��������

LONDON: From fuel guzzled by fighter jets to wildfires sparked by shelling, the war in Ukraine has created vast amounts of planet-warming emissions, according to a new study that says Russia should pay for the damage to the global climate.
The first three years of conflict have generated almost 237 million metric tons of greenhouse gases (GHG), equivalent to putting 120 million fossil-fuel cars on the road, or the combined annual emissions of Belgium, Austria and Ireland, according to researchers.
“This is pushing us in the wrong direction at a time when we drastically have to cut emissions,” said climate researcher Lennard de Klerk, lead author of the report tallying the war’s emissions, which was published this month.
The cost of the climate damage attributable to the war — in which hundreds of thousands have been killed on both sides — already exceeds $43 billion, de Klerk said.
“Russia should pay compensation for this damage as part of wider war reparations,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
A separate study looking at the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza estimates the carbon footprint for the first 15 months topped 32 million tons of emissions, when post-conflict reconstruction is factored in.
That is comparable to the annual emissions of Ivory Coast.
“The numbers are staggering for such an intense period,” said Benjamin Neimark, who led the research by UK and US-based experts.
“Most direct conflict emissions come from jet fuel, but what really surprised us were the projected emissions for reconstruction. That was a shock and made us sit up.”
The pioneering studies will be presented on the sidelines of next month’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil.
Climate researchers say conflicts and climate change create a cycle of destruction — not only does war drive climate change, but climate change can fuel conflict in fragile regions as competition intensifies over water and other resources.

WILDFIRES
While military activity is the biggest source of conflict-related emissions in Ukraine, de Klerk said he was surprised to find wildfires account for a fifth of the war’s carbon footprint since Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Relentless shelling has sparked thousands of blazes which have ravaged forests and farmland, with some likely exacerbated by the detonation of land mines and unexploded ordnance strewn across the landscape.
Nearly 850,000 hectares were torched last year, according to the report by the Initiative on GHG Accounting of War, an international research team led by de Klerk.
“This is more than 20 times the annual average,” he said. “The summer of 2024 was extremely dry, most likely due to climate change, which enabled fires to spread.”
With the expansion of the war in Gaza, missile strikes across the Lebanon-Israel border also ignited fires, destroying forests and farmland.
As in Ukraine, blazes quickly raged out of control due to the dangers firefighters face operating in these war zones.

RECONSTRUCTION
The destruction of energy infrastructure in both Ukraine and Gaza has also increased emissions.
Russia’s targeting of oil depots has sent tons of fuel up in flames, while attacks on gas and electricity infrastructure have released potent GHGs like methane and sulfur hexafluoride or SF6, which has a global warming potential 24,000 times greater than CO2.
Before Israel launched its assault on Gaza in October 2023, about a quarter of the enclave’s electricity came from solar panels – one of the highest shares in the world.
But the destruction of most solar infrastructure has increased reliance on polluting diesel-powered generators.
Neimark said the carbon footprint of post-war reconstruction in Gaza, where about 68,000 people have been killed, would dwarf emissions from the conflict itself.
Israel’s intense bombardment has destroyed more than 90 percent of housing and turned Gaza into a wasteland, creating 60 million tons of debris, according to UN estimates.
Rebuilding homes and infrastructure will require enormous quantities of concrete and steel, whose production are highly carbon-intensive.
The decimation of farmland, orchards and shrub land has also raised the risk of desertification in a region that is already vulnerable to the effects of climate change, said Neimark, a senior lecturer at Queen Mary University of London.
Both wars have additionally increased global emissions away from the frontlines.
Airspace closures have forced commercial flights to reroute, pushing up fuel consumption. Flights from London to Tokyo now take almost three hours longer, de Klerk said.
Unrest in the Middle East has similarly disrupted international shipping through the Red Sea, boosting emissions due to longer routes and the need for faster sailing speeds.

MILITARY DATA HOLE
This new research on Gaza and Ukraine is part of a wider push to increase transparency around global military emissions.
Even in peacetime, armies have large carbon footprints — maintenance of bases, transport of troops and equipment, military exercises and weapons production all add up.
The Conflict and Environment Observatory, a UK-based non-profit, estimates the world’s militaries are responsible for about 5.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.
But countries are not required to report their military emissions to international climate bodies.
Experts say the data gap means we risk underestimating the size of emission cuts required to limit the global temperature increase to below 1.5 Celsius.
With many countries now ramping up defense spending in response to multiple crises, there are fears this will both increase military emissions and divert funding from efforts to tackle climate change.
Climate researchers say militaries must be forced to report their emissions.
“We can’t start making meaningful cuts without adequate baselines,” Neimark said.
“The military has long operated as if the emissions coming out of an F-35 don’t stink, and that has to stop.”

TOKYO: Japan’s nuclear power industry wants greater support for new reactor building, including via state-run capacity auctions, under the government of newly elected pro-nuclear Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, a lobby head said on Thursday.
Just 14 of the 54 nuclear plants operating in Japan before the 2011 Fukushima disaster have been brought back online, and Takaichi has said reviving nuclear power is key to Japan’s energy security.
However, much of Japan’s nuclear focus has been on restarting shuttered reactors — the government recently extended operating lifetimes from 40 to 60 years — with just one new plant currently on the drawing board.
Hideki Masui, president of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF), said more support for building new reactors, a process that takes two decades in Japan, should be made available through the long-term decarbonized capacity auction (LTDA) scheme to develop new power generation.
“We should include a scheme into the LTDA which allows some kind of a fund recovery even during construction from an early stage,” Masui told Reuters.
There are no safety regulations for next-generation reactors, and operators are asking for regulatory predictability while they also seek “support for financing,” Masui said.
In July, Kansai Electric Power, Japan’s top nuclear power operator, announced surveys to build a new reactor in western Japan, the first concrete step toward building a reactor since Fukushima.
Japan aims to have nuclear power accounting for 20 percent of its electricity mix in 2040, from less than 10 percent now, with power demand from data centers reversing years of decline.
Another four idled reactors have been given initial restart permits by authorities, while eight more are undergoing safety checks and a further 10 could apply for restarts, Masui said.
“Theoretically, I think Japan can achieve its nuclear goal of 20 percent in 2040 with more than 30 reactors operating,” Masui said.