CLIMATEWIRE | In November 2022, the United Nations resolved that Russia should pay reparations for the losses, damages and injuries caused by its invasion of Ukraine. Now, some scientists say those payments should include compensation for climate damage, too.
The first two years of the war have produced at least 175 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to a new report by the Initiative on GHG Accounting of War, a network of scientists investigating the climate impacts of Russia’s war.
That’s the equivalent of about $32 billion in damages, they say.
Their calculation uses a figure known as the social cost of carbon, a metric designed to estimate the economic costs of greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study put that cost at around $185 per ton of CO2, which is the figure the new report used. That’s less than the Biden administration’s own estimate, which prices the social cost of carbon at $190 per ton.
“The Russian Federation can be held accountable for these emissions and the resulting damage to the global climate as, without its act of aggression, these [greenhouse gas] emissions would not have happened,” the report says.
But whether these reparations will ever be paid — and how those payments might be organized — remains unclear.
The U.N.’s 2022 resolution recommended that member countries create an international register to document claims of damage. But the specifics of when and how those claims will be addressed remains undecided. And under the original resolution, climate claims aren’t necessarily included.
Climate damage itself also isn’t specific to Ukraine — greenhouse gas emissions affect the entire planet when they go into the atmosphere. That complicates the question of who should benefit from any potential climate reparations.
“There are all sorts of ideas and discussions on how to distribute these reparations,” said Lennard de Klerk, the lead author of that report.
It’s possible that a portion of any potential climate reparations from Russia could go to Ukraine to help replant forests and restore other natural carbon-absorbing landscapes damaged during the war. Other portions could go toward international financing mechanisms, such as the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund, which was established to assist developing countries with climate change adaptation and mitigation.
These are all hypothetical ideas for now. But some European leaders already have recommended that Ukraine seek reparations specifically for environmental damages caused by the war.
A February report — co-authored by a group of European environment ministers, other European politicians and activists including Greta Thunberg — called for Ukraine to establish a high-level body tasked with documenting environmental damages, and that Ukraine should pursue reparations for these costs.
That report didn’t prescribe an exact mechanism for addressing climate damages.
But de Klerk said one of his priorities is pushing for any future environmental damage registries to also include “a subcategory focusing specifically on climate damage.”
A spotlight on military emissions
The latest report is the fourth installment in a series of assessments that de Klerk has worked on since 2022.
“I live in Hungary close to the border with Ukraine — I’ve lived in Ukraine myself, so I speak the language, I still have friends,” de Klerk told POLITICO’s E&E News. “So we hosted quite a lot of refugees in the first weeks of the war when they were on their way to Europe.”
As the war dragged on, de Klerk started thinking of ways he could help calculate the damages Ukraine was suffering. Earlier in his career, he’d worked as an expert in greenhouse gas accounting and carbon markets, including a stint chairing the U.N.’s Joint Implementation Action Group, a carbon trading system established under the Kyoto Protocol.
So he decided to try and calculate the impact of the war on Earth’s climate. The first report was presented in November 2022 at the U.N.’s 27th annual climate conference in Egypt; it estimated emissions from the first seven months of the war.
The studies have grown more sophisticated over the last two years. The second installment added new emissions sources to the tally, and the third presented a monetary assessment of the climate costs for the first time.
The latest assessment evaluates six major emissions sources. The most basic is carbon produced by warfare itself — including fuel, ammunition, equipment and fortifications. The other five sources are fires, damage to energy infrastructure, aviation, reconstruction efforts and the movements of refugees.
Reconstruction accounts for the largest share of war-related emissions, the report finds, followed closely by warfare.
Estimating the amount of fuel consumed by both militaries is the most challenging part of the assessments, according to de Klerk. Because their activities are classified information, the team has had to develop alternative ways of making these estimates, such as studying the amount of fuel Russia has transported to the front line.
“I don’t conceal that these are just estimations,” de Klerk said. “Probably only when the war is over we will be able to get more precise data on this particular point.”
De Klerk’s initiative isn’t the only one focused on war-related emissions. Organizations like the U.K.-based Conflict and Environment Observatory also are working to shed more light on military emissions, including conflict-related emissions.
Military carbon footprints are historically difficult to quantify. Their activities are often classified, leaving scientists with little public data to study. And the U.N. does not require nations to report their military emissions, making it something of a blind spot under the Paris Agreement.
But de Klerk hopes his initiative might provide a framework for future studies of war-related emissions. He’s currently working on a methodology for exactly this purpose, which he hopes to present at the next U.N. climate conference in Azerbaijan this November.
Source: Scientificamerican.com
Take the Survey at https://survey.energynewsbeat.com/
Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote
ENB Top News ENBEnergy DashboardENB PodcastENB Substack
Energy News Beat