How Three Years of Conflict in Ukraine Supercharged Global Warming

War and climate change are not isolated crises—they are intertwined.

The war in Ukraine, now dragging into its fourth year, has not only redrawn geopolitical lines and devastated lives—it has also become one of the planet's most significant, yet underreported, accelerants of climate change.

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, Ukraine has received thousands of tons of military aid from the West: American Abrams tanks and HIMARS systems, British Storm Shadow missiles, German Leopard 2s, and cutting-edge drone systems from dozens of allied countries. On the other side, Russia has pummeled Ukrainian cities with relentless missile and drone barrages—most recently during the harsh winter months, when attacks on energy infrastructure plunged millions into darkness and cold.

But as the battlefront remains largely static—with trenches and artillery dominating the war’s brutal rhythm—a different front has rapidly evolved: the environmental one. According to recent climate assessments, the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with the war have now reached an estimated 230 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (MtCO₂e). That’s more than the annual emissions of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia combined—or roughly 120 million gas-powered cars running for a full year.

An Unseen Toll in the Sky

In 2024 alone, the war generated an estimated 55 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (MtCO₂e), marking a 30% increase from the previous year. The largest sources of these emissions are neither factories nor vehicles, but the war itself.

Military fuel consumption for tanks, jets, and trucks, the use of artillery and explosives, and the construction of trenches and fortifications have pushed warfare emissions to the top of the list. Over three years, direct warfare has accounted for 82.1 MtCO₂e, with emissions rising year after year:

• Year 1: 21.9 MtCO₂e

• Year 2: 29.7 MtCO₂e

• Year 3: 30.5 MtCO₂e

Despite advances in drone warfare—cheaper and more surgical—the climate gains hoped for from remote-controlled systems have failed to materialise. "Drones did not replace the use of artillery," said one Ukrainian analyst familiar with battlefield logistics. "They complemented it."

Weaponising the Weather

But the emissions don't stop at exhaust pipes and fuel depots. In 2024, a new and alarming trend emerged: the war sparked wildfires on an unprecedented scale. Nearly 92,100 hectares of forest burned in Ukraine last year—more than double the average of the previous two years combined.

These fires—triggered by shelling and missile strikes, then worsened by unusually dry and hot conditions—emitted 25.8 MtCO₂e in 2024 alone, a 113% increase over the previous years. Total fire-related emissions from the conflict now stand at 48.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e).

Satellite images and on-the-ground analysis confirm that most fires occurred near front lines and border zones. Due to the risks involved, firefighting crews often cannot enter these areas, allowing small blazes to grow into large-scale infernos.

The war is compounding the effects of climate change, and climate change is compounding the war. "Forests destroyed during the current Russian invasion in Ukraine require urgent restoration and renewal," said Dr. Sergiy Zibtsev, a Ukrainian fire ecologist with the Regional Eastern European Fire Monitoring Centre.

Missiles, Power Grids, and Methane Leaks

Russia's strategic targeting of Ukraine's power infrastructure—particularly during the winter—has created another major source of climate pollution. Over the past year, attacks on oil depots, gas lines, and electrical substations contributed an additional 2.8 MtCO₂e, bringing the total from energy infrastructure destruction to 19 MtCO₂e.

One often-overlooked danger is sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆), a greenhouse gas 24,000 times more potent than CO₂, which is released from damaged electrical switchgear and transformers. Also contributing to the war’s carbon burden are methane leaks from the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022, which have been recently revised downward but remain substantial, at 14 MtCO₂e.

Breakdown of energy-related emissions:

• Nord Stream sabotage: 14.0 MtCO₂e

• Oil depots and refineries: 3.1 MtCO₂e

• SF₆ from electric equipment: 1.1 MtCO₂e

• Gas flaring and other damage: 0.9 MtCO₂e

The Price of Rebuilding

As frontline cities like Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and parts of Kharkiv remain locked in long-term artillery battles, the physical destruction of Ukraine’s civil infrastructure continues. Rebuilding roads, bridges, homes, schools, and industrial facilities—some of it already underway in less active areas—is another significant driver of emissions.

Reconstruction has added 62.2 MtCO₂e to the war's carbon ledger so far. Concrete and steel, two of the most carbon-intensive materials in the world, are expected to account for over 80% of future emissions in the rebuilding phase.

Emissions by reconstruction category:

• Buildings: 24.5 MtCO₂e

• Transport and infrastructure: 15.7 MtCO₂e

• Industrial and utilities: 22.0 MtCO₂e

Reconstruction is not just a humanitarian necessity; it's a climate challenge. We have to rebuild without locking in decades of emissions," said an environmental expert.

Flights Detoured, Emissions Extended

Another surprising source of war-related emissions is commercial aviation. With Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian airspace effectively closed to most Western airlines, flight paths have elongated across Asia and Europe. A new analysis using real-time flight data found that more than 350,000 flights were affected annually, resulting in 14.4 million tons of CO₂ equivalent (MtCO₂e) in extra emissions over three years.

While minor compared to military and infrastructure-related emissions, this detour in the skies highlights how the war's impact extends even into seemingly unrelated sectors, such as global civil aviation.

Refugee Emissions Flatline

In contrast to previous years, refugee-related emissions—largely due to transportation, shelter, and energy use during mass displacement—did not increase significantly in 2024. Most population shifts occurred during the early stages of the war, and return movements have remained slow and limited.

Still, cumulative emissions from displacement and refugee-related infrastructure stand at around 3.3 MtCO₂e.

Assigning Responsibility: A $42 Billion Climate Bill

If these emissions were priced using the social cost of carbon—a metric used by economists to estimate climate-related harm—they would amount to over $42 billion USD. Ukrainian officials and international environmental organisations argue that the Russian Federation should be held liable, not only for war crimes and economic losses but also for climate damages.

"This war is not just killing people and cities. It's accelerating planetary heating at a time when the world can least afford it," an official from Ukraine's Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources was reported as saying.

The 2024 fire season in Ukraine underscored a broader reality: war and climate change are not isolated crises—they are intertwined. As global temperatures rise, conditions become more conducive to firestorms, water shortages, and infrastructure stress. At the same time, wars release immense quantities of greenhouse gases, undermining global progress on climate mitigation.

Ukraine's case is not unique. Conflicts in Syria, Sudan, and Gaza have also generated significant emissions, but none have matched the scale or duration of the Ukraine-Russia war. The difference is that Ukraine is a heavily industrialised country, with dense urban centres, critical energy infrastructure, and access to high-carbon weapon systems.

Despite the gravity of the situation, emissions from war are not included in most national climate inventories. Nor are they accounted for in global climate agreements, such as the Paris Accord, leaving a blind spot in international climate accountability.

What Comes Next?

With no clear end in sight, the war's environmental toll is likely to grow. Russia has shown little interest in scaling back its energy infrastructure attacks, and Ukraine’s reliance on carbon-intensive Western military aid remains critical to its defence. Meanwhile, the country’s reconstruction effort—vital for economic recovery—faces a balancing act between speed and sustainability.

As world leaders prepare for the next round of climate negotiations at COP30 in Belem, Brazil, from November 10 to 21. Ukraine's war may serve as a case study in how armed conflict and global warming can dangerously converge.

"Every bomb dropped, every missile fired, every building destroyed—it all has a carbon cost," said one Kyiv-based climate researcher. "This war is a fossil-fueled disaster in every sense of the word."

Top image source: Ecoaction. AI generated the image in the text.