The Climate Consequences of Putin’s War in Ukraine
On February 24, 2022, the Russian Federation embarked on the largest military invasion in Europe since the end of World War II. According to the United Nations, hundreds of Ukrainian civilians have been killed and almost 1.5 million have been displaced as a result of the conflict. The physical and emotional scars of the war will have untold repercussions on the Ukrainian nation– and the world– for years to come.
While much of the media coverage surrounding the crisis has rightly focused on the heroism and patriotism of the Ukrainian people, a key front has been largely ignored: the climate impacts of Putin’s war. As a consequence of Russia’s unjustified and inhumane actions against Ukraine, Putin threatens to the security of the Ukrainian people and the planet’s collective response to the climate crisis.
Although the environmental consequences of the Russian invasion are vast and demand further exploration, I explore three key areas. First, Russian energy politics and European energy dependency. Second, increased carbon emissions as a result of further fossil fuel usage. Third, deforestation and the degradation of natural habitats.
While this article is in no way attempting to articulate all the environmental externalities associated with the current crisis, I hope to give readers the insight and information necessary to navigate the current crisis.
Energy Politics
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has successfully turned its energy supplies into a geopolitical force.
In 2007, when Russian state-owned gas supplier Gazprom demanded an increase in gas prices paid by Belarus, they refused. The Kremlin responded by threatening to cut off gas supplies, a critical blow to a former-Soviet nation that had enjoyed significantly lower Russian gas prices than Western Europe. Both sides finally agreed that Russian gas would be sold to Belarus for $100 per 1000 m³ (compared to Gazprom’s original request of $200 per 1000 m³), that Belarus would sell Gazprom 50% of stake in its national gas supplier, that gas prices for Belarus to gradually rise to the European market price by 2011, and that Belarus’s transit fees for Russian gas to increase by around 70%.
Similar instances have occurred in Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine, in which Russia makes a political or economic demand to a county heavily dependent on Russian natural gas. Refusal is met decreases in natural gas exports from Gazprom, and in come cases results in a complete collapse of trade.
In short, Russia uses its leverage as an external energy giant to impact energy security and domestic politics on a wide scale, punching beyond what would ordinarily be capable a nation with a GDP less than Texas.
Russian energy dependence is pervasive across the European continent. Some Eastern European countries– including Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Moldova– are extremely reliant on natural gas imports from Russia. States at the core of Europe’s political, economic, and military apparatuses– notably Germany and France– also receive extensive amounts of Russian gas.
Putin’s expansionist and historically-warped world view facilitates the need, in Russia’s eyes, to keep former Soviet countries within Russia’s sphere of influence by limiting “westernization”. This is accomplished though destabilizing efforts to limit to the unity and effective governance of Western nations, including cyber-attacks, election meddling and interference, and energy geopolitics.
Thus, it is within Putin’s best interests to keep the whole of sustained primarily by Russia natural gas. If the Kremlin senses encroachment upon its power in the region, the debilitating soft underbelly of lackluster energy independence in Europe can be heavily exploited.
In terms of its strategic agenda, Russia views decarbonization as a threat to its control of Europe’s energy. As energy systems are changing, Putin wants to influence how other countries, including the European Union, will be able to effectively move to renewables and maintain economic resilience in the face of a warming planet. Russia is incentivized to pursue energy transfer projects, like the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, with Europe’s most powerful economies as they simultaneously strive for emission reductions.
As a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin’s use of energy dependence will come under increasing scrutiny from the domestic populations of European nations. Western government’s will be under pressure to cut financial ties with the Kremlin regime, especially as violence and bloodshed escalates. This is already coming to fruition in the form of public backlash and policy change.
For example, in a dramatic turn of events, the German government announced that they would be halting the Nord Stream 2 project indefinitely. In recent polling, more than two thirds (68 percent) of all German respondents said they would support measures against Russia “even if it leads to bottlenecks in energy supply,” while 66 percent supported them even if energy prices and costs of living increase. This is quite a shift from public opinion surveys in May 2021, which found that 75% of Germans were in favor of the construction of Nord Stream 2, while only 17% were against it.
Despite the urge to shift away from Russian natural gas, this not not equate to a full embrace of green energy alternatives. Scholz has announced his support for the construction of two terminals to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) and is not leaving any energy source– not even coal or nuclear– off the table, despite commitments from the Social Democrat-Green-Liberal coalition to phase out coal by 2030. The war in Ukraine has exposed the continents reliance upon Russian gas. As countries across Europe move to compensate, it is unclear whether they will do so by committing to green alternatives or further fossil fuel development.
Carbon Emissions
Armed conflict has profound direct and indirect impact on carbon emissions during a military offensive.
Direct consequences include a smaller operational space for environmental governance structures, the intention targeting of natural resources, and operational fossil fuel emissions.
Armed conflicts often halt or reverse economic development. Because of this, it is generally assumed that they lead to reductions in the emissions that contribute to climate change. But as… we learn more about the societal and environmental changes that occur in insecure and conflict-affected areas, it’s becoming clear that economic output alone does not tell the whole story.
According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, indirect emissions will arise from damaged infrastructure, the loss of vegetation, and delivering humanitarian aid. Furthermore, the impact of war and its devastating socioeconomic effects on civilian populations will often lead to harmful environmental alternatives that would have otherwise been avoid during peacetime. Aging energy infrastructure and unsafe practices compound these issues.
There are already signs that such effects are taking place on the ground in Ukraine. Since its invasion, Russia has captured critical Ukrainian nuclear and coal plants, notably the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station which provides more than a fifth of total electricity generated in Ukraine. Cities under siege, like the coastal city of Mariupol, are reportedly without running water or electricity. This will likely lead actions contradictory to public health and environmental safety including flaring, the burning excess petroleum gas as a by-product of oil production, which releases it as carbon dioxide.
Deforestation
Modern warfare and scorched earth tactics exacerbate deforestation and land use changes. The deliberate destruction of forests as a means to build shelters, cook, and deliver profits can lead to increased CO2 emissions. Forests can also be in line of fire, resulting in direct contact with military artillery.
However, the correlation between armed conflict and mass deforestation is less established than that of increased carbon dioxide emissions. In a 2018 research by Simron Singh, a researcher in the University of Waterloo’s Faculty of Environment and Nelson Grima from the University of Vermont, looked at data on conflict zones around the world, with a specific focus on Nepal, Sri Lanka, Ivory Coast and Peru.
The study found that after a conflict ended, deforestation increased to a rate of approximately 68 percent, compared to a world mean rate of deforestation of 7.2 percent.
With the current prioritization of Ukrainian cities by Russian forces, there will likely be limited impacts to forests. However, if the duration and scale of the fighting drags on into the rural parts of Ukraine– especially those areas in the north– deforestation will become an increasing environmental concern.
Conclusion
Putin’s war in Ukraine is one fueled by imperialist ambitions and disregard for human prosperity. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, academics of all persuasions have a duty examine this conflict from the perspective of their field. It is my hope that by shedding light on the situation from an environmental point of view, I demonstrate the interconnected nature of war with the most crucial parts of our existence. May peace soon come to the people of Ukraine.
