The Russia-Ukraine War and the Climate Crisis

Dr Stuart Parkinson / Scientists for Global Responsibility

(June 11, 2022) — Dr. Stuart Parkinson summarises the ways in which the Russia-Ukraine war is fuelling climate change both on and off the battlefield — putting the 1.5C temperature target in jeopardy.

This PowerPoint presentation was given at a meeting of European Network Against Arms Trade campaigners on 11 June.

Direct Effects on Carbon Emissions

• Before war: Russia 3.1% of world military spending; Ukraine 0.3%
• War is increasing military carbon emissions
  • Large increases in oil consumption of military vehicles
  • Large increases in production of military equipment
  • Some increases in energy consumption on military bases
• Carbon emissions due to destruction/ damage to buildings, land • Fires of combustible materials in cities, esp. fuel depots
  • Burning/ damage to forests and other ecosystems
  • Degradation of soils
• Very little data available
• Military spending stats from SIPRI (2022)
• Combat planes have especially high fuel consumption
• Fuel consumption for all vehicles increases substantially during ‘combat operations’

• Large fraction of military production taking place in NATO countries
• Data – before war, no publicly available data on Russian military carbon emissions, partial/ unclear data on Ukraine
• Examples of available data, including from other wars/ militaries:
  • Peace‐time fuel consumption of US armoured vehicle is about 10 times that of average car; for US combat plane, it is about 100 times larger; in war‐time, this grows considerably (Parkinson, 2020)
  • When Donbas war begin in 2014, incomplete data indicates Ukraine military carbon emissions rose 400% in 1y (UN FCCC, 2021)
  • As ‘Global War on Terrorism’ ramped up, more complete data shows US military emissions rose by 35% in 4y up to 2004 (Crawford, 2019)
  • US data from the Iraq war shows that military equipment was used at between 6 and 10 times the peace‐time rate (Stiglitz and Bilmes, 2009: 42)

Pollution from conflict will poison Ukraine for generations.

Indirect Effects on Carbon Emissions

• Major increases in military spending in NATO countries

• Germany announced €100bn rise in military spending – 60% larger than entire annual military budget of Russia
• Military spending is carbon intensive
• Increases in oil & gas prices
  • Increases in oil & gas production outside Russia • Improvements in energy efficiency
  • Increases in renewable energy production
• Reconstruction (post‐war); increased health care for injured • Lower political priority for international climate action
  • Indirect effects likely to be larger
• In 2021, NATO military spending was over 55% of global total (SIPRI, 2022)
• By end of March 2022, at least eight NATO countries had announced plans to increase military spending (SIPRI, 2022) with Germany announcing €100bn increase (The Guardian, 2022)
• Carbon emissions from reconstruction will be especially high if high‐carbon concrete used
• Increased health care for injured veterans, civilians, refugees

Energy Policy Changes So Far

• Some positive steps on energy efficiency and renewables
• In general, negative policies dwarf positive policies
• Research just published: Climate Action Tracker (2022)
• Changes in energy policy alone could put Paris target of 1.5C out of reach

Don’t Forget threat of Nuclear War…

• Russia has made nuclear threats – NATO has 3 nuclear‐armed members
• Nuclear war can cause catastrophic climate change through ‘nuclear winter’ effect
• Multiple nuclear explosions can lead to intense ‘fire‐storms’
  • Smoke injected high into atmosphere above rain clouds
  • Spreads out, blocking Sun’s rays
  • Catastrophic cooling ® crop failures etc ® mass starvation etc.
• Nuclear winter effects can be caused by:
  About 100 Hiroshima‐sized weapons
  • About 40 UK Trident weapons
• For more discussion of the recent research, see: Nature (2020); SGR (2015)

Campaign Work

• Raise awareness of how militaries and war fuel climate crisis • Russia‐Ukraine war is key threat to 1.5°C target
• Support climate campaigners on green policies
• Support anti‐nuclear campaigners on disarmament policies
• Lobbying on climate & military:
  • Improved data reporting on carbon emissions from militaries/ war • Military emissions in national carbon reduction targets
  • Target UN climate bodies, especially UN FCCC Secretariat and IPCC • New report out on 20th June on lobbying
• https://transformdefence.org/publication/
• Scientists for Global Responsibility military & climate outputs:
  • https://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/climate‐change‐military‐main‐outputs

References

• Climate Action Tracker (2022). Global reaction to energy crisis risks zero carbon transition.
• https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/global‐reaction‐to‐energy‐crisis‐risks‐zero‐carbon‐transition/
• Crawford N (2019). Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War. Brown University, USA.
• https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/ClimateChangeandCostofWar
• The Guardian (2022). Germany to set up €100bn fund to boost its military strength. 27 February.
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/germany‐set‐up‐fund‐boost‐military‐strength‐ukraine‐putin
• Nature (2020). How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet.
• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586‐020‐00794‐y
• Parkinson S (2020). The carbon boot‐print of the military. Responsible Science, no.2.
• https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/carbon‐boot‐print‐military‐0
• SGR (2015). UK nuclear weapons: a catastrophe in the making?
• https://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/uk‐nuclear‐weapons‐catastrophe‐making
• SIPRI (2022). Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2021.
• https://www.sipri.org/publications/2022/sipri‐fact‐sheets/trends‐world‐military‐expenditure‐2021
• Stiglitz J, Bilmes L (2009). The Three Trillion Dollar War. Penguin, UK.
• UN FCCC (2021). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data ‐ Detailed data by Party. https://di.unfccc.int/detailed_data_by_party (Search terms: Ukraine; all years; 1.A.5 other; aggregate GHGs; kt CO2e)