis.
“As the war is still ongoing, the additional CO₂ emissions caused cannot be estimated at this time,” Astrid Sahm, an Eastern Europe and climate expert at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), told Watson. But one thing the expert already knows for sure: CO₂ emissions – and thus their impact on global warming – are “very serious” simply because of their diversity.
According to Sahm, extra CO₂ emissions due to war are mainly caused by the following points:
The environmental damage from bombs, mines and other acts of war is “considerable”, and post-war reconstruction will also lead to additional CO₂ emissions. Sahm explains to Watson:
And that’s not all: due to the destruction of infrastructure in the energy sector, diesel generators and wood in Ukraine are likely to be increasingly used for power generation and heating – causing additional CO₂ emissions.
Compliance with the 1.5 degree target less realistic due to the war in Ukraine
But that’s no reason to bury your head in the sand. After all, the crisis also harbors the potential to absorb at least part of the CO₂ emissions through energy-efficient reconstruction that “maximises” climate aspects. “The central question is whether this effect will come in time before reaching the tipping point for climate change in terms of average temperature increases,” Sahm notes.
She adds:
Much more important than the immediate consequences of the war are the medium to long-term changes, particularly in the field of energy policy. To become independent from Russia’s gas supply, many Western countries are currently planning to switch to other energy sources and suppliers.
If the energy transition succeeds more quickly as a result, the short-term extension of the lifespan of coal-fired power plants, for example in Germany, is much less serious.
Target of 1.5 degrees probably out of reach, even in peacetime
Patrick Flamm, a senior researcher at the Leibniz Institute Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research (PRIF), is less optimistic. He no longer believes in compliance with the Paris climate agreement, not even in the case of international cooperation between hostile states. To Watson he says:
Flamm assumes that the war in Ukraine can have two effects:
- War slows or halts economic development, which can reduce emissions in the short term. The war could also lead to an accelerated expansion of renewable energy sources.
- More and more is being invested in fossil infrastructure and expansion of nuclear energy is demanded. In addition, the reconstruction of war-ravaged cities is often based on “rapid economic recovery” rather than sustainable planning and development.
Not only that, the environment and Ukrainian ecosystems would also suffer from the war. “War damage is therefore not only to be feared in the field of the climate crisis, but also in the field of biodiversity and regional pollution,” adds Flamm. “The fact that Russia specifically attacks critical civilian infrastructure such as dams, power plants and nuclear power plants is very risky for people and nature and is not allowed under international law.”
Is the absence of wars a prerequisite for a climate-neutral world?
Wars and conflicts would have existed long before fossil fuels fueled economic growth, expert Flamm explains. “But the goal should be to resolve conflicts in such a way that life on planet Earth is not destroyed, as might be the case in the case of nuclear war and nuclear winter.”
On the other hand, according to Flamm, the climate crisis affecting people around the world could also have the potential to foster international cooperation between hostile states. “It is important that global climate justice is not lost sight of so that the inevitable conflict issues of global economic decarbonization do not turn into violent conflict and war.”
Eastern Europe and climate expert Astrid Sahm also emphasize that “wars and climate neutrality are not compatible”. It is therefore important that the lessons of the war do not lead to a revival of the policy of deterrence through rearmament. “On the contrary, deep reflection is needed on why international mechanisms for peaceful conflict regulation have failed so often over the past two decades and how effective mechanisms can be created.”
About the subject:
Soource :Watson
I am Amelia James, a passionate journalist with a deep-rooted interest in current affairs. I have more than five years of experience in the media industry, working both as an author and editor for 24 Instant News. My main focus lies in international news, particularly regional conflicts and political issues around the world.
