The climate impact of Russia’s first two years of war on Ukraine has surpassed the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 175 individual countries, intensifying the global climate crisis beyond the ongoing death toll and widespread destruction, according to research findings.

Russia’s invasion has produced at least 175 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) due to direct warfare, landscape fires, rerouted flights, forced migration, and damage to fossil fuel infrastructure. Additionally, the future carbon cost of reconstruction is factored into this figure, making it the most comprehensive analysis to date of conflict-driven climate impacts.

The 175 million tonnes encompass carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), the latter being the most potent greenhouse gas. This emission is comparable to running 90 million petrol cars for a year and exceeds the total emissions of countries such as the Netherlands, Venezuela, and Kuwait in 2022.

Historically, the climate cost of war and the military-industrial complex has been poorly accounted for, with official data often being patchy or non-existent due to military secrecy and limited frontline access for researchers. The economic repercussions of these greenhouse gases, which have global consequences, are even less understood.

However, a report by the Initiative on Greenhouse Gas Accounting of War (IGGAW) – a research collective funded by the German and Swedish governments, and the European Climate Foundation – estimates that Russia faces a $32 billion (£25 billion) climate reparations bill for the first 24 months of war.

The UN General Assembly has stated that Russia should compensate Ukraine for the war, prompting the Council of Europe to establish a damage registry that includes climate emissions. Frozen Russian assets could potentially be used to cover these costs. This reparations estimate is based on a recent study that calculated the social cost of carbon at $185 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

The IGGAW lead author, Lennard de Klerk, said: “Russia is harming Ukraine but also our climate. This ‘conflict carbon’ is sizeable and will be felt globally. The Russian Federation should be made to pay for this, a debt it owes Ukraine and countries in the global south that will suffer most from climate damage.”

This report is the most thorough analysis of the climate cost of any conflict and the first to calculate reparations for war-related climate impacts. Key findings include:

• One-third of the emissions stem directly from military activities, with fuel used by Russian troops contributing 35 million tCO2e – the largest single source of greenhouse gases. Other sources include the production of carbon-intensive explosives, ammunition, and defence structures, as well as fuel used by allies delivering military equipment.
• Another third is attributed to the massive amounts of steel and concrete needed to reconstruct destroyed infrastructure such as schools, homes, bridges, factories, and water plants. Some reconstruction has already occurred, only for the structures to be destroyed again. The long-term carbon impact will depend on whether traditional, carbon-intensive methods or more sustainable techniques and materials are used for rebuilding, according to Neta Crawford, author of The Pentagon, Climate Change and War.
• The final third arises from fires, rerouted commercial flights, strikes on energy infrastructure, and the displacement of nearly 7 million Ukrainians and Russians. Landscape fires, in particular, have increased in size and intensity on both sides of the border since the invasion. In a first-of-its-kind analysis, one million hectares (2.47 million acres) of scorched fields and forests were linked to military causes, accounting for 13% of the total carbon cost. Most fires occurred near frontlines, but smaller blazes spread uncontrollably nationwide due to the redeployment of foresters, fire crews, and equipment. Nearly 40% of Ukraine’s 4,216 fire trucks have been damaged.

Russia has also deliberately targeted energy infrastructure, causing significant leaks of potent greenhouse gases. The methane released into the sea after the Nord Stream 2 pipeline destruction generated about 14 million tCO2e. Additionally, approximately 40 tonnes of SF6 (equivalent to about one million tonnes of CO2) leaked due to strikes on Ukraine’s high-voltage network facilities. SF6, used to insulate electrical switchgear, has nearly 23,000 times more heating potential than CO2.

Aviation fuel consumption has surged as European and American airlines are banned from Russian airspace, and some Australian and Asian carriers take longer routes as a precaution. These additional miles have produced at least 24 million tCO2.

The forced displacement of people due to the war has resulted in nearly 3.3 million tCO2e, including emissions from the transportation of over five million Ukrainian refugees in Europe and millions of internally displaced persons and Russians fleeing conscription.

“The analysis is the most up-to-date and thorough snapshot we have of the climate consequences of Russia’s invasion, helping to lift the fog of war that exists also when it comes to the environmental costs of conflict,” said Ruslan Strilets, the minister of environmental protection and natural resources of Ukraine. “It will be an essential plank in the reparations case we are building against Russia.”

Overall, the climate consequences of war and occupation are poorly understood. Largely due to US pressure, reporting military emissions is voluntary, with only four countries submitting incomplete data to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organises annual climate talks. Recent studies indicate that militaries account for almost 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions annually – more than the aviation and shipping industries combined. This makes the global military carbon footprint larger than that of all countries except the US, China, and India.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also triggered a surge in military spending, especially in Europe, increasing demand for explosives, steel, and other carbon-intensive materials, leading to more unaccounted military emissions and further exacerbating the climate crisis.

“The new monetary estimate of climate damage highlights the important role of greenhouse gas emissions accounting for conflicts,” said Linsey Cottrell, an environmental policy officer at the Conflict and Environment Observatory. “We critically need international agreement on how conflict and military emissions are measured and addressed.”

 

——————————————————————————

At Natural World Fund, we are passionate about rewilding the UK to stop the decline in our wildlife.

Donate now and join in the solution!