Ripples of War: The Russia-Ukraine Conflict’s Impact on Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Climate Change

Introduction

The ripples of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which started in February 2022, extend far beyond the realm of geopolitical instability and humanitarian crises. It rattled the international energy markets, modified the patterns of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, and changed the landscape of climate change mitigation. This article analyses the direct and indirect impacts of the war on CO₂ emissions across the world of the war between Russia and Ukraine, the European Union (EU), the United States (U.S.), and other fossil fuel-dependent regions, and proposes ways to mitigating them, as well as means of transitioning to cleaner, viable energy during times of heightened geopolitical stress.

Immediate Impact of War on CO₂ Emissions

The global CO₂ emissions increased as an immediate and pronounced effect of the Russo-Ukrainian war. This was primarily because the war caused a disruption in the energy supplies that many countries worldwide, especially those in Europe, received from Russia. Countries that had been receiving copious amounts of oil and gas from Russia suddenly faced threats to energy security  and had to look elsewhere for supplies. In the very short term, that meant a dramatic uptick in the use of not particularly clean substitutes—coal, oil, and natural gas from other parts of the world.

Nations that had been moving moving toward renewable energy largely reverted to fossil fuels when urgent energy demands arose. For instance, several European countries restarted coal plants and ramped up imports of natural gas—emissions of which, in many cases, are dirtier than those of the plants they were using before. The emissions they can no longer avoid are only part of the underreported human cost of the energy crisis.

The global supply chains for critical components required to establish the type of infrastructure needed for clean, renewable energy generation were disrupted by the war. This was especially true for solar panels and wind turbines, holding up clean energy projects. Countries mostly followed their long-range plans for utilising renewable energy, but the overall effect of the war on clean-tech energy projects was a step backward. It should be noted here that despite its huge investments in solar and wind power generation in the last several years, Germany still gets only 7% of its energy needs from those two renewables. The other 93% come from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power plants from all over Europe. Clearly, renewables on their own are not a sufficient answer.

In several places, the immediate response to the rise in energy prices was to fall back on using carbon-intensive energy, which reversed any short-term progress that had previously been made on reducing emissions. The industrial sector in Ukraine—the most vital for steel, coal, and agricultural output—has been destroyed, thus reducing emissions in some places while turning worse in others due to energy inefficiencies and increased military activities.

Destruction of Energy Infrastructure and CO₂ Emissions

Destructive attacks on strategic energy infrastructure in Ukraine changed the dynamics of CO₂ emissions. Oil refineries, gas facilities, and coal-based power plants were bombed during the military operation, and this caused peak increases in CO₂ emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. In addition, electricity shortages required the use of backup generators running on high-emission fuels, thus increasing the level of air pollution.

Additionally, due to the ongoing war, other operations that normally require lower emissions, such as nuclear plants, have also been disrupted. The country has 15 reactors, out of which 6 reactors have been shut down since September 2022 for safety reasons, raising the consumption of coal and gas as an alternative and subsequently increasing emissions. At the beginning of 2024,  military hostilities around Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia, continued to threaten environmental stability by causing fluctuating disruptions in Ukraine’s energy security and forcing it to rely on more carbon-intensive sources, such as diesel generators.

Energy Transition in Europe

As the EU transitioned away from Russian fossil fuels, the carbon footprint increased as a result of rising coal consumption and LNG importation.  Until then the Russian energy had been prioritised over climate goals and long-term adherence to the European Green Deal.

Perhaps the most spectacular offshoot of the energy crisis is the return of coal. Germany, for instance, was to have ended coal by 2035; shortfalls in supply shortened that term. Coal use increased by 7% across the whole EU by mid-2023, ending a decade-long downward trend. The war, which triggered the energy crisis, is directly causing the reopening of coal plants, mainly lignite, the dirtiest kind of coal; it has increased the release of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

Global Impacts Beyond Europe

The spillover effects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict have reached far and wide, from affecting the stability of European borders to disrupting energy markets and emission trends across Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas. Among its most important impacts, however, is the super-fast growth of the global Liquefied Natural Gas market. To substitute for Russian supplies, Europe began turning to alternative LNG sources from the U.S., Qatar, and Australia for long-distance transportation. The frantic escalation of natural gas prices, partly due to the conflict led to the construction of 24 new LNG export terminals in the U.S., which could emit over 90 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. LNG is cleaner than coal when burned, but the full life cycle from liquefaction to transportation and regasification leaves a massive energy and carbon footprint.

Diverted non-Russian coal, led to Asian coal markets tightening up despite weaker demand from China. Similarly, an increase in European demand for LNG drives up spot prices forcing suppliers to divert cargoes away from Asia. These increasing costs are particularly painful for emerging economies, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, which now face worsening energy poverty because of their precarious economic conditions. For these countries, a growing price for fossil fuel imports contributes to inflationary pressures, especially when they are still reeling from the economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now face further headwinds from a sharp rise in energy costs that may stop an already fragile economic rebound.

Some countries in Asia are less vulnerable to these shocks. Most of the developed economies in Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, besides China, can absorb high spot prices of LNG using oil-indexed contracts and displaying stronger financial resilience. Discounts on Russian energy imports have also brought benefits to some nations, including China and India; yet those discounts do not balance out the broader political and social challenges raised by energy affordability.

The Russian invasion highlighted the concerns about energy security and growing geopolitical tensions for Asian countries that were prompted by Western powers to adopt the sanctions imposed on Russia, The Kremlin is now looking eastward to replace the country’s broken commercial ties with the West.

Conclusion

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has greatly affected global initiatives to fight climate change and highlighted the need for energy security. As energy stability takes precedence over carbon emission cuts many countries have halted or rethought their green strategies. Those that had prioritised energy independence and renewable energy sources have had to focus on fossil fuel developments rather than boosting investments in solar and wind power.

In parallel, the crisis has added complexity to the move toward diversification and decarbonisation. Using fossil fuels to make up for energy shortages has raised CO₂ emissions and hindered climate remediation initiatives. While progress in meeting climate goals has stalled due to the war this crisis shows the importance of a sustainable and resilient power generation strategy. Managing the environmental consequences of the conflict calls for a review of renewable energy generation policies if the pledge to eliminate carbon-based resources is to remain viable.