The war in Ukraine causes unimaginable human suffering. The climate impact often rightly fades into the background. A recent study shows: Russia’s attack on its neighboring country results in between 180 and 200 million tons of CO2 emissions, whether through direct acts of war, fires on the front lines, or reconstruction efforts. Anouk Schlung analyzes the environmental impact of the war and why it leads to increased emissions elsewhere.
We also take a look at the market for CO2 offsets. Many offset projects aim to reduce CO2 emissions by providing clean cooking solutions to people. While the clean cookstoves used in these projects have a positive impact on people’s health, their climate impact is greatly overestimated.
Our news articles focus on the question of which climate risks Europe, according to the EU Environmental Agency, is poorly prepared for, and how ambitious climate policies are supported by voters.
The Russian attack on Ukraine has led to 180 to 200 million tons of CO2 emissions (in equivalents) over the past two years, according to a study. The Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources expects 150 million tons – more than Belgium emits in a year and one-fifth of Germany’s annual emissions.
Military action, armament and displacement dominate the coverage of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Environmental stress and the impact on global climate have received little attention so far. Lennard de Klerk wants to change that. He is a climate researcher and lead author of the biannual study “Climate Damage Caused by Russia’s War in Ukraine”. He and his team of international researchers detail the climate damages and greenhouse gas emissions from the war.
The emissions result from both direct warfare and its aftermath. “Tanks, vehicles and aircraft cause emissions, but ultimately account for only a quarter of the total emissions,” explains de Klerk in an interview with Table.Briefings. Fires near the front line, accounting for 15 percent of emissions, are also significant. However, the largest share is attributed to destroyed infrastructure and buildings that need to be rebuilt after the war.
Yet, indirect, less obvious factors also play a role. For example, flight diversions after Russia closed its Siberian airspace and Ukraine closed its airspace to commercial traffic. These lead to longer flight routes and higher greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for twelve percent of total emissions. De Klerk’s team also included sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in September 2022 in its calculations – accounting for ten percent of total emissions. Refugee movements cause an additional two percent.
The largest share of emissions – about 55 million tons of CO2 equivalent – comes from the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure. Homes, industrial facilities, transportation systems, energy and agricultural facilities need to be rebuilt after the war. This involves emissions from cement or steel production and the transportation of construction materials.
In addition to direct emissions, the war also causes indirect emissions, which de Klerk and his research team have not quantified. “Conflicts contribute to the militarization of other countries and global armament, which also generates greenhouse gases. And they prevent a country from focusing on effective climate policies,” explains de Klerk.
This is confirmed by the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources. “The effective implementation of state climate policy is hampered by the negative consequences of the war,” the ministry responds to Table.Briefings’ inquiry. Financial resources earmarked for environmental protection and climate action are tied up elsewhere.
The war also has devastating effects on the environment, destroying entire ecosystems, making affected areas and their inhabitants more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as heat or extreme weather events.
Overall, the ministry documented 4,000 cases of environmental damage in the past two years, with costs amounting to 52 billion euros. The majority of this, 28 billion euros, is attributed to air pollution from the war, and nearly 24 billion euros to soil contamination. In addition, rare species of animals and plants are destroyed – including those listed in Ukraine’s Red Book, an official list of legally protected animals, plants and fungi.
The Center for Environmental Initiatives Ecoaction, a civil society environmental protection organization, also monitors environmental damage caused by the war. Researchers recorded over 1,500 cases in the past two years. The most serious incidents were the explosion of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023, the occupation of the exclusion zone of Chernobyl and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and the flooding of mines in Donbas, leading to groundwater contamination and land subsidence.
Despite this, Ukraine remains committed to implementing climate and environmental action measures – also because politicians know that effective climate policy could be crucial for full membership in the European Union. “We have developed a draft strategy for the development and implementation of state climate policy until 2035 and an operational action plan with clearly defined tasks,” the ministry reports. Environmental protection remains important for the majority of Ukrainian society (95 percent), even despite Russia’s comprehensive invasion, according to Ecoaction.
However, the reality is that protective measures are not implementable everywhere. More than 800,000 hectares of forest and 514 protected areas are occupied. Currently, Russia occupies 18 percent of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
Detailed data on this war are rarely available. According to de Klerk, this is partly because, since World War II, many conflicts have taken place far from the Western perspective. “The exclusion of the entire military sector from the Kyoto Protocol also plays a role.” A significant fact, as armed forces account for a total of 5.5 percent of global CO2 emissions, as de Klerk’s team’s study shows.
Certificates for offsetting CO2 emissions from projects with efficient and clean cookstoves are often far less effective than claimed. This is because the reality in the affected countries often does not correspond to the calculations of the organizations issuing these certificates. This is the conclusion of a study published at the end of January in the journal “Nature Sustainability”.
Experts have long warned about overestimated offsetting projects, but certifiers contradict them, criticizing the methodology and interests of the new study. “Cookstove projects” have long been considered unproblematic – unlike CO2 certificates from forestry projects. It is regularly reported that these often fail to deliver on their promises and can even cause harm in the worst case. Projects involving clean cookstoves, however, have been seen as relatively efficient. Last year, the majority of CO2 certificates on the voluntary carbon market came from projects replacing cookstoves or ovens worldwide. Most new projects also fall into this category.
This is also because the idea behind it is so simple. Clean cookstoves bring several advantages: about one-third of the world’s population cooks over an open fire. Simple stoves fueled by coal or wood are replaced by more efficient models that channel heat better, requiring less fuel and emitting less smoke. According to the World Health Organization, each year, 3.2 million people die prematurely from illnesses attributable to the household air pollution caused by the incomplete combustion of solid fuels and kerosene used for cooking. These deaths can be reduced or prevented. Deforestation for firewood could also decline. In addition, efficient stoves emit less CO2.
However, the current study concludes that the positive climate effect of such projects is greatly overestimated. This has several reasons:
On average, the compensation effect is thus estimated to be 1,000 percent greater than it actually is, according to the study authors.
Dietrich Brockhagen, CEO of the offset provider Atmosfair, says that the savings of many cookstove projects are overestimated. Therefore, it is “urgently necessary to clean up the market from bad providers“, he tells Table.Briefings. There are many poor-quality stoves that break down quickly. Furthermore, too optimistic assumptions are often made regarding deforestation prevention. More conservative assumptions and stricter inspections are important.
However, Brockhagen is more optimistic about his own projects. Atmosfair produces particularly high-quality stoves that are also well adapted to local conditions. The calculations of the effects on forests are also much more reliable because Atmosfair directly aligns and updates the values with local governments instead of simply assuming them. Since governments must report the CO2 reductions in their reports to the UN, they have an interest in conservative figures.
However, certifiers Verra and Goldstandard question the credibility of the Nature Sustainability study. Already in September of last year, an open letter signed by various companies in the voluntary carbon market questioned the financing of the study. The two funders, “The Better Cooking Company” and “Carbon Direct”, have interests that are opposed to projects with clean stoves. The open letter also criticizes the study for methodological weaknesses.
Lambert Schneider, research coordinator for international climate policy at the Öko-Institut, is familiar with the problems of cookstove projects. He confirms the tendency of the critical study: “The CO2 savings from these projects are massively overestimated,” says Schneider. It is possible to discuss by what factor this happens, but it is scientifically well established that due to various methodological weaknesses, the projects usually compensate for much less carbon than they claim.
Some of these weaknesses could be addressed: Instead of using surveys, the use of efficient cookstoves could be tracked, for example, with heat sensors. However, “the uncertainties in the projects are large,” says Schneider. One must move away from the idea that an exact amount of CO2 can be offset.
Benja Faecks from the non-governmental organization Carbon Market Watch does not fundamentally condemn cookstove projects. They often have many positive social and ecological side effects. In addition to the methodological weaknesses, she also criticizes the mechanisms of the voluntary CO2 market. There is a “race to the bottom”: Providers try to sell as many certificates as possible and keep the price per ton of CO₂ as low as possible.
Faecks believes that every project type has problematic aspects. Nevertheless, there are many very good projects that contribute to climate action. One big problem is the communication of the projects: Claims like climate neutrality are fundamentally misleading. Providers should be more transparent about their projects and efforts and also make it clear that it is not possible to accurately calculate the amounts of CO2 saved. Lambert Schneider from the Öko-Institut also believes that instead of talking about offsetting, it would be better to speak of a “contribution to climate action“.
Atmosfair CEO Brockhagen sees things differently: Offsetting implements the polluter-pays principle. If companies fully paid for their climate impacts, it would be different from a donation. Additionally, the CO2 market has an important steering effect, and projects are realized where they can contribute most to climate action.
For Brockhagen, the private billions from the voluntary carbon market are essential for climate action. Currently, more than two billion US dollars flow there annually, and by 2030, the volume could increase to ten to 40 billion, according to estimates.
“This year, many people have moved away from here because of the drought. There was no water and they couldn’t afford to buy it either,” says Abdul Haq. The 30-year-old lives in the Baghdis province in Afghanistan, which is increasingly affected by droughts due to climate change. He searches daily for food and water for his sheep. His only income comes from selling the lambs, which he uses to support his wife, six children and parents. “When there was no drought, we grew grain and wheat. When it rained, our barrels were full of water. We could buy things. But now the situation is not good.”
When people think of Afghanistan, they often think of political instability and conflict. During my trip there at the end of last year, I could see how climate change exacerbates the already difficult situation of conflict and poverty for the people.
And Abdul’s story is not unique: Whether in South Sudan, Somalia or Syria, climate crisis, conflict and poverty intersect in numerous places around the world. Emergency aid alone can only support Abdul temporarily. What he and many other people in crisis regions need in the face of worsening climate change are real prospects for the future. However, measures for peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and sustainable development need to be linked with measures for adaptation to climate change. Only then can local communities become more resilient and confront the climate crisis from their own strength in the long term.
The climate foreign policy strategy published by the German government at the end of 2023 bridges this often overlooked gap between climate and conflicts. It recognizes the climate crisis as “one of the greatest security risks of the 21st century”. However, how affected people will be specifically supported remains unclear. Pragmatic solutions are needed for crisis regions to reach the people who are hardest hit by the climate crisis.
Climate financing for climate-vulnerable, conflict-affected communities must become fairer. According to the United Nations Development Programme, 90 percent of climate financing focuses on countries with middle incomes and high emissions. The more fragile a country is, the fewer resources it receives for coping with climate change. In 2020, per capita climate financing for conflict-affected countries amounted to one-third of what other countries received. Much of the funding goes towards climate mitigation, i.e., emission reduction, rather than adaptation and resilience.
In addition to better aligning existing instruments, new ones are needed, such as the loss and damage fund agreed upon at COP28. The climate disaster fund should primarily be funded by countries responsible for the most CO2 emissions. Low-income countries should then be able to receive funds after climate-related disasters and damages to cope with the irreparable consequences of climate change. With 100 million dollars globally, Germany is one of the largest contributors and can ensure that the funds reach people in crisis regions. The German government should encourage other countries to contribute financially to the loss and damage fund and other instruments focusing on conflict regions. The focus should be on those that promote women and girls, such as the “Women and Climate Security” initiative of the UN Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund.
To ensure that communities in conflict regions are effectively supported in dealing with the impacts of climate change, a new approach to risk analysis is needed. This should consider not only the economic but also the political and social impacts of climate shocks: How do sudden climate shocks like floods or droughts affect people, what long-term trends are they exposed to? What interactions exist with local politics, economics and existing conflict dynamics? Which groups within a society are most affected?
For example, in the central Sahel region, rural areas on the periphery are much more affected by climate change than the capitals. And this, even though they experience similar changes in temperatures, precipitation and extreme weather events.
This illustrates the importance of better risk analysis tools, not only at the national but also at the regional and municipal levels. This way, financial resources and programs can be directed where they are most urgently needed – not just where they are easiest to implement.
Another focus must be on strengthening the resilience of people on the ground. This requires innovative approaches. Many organizations are working on new approaches, but too often with a focus on fragile and conflict-affected regions and too rarely in partnership with local people. However, for long-term and sustainable change, solutions must be developed together with the affected communities and implemented in a way that works even in fragile conflict areas.
Two examples: Climate shocks have a particularly strong impact on agriculture and thus on food security. In Syria, we work directly with Syrian farmers: Together, they test which seeds can still yield secure harvests even in extreme drought. In Nigeria, we have set up a digital platform as a new early warning system with authorities and community leaders. This platform uses local knowledge, data and satellite information to better predict impending floods and thus manage the risk, not just the crisis.
This proactive action helps families secure their food base and continue to work in agriculture. In addition, vulnerable households are not forced to resort to short-term solutions such as selling livestock to buy their immediate livelihoods.
2024 is expected to be an El Niño year. Even more extreme weather phenomena are to be expected, triggering humanitarian crises and further displacement. With its new climate foreign policy strategy, the German government can take a leading role in the global response to these crises. Whether this is successful can only be measured by whether it makes a real difference in the lives of all those people most affected by climate change. For this, the German government must now follow up its strategy with concrete actions.
Corina Pfitzner is the Executive Director of the aid organization International Rescue Committee (IRC) in Germany. Founded in 1933, IRC supports refugees and other people affected by crises and conflicts.
What do the pink comedy Barbie, the action-packed Mission Impossible – Dead Reckoning and the biographical film Nyad have in common? They are the only films nominated for the 2024 Oscars to pass the “climate test” conducted by the nonprofit consulting firm Good Energy. Only these three works feature the climate crisis in any form. In all other films, it doesn’t even play a supporting role. Between 2016 and 2020, the climate crisis appeared in only 2.8 percent of all TV shows and films in the USA. The word “dog” is mentioned 13 times more frequently in screenplays.
Oscar winner Adam McKay (director of Don’t Look Up) takes a different approach with his Yellow Dot Studio. In short films, combustion engines are parodied, oil companies are lampooned in the style of The Office and Game of Thrones is rewritten as a climate series. And in Germany, the Changemakers.film initiative advocates for greener production methods and storytelling that acknowledges the reality of the climate crisis. lb
The war in Ukraine causes unimaginable human suffering. The climate impact often rightly fades into the background. A recent study shows: Russia’s attack on its neighboring country results in between 180 and 200 million tons of CO2 emissions, whether through direct acts of war, fires on the front lines, or reconstruction efforts. Anouk Schlung analyzes the environmental impact of the war and why it leads to increased emissions elsewhere.
We also take a look at the market for CO2 offsets. Many offset projects aim to reduce CO2 emissions by providing clean cooking solutions to people. While the clean cookstoves used in these projects have a positive impact on people’s health, their climate impact is greatly overestimated.
Our news articles focus on the question of which climate risks Europe, according to the EU Environmental Agency, is poorly prepared for, and how ambitious climate policies are supported by voters.
The Russian attack on Ukraine has led to 180 to 200 million tons of CO2 emissions (in equivalents) over the past two years, according to a study. The Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources expects 150 million tons – more than Belgium emits in a year and one-fifth of Germany’s annual emissions.
Military action, armament and displacement dominate the coverage of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Environmental stress and the impact on global climate have received little attention so far. Lennard de Klerk wants to change that. He is a climate researcher and lead author of the biannual study “Climate Damage Caused by Russia’s War in Ukraine”. He and his team of international researchers detail the climate damages and greenhouse gas emissions from the war.
The emissions result from both direct warfare and its aftermath. “Tanks, vehicles and aircraft cause emissions, but ultimately account for only a quarter of the total emissions,” explains de Klerk in an interview with Table.Briefings. Fires near the front line, accounting for 15 percent of emissions, are also significant. However, the largest share is attributed to destroyed infrastructure and buildings that need to be rebuilt after the war.
Yet, indirect, less obvious factors also play a role. For example, flight diversions after Russia closed its Siberian airspace and Ukraine closed its airspace to commercial traffic. These lead to longer flight routes and higher greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for twelve percent of total emissions. De Klerk’s team also included sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in September 2022 in its calculations – accounting for ten percent of total emissions. Refugee movements cause an additional two percent.
The largest share of emissions – about 55 million tons of CO2 equivalent – comes from the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure. Homes, industrial facilities, transportation systems, energy and agricultural facilities need to be rebuilt after the war. This involves emissions from cement or steel production and the transportation of construction materials.
In addition to direct emissions, the war also causes indirect emissions, which de Klerk and his research team have not quantified. “Conflicts contribute to the militarization of other countries and global armament, which also generates greenhouse gases. And they prevent a country from focusing on effective climate policies,” explains de Klerk.
This is confirmed by the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources. “The effective implementation of state climate policy is hampered by the negative consequences of the war,” the ministry responds to Table.Briefings’ inquiry. Financial resources earmarked for environmental protection and climate action are tied up elsewhere.
The war also has devastating effects on the environment, destroying entire ecosystems, making affected areas and their inhabitants more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as heat or extreme weather events.
Overall, the ministry documented 4,000 cases of environmental damage in the past two years, with costs amounting to 52 billion euros. The majority of this, 28 billion euros, is attributed to air pollution from the war, and nearly 24 billion euros to soil contamination. In addition, rare species of animals and plants are destroyed – including those listed in Ukraine’s Red Book, an official list of legally protected animals, plants and fungi.
The Center for Environmental Initiatives Ecoaction, a civil society environmental protection organization, also monitors environmental damage caused by the war. Researchers recorded over 1,500 cases in the past two years. The most serious incidents were the explosion of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023, the occupation of the exclusion zone of Chernobyl and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and the flooding of mines in Donbas, leading to groundwater contamination and land subsidence.
Despite this, Ukraine remains committed to implementing climate and environmental action measures – also because politicians know that effective climate policy could be crucial for full membership in the European Union. “We have developed a draft strategy for the development and implementation of state climate policy until 2035 and an operational action plan with clearly defined tasks,” the ministry reports. Environmental protection remains important for the majority of Ukrainian society (95 percent), even despite Russia’s comprehensive invasion, according to Ecoaction.
However, the reality is that protective measures are not implementable everywhere. More than 800,000 hectares of forest and 514 protected areas are occupied. Currently, Russia occupies 18 percent of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
Detailed data on this war are rarely available. According to de Klerk, this is partly because, since World War II, many conflicts have taken place far from the Western perspective. “The exclusion of the entire military sector from the Kyoto Protocol also plays a role.” A significant fact, as armed forces account for a total of 5.5 percent of global CO2 emissions, as de Klerk’s team’s study shows.
Certificates for offsetting CO2 emissions from projects with efficient and clean cookstoves are often far less effective than claimed. This is because the reality in the affected countries often does not correspond to the calculations of the organizations issuing these certificates. This is the conclusion of a study published at the end of January in the journal “Nature Sustainability”.
Experts have long warned about overestimated offsetting projects, but certifiers contradict them, criticizing the methodology and interests of the new study. “Cookstove projects” have long been considered unproblematic – unlike CO2 certificates from forestry projects. It is regularly reported that these often fail to deliver on their promises and can even cause harm in the worst case. Projects involving clean cookstoves, however, have been seen as relatively efficient. Last year, the majority of CO2 certificates on the voluntary carbon market came from projects replacing cookstoves or ovens worldwide. Most new projects also fall into this category.
This is also because the idea behind it is so simple. Clean cookstoves bring several advantages: about one-third of the world’s population cooks over an open fire. Simple stoves fueled by coal or wood are replaced by more efficient models that channel heat better, requiring less fuel and emitting less smoke. According to the World Health Organization, each year, 3.2 million people die prematurely from illnesses attributable to the household air pollution caused by the incomplete combustion of solid fuels and kerosene used for cooking. These deaths can be reduced or prevented. Deforestation for firewood could also decline. In addition, efficient stoves emit less CO2.
However, the current study concludes that the positive climate effect of such projects is greatly overestimated. This has several reasons:
On average, the compensation effect is thus estimated to be 1,000 percent greater than it actually is, according to the study authors.
Dietrich Brockhagen, CEO of the offset provider Atmosfair, says that the savings of many cookstove projects are overestimated. Therefore, it is “urgently necessary to clean up the market from bad providers“, he tells Table.Briefings. There are many poor-quality stoves that break down quickly. Furthermore, too optimistic assumptions are often made regarding deforestation prevention. More conservative assumptions and stricter inspections are important.
However, Brockhagen is more optimistic about his own projects. Atmosfair produces particularly high-quality stoves that are also well adapted to local conditions. The calculations of the effects on forests are also much more reliable because Atmosfair directly aligns and updates the values with local governments instead of simply assuming them. Since governments must report the CO2 reductions in their reports to the UN, they have an interest in conservative figures.
However, certifiers Verra and Goldstandard question the credibility of the Nature Sustainability study. Already in September of last year, an open letter signed by various companies in the voluntary carbon market questioned the financing of the study. The two funders, “The Better Cooking Company” and “Carbon Direct”, have interests that are opposed to projects with clean stoves. The open letter also criticizes the study for methodological weaknesses.
Lambert Schneider, research coordinator for international climate policy at the Öko-Institut, is familiar with the problems of cookstove projects. He confirms the tendency of the critical study: “The CO2 savings from these projects are massively overestimated,” says Schneider. It is possible to discuss by what factor this happens, but it is scientifically well established that due to various methodological weaknesses, the projects usually compensate for much less carbon than they claim.
Some of these weaknesses could be addressed: Instead of using surveys, the use of efficient cookstoves could be tracked, for example, with heat sensors. However, “the uncertainties in the projects are large,” says Schneider. One must move away from the idea that an exact amount of CO2 can be offset.
Benja Faecks from the non-governmental organization Carbon Market Watch does not fundamentally condemn cookstove projects. They often have many positive social and ecological side effects. In addition to the methodological weaknesses, she also criticizes the mechanisms of the voluntary CO2 market. There is a “race to the bottom”: Providers try to sell as many certificates as possible and keep the price per ton of CO₂ as low as possible.
Faecks believes that every project type has problematic aspects. Nevertheless, there are many very good projects that contribute to climate action. One big problem is the communication of the projects: Claims like climate neutrality are fundamentally misleading. Providers should be more transparent about their projects and efforts and also make it clear that it is not possible to accurately calculate the amounts of CO2 saved. Lambert Schneider from the Öko-Institut also believes that instead of talking about offsetting, it would be better to speak of a “contribution to climate action“.
Atmosfair CEO Brockhagen sees things differently: Offsetting implements the polluter-pays principle. If companies fully paid for their climate impacts, it would be different from a donation. Additionally, the CO2 market has an important steering effect, and projects are realized where they can contribute most to climate action.
For Brockhagen, the private billions from the voluntary carbon market are essential for climate action. Currently, more than two billion US dollars flow there annually, and by 2030, the volume could increase to ten to 40 billion, according to estimates.
“This year, many people have moved away from here because of the drought. There was no water and they couldn’t afford to buy it either,” says Abdul Haq. The 30-year-old lives in the Baghdis province in Afghanistan, which is increasingly affected by droughts due to climate change. He searches daily for food and water for his sheep. His only income comes from selling the lambs, which he uses to support his wife, six children and parents. “When there was no drought, we grew grain and wheat. When it rained, our barrels were full of water. We could buy things. But now the situation is not good.”
When people think of Afghanistan, they often think of political instability and conflict. During my trip there at the end of last year, I could see how climate change exacerbates the already difficult situation of conflict and poverty for the people.
And Abdul’s story is not unique: Whether in South Sudan, Somalia or Syria, climate crisis, conflict and poverty intersect in numerous places around the world. Emergency aid alone can only support Abdul temporarily. What he and many other people in crisis regions need in the face of worsening climate change are real prospects for the future. However, measures for peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and sustainable development need to be linked with measures for adaptation to climate change. Only then can local communities become more resilient and confront the climate crisis from their own strength in the long term.
The climate foreign policy strategy published by the German government at the end of 2023 bridges this often overlooked gap between climate and conflicts. It recognizes the climate crisis as “one of the greatest security risks of the 21st century”. However, how affected people will be specifically supported remains unclear. Pragmatic solutions are needed for crisis regions to reach the people who are hardest hit by the climate crisis.
Climate financing for climate-vulnerable, conflict-affected communities must become fairer. According to the United Nations Development Programme, 90 percent of climate financing focuses on countries with middle incomes and high emissions. The more fragile a country is, the fewer resources it receives for coping with climate change. In 2020, per capita climate financing for conflict-affected countries amounted to one-third of what other countries received. Much of the funding goes towards climate mitigation, i.e., emission reduction, rather than adaptation and resilience.
In addition to better aligning existing instruments, new ones are needed, such as the loss and damage fund agreed upon at COP28. The climate disaster fund should primarily be funded by countries responsible for the most CO2 emissions. Low-income countries should then be able to receive funds after climate-related disasters and damages to cope with the irreparable consequences of climate change. With 100 million dollars globally, Germany is one of the largest contributors and can ensure that the funds reach people in crisis regions. The German government should encourage other countries to contribute financially to the loss and damage fund and other instruments focusing on conflict regions. The focus should be on those that promote women and girls, such as the “Women and Climate Security” initiative of the UN Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund.
To ensure that communities in conflict regions are effectively supported in dealing with the impacts of climate change, a new approach to risk analysis is needed. This should consider not only the economic but also the political and social impacts of climate shocks: How do sudden climate shocks like floods or droughts affect people, what long-term trends are they exposed to? What interactions exist with local politics, economics and existing conflict dynamics? Which groups within a society are most affected?
For example, in the central Sahel region, rural areas on the periphery are much more affected by climate change than the capitals. And this, even though they experience similar changes in temperatures, precipitation and extreme weather events.
This illustrates the importance of better risk analysis tools, not only at the national but also at the regional and municipal levels. This way, financial resources and programs can be directed where they are most urgently needed – not just where they are easiest to implement.
Another focus must be on strengthening the resilience of people on the ground. This requires innovative approaches. Many organizations are working on new approaches, but too often with a focus on fragile and conflict-affected regions and too rarely in partnership with local people. However, for long-term and sustainable change, solutions must be developed together with the affected communities and implemented in a way that works even in fragile conflict areas.
Two examples: Climate shocks have a particularly strong impact on agriculture and thus on food security. In Syria, we work directly with Syrian farmers: Together, they test which seeds can still yield secure harvests even in extreme drought. In Nigeria, we have set up a digital platform as a new early warning system with authorities and community leaders. This platform uses local knowledge, data and satellite information to better predict impending floods and thus manage the risk, not just the crisis.
This proactive action helps families secure their food base and continue to work in agriculture. In addition, vulnerable households are not forced to resort to short-term solutions such as selling livestock to buy their immediate livelihoods.
2024 is expected to be an El Niño year. Even more extreme weather phenomena are to be expected, triggering humanitarian crises and further displacement. With its new climate foreign policy strategy, the German government can take a leading role in the global response to these crises. Whether this is successful can only be measured by whether it makes a real difference in the lives of all those people most affected by climate change. For this, the German government must now follow up its strategy with concrete actions.
Corina Pfitzner is the Executive Director of the aid organization International Rescue Committee (IRC) in Germany. Founded in 1933, IRC supports refugees and other people affected by crises and conflicts.
What do the pink comedy Barbie, the action-packed Mission Impossible – Dead Reckoning and the biographical film Nyad have in common? They are the only films nominated for the 2024 Oscars to pass the “climate test” conducted by the nonprofit consulting firm Good Energy. Only these three works feature the climate crisis in any form. In all other films, it doesn’t even play a supporting role. Between 2016 and 2020, the climate crisis appeared in only 2.8 percent of all TV shows and films in the USA. The word “dog” is mentioned 13 times more frequently in screenplays.
Oscar winner Adam McKay (director of Don’t Look Up) takes a different approach with his Yellow Dot Studio. In short films, combustion engines are parodied, oil companies are lampooned in the style of The Office and Game of Thrones is rewritten as a climate series. And in Germany, the Changemakers.film initiative advocates for greener production methods and storytelling that acknowledges the reality of the climate crisis. lb
