Dear friends!
Excluding combat, military operations around the world today account for 5.5% of global emissions. As Nina Lakhani wrote in an article published in the Guardian, if the world’s militaries were a separate country, their total carbon footprint would exceed Russia’s total emissions. Calculating the total emissions caused by wars and armed conflicts is currently impossible. After all, this not only includes combat operations, but infrastructure restoration. At the same time, new sources of pollution are constantly appearing, such as the fiber optics used by FPV drones. Read more about this and much more in our review:
Armed conflicts also have indirect consequences. One of the most high-profile this year was the Decemvber 2024 fuel oil spill in the Black Sea when river fuel tankers servicing a Russian “shadow fleet” vessel sank. The UWEC Work Group previously analyzed in detail both the environmental consequences of the disaster and its causes. A new study by UWEC experts explores the international response. Ukrainian lands were significantly polluted due to the accident, in both occupied and free areas. Ukraine’s representatives have demanded that the Russian government be held accountable and punished, but the reaction of international organizations has been underwhelming. At the same time, the spill’s instigator has received international support to eliminate the consequences of the disaster.
Another example of pollution not directly related to military action is the improper closure of coal mines in the Donbas region, most of which is occupied by Russian troops. Water fills the mines, not only causing heavy metal pollution, but also severe drought in the Donetsk region. Contributor Inha Pavliy investigates how the Ukrainian coal industry has been affected by the war and the consequences for the environment.
Evidence that the occupied territories are facing an ecological catastrophe appears almost every day. For example, this summer the Black Sea Biosphere Reserve burned, with a devastating fire in Yahorlytsky Kut, a unique steppe ecosystem home to rare steppe bird species.
Founded in 1927, the reserve is a combination of high conservation value steppe, wetlands, forests, water areas and islands. It was one of the first in the Soviet Union to be included in the international UNESCO network of biosphere reserves in 1979. Russian forces occupied the reserve in the first months of its full-scale invasion. The largest fire there to date occurred recently, a few days after the Russian Federation announced the creation of the Federal State Budgetary Institution Black Sea Reserve, a “Russian” analogue of the Ukrainian nature reserve.
Despite the many challenges (including environmental ones) in “controlled” territories, Russia continues its international demarche. On July 22, Russia’s State Duma (representative body of the Russian government) denounced the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The Convention on Wetlands was adopted in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran to protect wetlands and the habitats of migratory waterfowl. The USSR ratified it in 1979. Withdrawal from the convention threatens 35 nature conservation areas covering an area of over 10 million hectares that were protected by this agreement. Expert Eugene Simonov studies the possible reasons for withdrawal and the consequences for the environment:
War deals crushing blows to nature every day, and political crises only worsen the situation. The term “ecocide” is increasingly frequently mentioned in both the media and everyday conversation. What does ecocide mean for Ukrainians? Is it only a legal term or something more? It can also be a personal and collective experience that contemplates the destruction of native nature. UWEC Work Group reviewed Darya Tsymbalyuk’s book “Ecocide in Ukraine: Ecological Price of War in Russia”:
Meanwhile, Ukraine continues planning the nation’s “green recovery” when the war ends. On June 30, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources presented the first draft of a legislative bill “On the Fundamentals of the Green Recovery of Ukraine.Ukraine’s green recovery: legislative step toward eco-integration in reconstructio”.
Ukraine’s “green recovery” will be a long journey. In addition to external factors, there are also internal ones, in particular, the government moved to restructure and effectively abolish the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in July. UWEC Work Group will be tracking these developments and how they may affect environmental problem-solving in both Ukraine and the larger region and what opportunities environmental organizations may identify. Find updates on our website and in social networks: Facebook, X (Twitter), Telegram, BlueSky.
Friends, we publish our research and materials at no cost in the public domain so that everyone can read about the environmental consequences of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We also actively work with journalists and other media. The Guardian recently interviewed our experts in an article about the prospects for Velyky Luh’s environmental recovery following the Kakhovka dam’s destruction. This allows us to disseminate information about the environmental consequences of war as widely as possible to a global audience, which is our mission.
We need your support to continue our high-quality publications. We invite you to make a one-time or recurring contribution to our work.
We wish you strength, peace and good news!
Alexej Ovchinnikov, editor in chief, UWEC Work Group