The Russian invasion of Ukraine is causing a major environmental crisis and experts say it could take years to recover
In the aftermath of the COP26 climate negotiations Zelensky had announced an ambitious plan for plant millions of trees across Ukraine. Then the dark. The Russians found themselves (again) at home, in a mad conflict that is also causing pollution of air, water and soil. An environmental disaster that who knows when it will be remedied.
Between explosions and fires, here, we risk saying goodbye to forests, in these parts already widely threatened. And not only. The current one is one crisis which could also influence future climate policy by reducing resources and diverting attention.
Read also: European forests could absorb twice as much carbon dioxide if they were managed differently
Because this is the point: in addition to the serious humanitarian emergency, the attacks on civilian and military sites cause such pollution that, especially in such a highly industrialized country, it will threaten the food safety (and other countries that depend on exports of wheat and corn) and the same biodiversity.
Each conflict has a unique environmental narrative - said Doug Weir, director of research and policy at the Conflict and Environmental Observatory (CEOBS), an organization aimed at raising awareness of the environmental impact of military activities. For Ukraine, it revolves around the number of technological risks posed by its large industrial and energy sectors and the increasing intensity of Russian military actions.
Index
Everything is in an already difficult context, the case of the Donbass
Ukraine is home to several industrial sites and even before this conflict, according to the Environmental Performance Index, the country was at the bottom of environmental indicators such as air quality, biodiversity protection and ecosystem health. The region of the Donbass, in eastern Ukraine, for example, has long been considered one of the most polluted Ukrainian areas due to its coal mining, metallurgy and chemical production facilities (the area has about 900 industrial plants, including coal mines, metallurgical sites and chemical plants, thermal power plants and factories for the processing of radioactive material, 1230 km of gas and oil pipelines and 320 thousand tons per km² of industrial waste stored in landfills).
The area here is dotted with tunnels that have been affected over time by many floods that have caused the displacement of the surface, carrying toxic chemicals that now threaten the water supply of the region.
War in industrial areas creates large risks of toxic contamination, given the concentration of power plants, chemical plants, metal processing factories and the like, explains Ken Conca, professor of international relations at the American University School of International Service. These facilities tend to be filled with petroleum products, hazardous chemicals and combustible compounds which, when released into the environment, can cause extensive damage in the short and long term.
Even weapons alone pollute
From common metals to rare earths and from water to hydrocarbons: yes building and maintaining military forces has a very high environmental cost. Without considering that military vehicles, from airplanes to training infrastructures, then require energy most of the time the energy deriving from fossil fuels.
The consequences of military pollution are there for all to see and yet they pretend not to see: in America, for example, mining for the production of weapons severely hits Native American communities, desecrating sacred sites and contaminating the Earth. And not only: what happens after the war? What happens to all the military material? Even today, after more than half a century, anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war can be found in parts of Europe. Ultimately, how much does a war impact on the climate?
Furthermore, Weir himself, in "How does war contribute to climate change?" (2021), scientifically demonstrates how war does not imply an automatic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but, on the contrary, it acts directly on climate change.
©CEOBS
In 1991, Gulf War oil well fires are estimated to have contributed more than 2% to global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. And in addition: the report of the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) entitled "When rain turns to dust", highlights how the presence of war activity can impact water resources, with water contamination, release toxic pollutants in the air and damage the ground. By reducing biodiversity and introducing micro-climatic changes.
Animals and forests
Going back to the forests with which we opened, they cover 19% of Ukraine and in the last two decades they had already suffered high rates of deforestation. Immediately after the COP26 last November, the Ukrainian president announced a major reforestation plan, but this is how things are now and together with the large mammals, even the smallest ones have already disappeared, which in any case were already beginning to suffer from a massive conversion of soil.
The good intentions were there. But the war will all wither again and we will have to start over from the beginning.
Will we have time?
Follow your Telegram | Instagram | Facebook | TikTok | Youtube
Read also:
- He shows a placard against the war in Ukraine, a Russian journalist disappears
- Harvard student creates website that helps Ukrainian refugees find accommodation by connecting them with hosts
- War and fake news: no, the two pregnant women of Mariupol are not the same person
