Tell-All
We asked: Are international efforts to reduce the rate of climate change being compromised by global warring zones like the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war? Is there a way out?
The Earth, our only home, groans under the weight of humanity’s relentless demands. Overpopulation, pollution and escalating conflicts—both human and ecological—are pushing our planet to the brink. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, among other global conflicts, is not only a humanitarian tragedy but also a severe blow to international efforts to combat climate change. As world leaders grapple for power and ego, the environment pays a devastating price and ancient prophecies from figures like Nostradamus and Baba Vanga cast an ominous shadow over our future. Is there a way out, or are we hurtling toward an apocalyptic end? The human population has exploded, crossing 8 billion in 2022, with projections estimating 10.4 billion by 2100. This surge intensifies pressure on natural resources, leading to deforestation, soil degradation and water scarcity. Urban sprawl and industrial activity spew greenhouse gases, with global CO2 emissions reaching 36.8 billion metric tonnes in 2022 alone. Pollution—plastic choking oceans, toxic air suffocating cities and chemical runoff poisoning rivers—has become a hallmark of human excess. Meanwhile, man-animal conflicts are skyrocketing. In India, leopard attacks have risen by 30% in the last decade due to habitat loss, while in Africa, elephant-human clashes claim hundreds of lives annually. As we encroach further into wildlife territories, these conflicts reflect a deeper imbalance—a planet stretched thin by human greed. Amid this ecological crisis, global warring zones like the Russia-Ukraine conflict exacerbate the problem. Since its escalation in 2022, the war has caused environmental devastation on an unprecedented scale. Bombings and missile strikes have released heavy metals and toxic chemicals into Ukraine’s soil and waterways, rendering 30% of its farmland unusable. The destruction of infrastructure, including oil depots and chemical plants, has led to massive air and water pollution. Military operations consume vast amounts of fuel, with estimates suggesting the war’s carbon footprint exceeds 120 million tons of CO2—equivalent to the annual emissions of a small country. The conflict has also disrupted international climate cooperation. Sanctions on Russia, a major fossil fuel supplier, have spiked energy prices, prompting some nations to revert to coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. In 2023, global coal consumption hit a record 8.5 billion tons, undermining decarbonization efforts. The greed and ego of world leaders fuel these wars, prioritizing power over planetary survival. The Russia-Ukraine war, rooted in geopolitical rivalries, is a stark example of how personal and national ambitions override collective responsibility. Leaders’ obsession with dominance diverts resources from climate action—global military spending reached $2.24 trillion in 2022, while climate finance for vulnerable nations lagged at $100 billion, far below the pledged $300 billion annually. Wars destroy ecosystems, displace millions, and deepen poverty, making it harder for communities to adapt to climate change. West Asia, another hotspot of conflict, sees similar patterns, with Syria’s civil war contributing to desertification and water shortages, intensifying regional instability. Adding to this grim reality are the chilling predictions of Nostradamus and Baba Vanga, whose prophecies warn of humanity’s impending doom. Nostradamus, the 16th-century French astrologer, foresaw “cruel wars” in Europe for 2025, coupled with an “ancient plague” more destructive than any enemy. Some interpret this as a reference to the Russia-Ukraine conflict’s escalation or a new biological threat, compounded by environmental collapse. He also predicted catastrophic floods and volcanic activity, potentially signaling a “new world order” born from natural disasters. Baba Vanga, the “Nostradamus of the Balkans,” echoed these warnings, foretelling a devastating European war in 2025 that could spark a global apocalypse. She predicted Russia’s dominance under Vladimir Putin, alongside natural calamities like earthquakes and tsunamis, with humanity’s end beginning in 2025 and culminating in 5079. Both seers foresaw alien encounters and societal upheaval, painting a picture of a world teetering on chaos. While skeptics dismiss these as vague or retrospective interpretations, their alignment with current crises—wars, climate disasters and geopolitical tensions—lends them unsettling weight. Is there a way out? The outlook seems bleak, yet solutions exist if humanity acts swiftly. First, global leaders must prioritize diplomacy over conflict. Ceasefires in war zones like Ukraine could redirect resources to climate resilience, such as reforestation and renewable energy. International cooperation, like reviving the Paris Agreement’s momentum, is crucial. Wealthy nations must fulfill their climate finance commitments, supporting adaptation in vulnerable regions. Second, addressing overpopulation requires education and access to family planning programmes in sub-Saharan Africa have reduced birth rates by 15% where implemented. Third, man-animal conflicts can be mitigated through protected corridors and community-based conservation, as seen in India’s successful Project Tiger. Finally, curbing pollution demands aggressive policies—banning single-use plastics, enforcing stricter emissions standards and scaling up carbon capture technologies. Grassroots movements, like youth-led climate strikes and innovations, such as lab-grown organs predicted by Baba Vanga, offer hope. Yet, the greed of leaders and humanity’s inertia remain formidable barriers. Nostradamus and Vanga’s prophecies, whether divine or coincidental, serve as a stark reminder: our planet cannot endure endless exploitation. The Russia-Ukraine war and other conflicts are not isolated tragedies but symptoms of a deeper malaise—humanity’s failure to live in harmony with Earth. The way out lies in collective action, humility and a rejection of ego-driven wars. If we fail, the Earth may no longer be our home and the seers’ visions of apocalypse could become our reality. The choice is ours, but time is running out. .- Preeti Giri Goswami, Ranikhet, Uttarakhand, is a Para Athlete(Para Swimmer, Captain Wheelchair Basketball Team, Motorsports) and a social activist from Kumaon
The Russia-Ukraine war has disrupted the global efforts to combat climate change. The war has affected the global energy markets significantly. Many countries have been forced to depend on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas due to the loss of Russian oil and gas supplies, which is against the present climate goals, aimed at reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. It has also postponed and weakened the countries’ commitments to renewable energy. It is again against the goal of many international pacts for the conservation of Earth and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The war has increased the energy prices worldwide, which impacts the economy of countries, whereas governments have increased their military defence for national security. The time when many countries are having wars and conflicts, the global issues like climate change are sidelined. The international pacts and treaties on climate are overshadowed by the existing crises and no countries will make climate pledges. The war is causing environmental damage. The bombs and weapons used during the war affect the environment and cause more emissions of greenhouse gases and other toxic elements. There is an urgent need for renewable energy and production, such as wind and solar, etc. which can reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and enhance energy security. This green energy will decrease the emission of greenhouse gases, further repairing the environment. The countries should work together for the conservation of natural resources. -Prof Dhruv Sen Singh, Head, Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, Director, Institute of Hydrocarbon Energy and Geo resources, University of Lucknow. Member of the First Indian Expedition to the Arctic (North Pole Region)
International peace, along with the efforts to reduce climate change, is compromised due to warring zones and the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Not just actual war but all the preparations, action and post-war activities have a huge impact on the environment. Testing missiles, other arms and ammunition, mock drills on land, water and air, all loud and clearly contributing to climate change. Right from the resources and raw materials used in making to the after-effects of execution and measures to address and repair the damages are also not to be forgotten. We all know that when it comes to national security, right from the developed nations, developing nations and even underdeveloped and poor nations, all ensure that maximum resources are diverted in achieving the targets, and this has always been contributing to climate change and damaging the ecosystem. With the current trends of warfare, which are more inclined towards nuclear weapons, the impact and effects are only found to be increasing. We all know the effect of atomic warfare on Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan during the Second World War and nuclear war is going to be worse and have more impact on humankind, passing on to generations. As we discuss this topic, there are two countries at war and several others going through similar tensions and almost all others who are preparing for the worst times. Right from the manufacturing of a bullet or bomb to the drills that are being done, all put tremendous pressure on the land, air, water and other natural and man-made resources. The gases, smoke and chemicals emitted are all contributing loud and clear to the disaster of our environment and climate. Global warming and climate change are real and the effects are now seen that decades ago were only read in books. Now, gradually, we can feel and go through it. This is scary and the need of the hour is to accept and address this, but we are failing to do so as the environment has always been exploited when it comes to giving it the share of priority it deserves and not for anyone else but for the larger welfare of mankind. When we speak of solutions, we all already know that war is never a solution and will never be one. So how do we address this? Awareness and education are the basics that formulate nations’ and diplomatic national and international policies and are the ray of hope. They have the scope and potential to deal with this situation that we are facing. International bodies like the United Nations, conventions and treaties between countries need to strengthen their existing practices in place and introduce more policies and reforms so that the existing grey areas can be covered. Another important aspect that needs to be taken into account is international efforts in countering terrorism as in most instances what we have seen is that terrorism is one of the major contributors to war and war-like situations. We actually do not need to go anywhere else to understand this. The recent tensions between India and Pakistan are a perfect example of imperfect relations between neighbouring countries that can lead to a disaster that will have effects beyond our imagination. Sometimes, it may not be the intention of a country to resort to war but when left with no other choice any country will pick up weapons and resort to counter-terrorism to ensure that the national security is well taken care of by the armed forces. The terrorist attack on India and our retaliation have both contributed to climate change but it clearly shows us that, irrespective of knowing the consequences and never willing to opt for such actions, there are situations where a country like ours has to perform and execute defense tasks like Operation Sindoor. Realistically, evaluating these on-ground situations only indicates that no theory or practical approach is going to bring a watertight solution. It is always like an exercise with a new set of challenges and our ability and preparedness to come up with more and more new strategies so that we are able to achieve international peace and say no to war. -Adv. Pawan Satyaprakash Sharma, founder & president –RAWW (Resqink Association for Wildlife Welfare). The writer has been actively involved in wildlife conservation, environmental protection and animal welfare for 17 years, working with different state and central agencies in different policy-making efforts and execution of existing laws.
We think of protecting the environment when we are at peace. Once an international geopolitical conflict starts, the parties to the conflict and even the surrounding countries forget about such issues and the focus is on how to win the conflict. There remains no place for thinking whether conflict ruins the forests or if fossil fuels are being used and toxic substances are released during the conflict, contaminating soil, water or air and how much local population will be displaced. These conflicts disrupt international cooperation, divert attention and resources away from climate action. Countries involved in the conflict prioritize military spending and security concerns over environmental initiatives. Beyond the immediate destruction, conflicts disrupt ecosystems, deplete natural resources and pollute the environment. Military activities directly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental damage, thus increasing climate change. Warfare disrupts the delicate balance of nature in many ways. Clearing forests for military purposes brings down the sequestration of carbon and fertile land and vital water resources get contaminated. Militaries often clear vegetation or otherwise disrupt ecosystems to remove cover for the enemy or force the local population to displace with a major impact on nature. Recently in Ukraine and Gaza large areas are at risk of contamination of land, air and water with landmines and explosives and unexploded shells. Clearing landmines and unexploded shells often takes decades, damaging the fertility and quality of air and water, which also requires heavy investment. The activities of warfare also damage the systems of sewage and solid waste management of the area, further damaging the environment. The destruction of buildings, roads and other infrastructures generates millions of tonnes of debris with contaminating substances that further damage the health of the environment. Many countries now have nuclear and chemical weapons and there are always chances of using them, thus jeopardizing the health of the environment. The dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War are burning examples. There are also direct impacts on the environment when targeting the environmentally sensitive industries, such as refineries and nuclear power plants or hydroelectric dams. In many armed conflicts, the release of heavy metals into soil and water has been linked to severe health consequences. In such circumstances, any armed conflict is bound to exacerbate climate change and will certainly affect the efforts to mitigate global warming. –VP Srivastava, Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal (retd), President C-CARBONS
International efforts to reduce the rate of climate change are being compromised by global conflicts and the Russia-Ukraine war is a significant example. The war has a multifaceted impact, both direct and indirect, on climate action. Warfare itself is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. The Russia-Ukraine war has led to significant emissions from military activities, including the use of vehicles and ammunition, as well as from the destruction of infrastructure and widespread fires. These geopolitical conflicts have shifted the priorities of nations. The immense financial, political and human resources that would otherwise be dedicated to climate mitigation and adaptation are instead directed toward military spending, humanitarian aid and reconstruction. The war in Ukraine has caused major disruptions in global energy markets. Many European countries, previously reliant on Russian fossil fuels, have scrambled to secure alternative energy sources. While this has, in some cases, led to a short-term increase in the use of coal and other fossil fuels to meet immediate energy demands, it has also highlighted the vulnerabilities of relying on foreign fossil fuels. Effective climate action requires a high degree of international cooperation and trust. This push for energy independence can lead to increased investment in and deployment of solar, wind and other clean energy technologies. In conclusion, geopolitical conflicts fracture alliances, create new rivalries and make it more difficult for countries to work together on shared global challenges like climate change. -Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, a bank employee and animal activist, Lucknow, UP
The urgency to address climate change has never been greater, yet the world finds itself distracted and divided by geopolitical conflicts. Among the most pressing of these is the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, which has not only caused immense human suffering but also disrupted global cooperation on critical environmental goals. The question is timely and vital: Are international efforts to reduce the rate of climate change being compromised by such wars? Sadly, the answer is yes, and the consequences are alarming. Wars, by their very nature, are catastrophic for the environment. From the destruction of ecosystems to the massive carbon emissions caused by military operations, armed conflicts drastically undermine climate goals. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, both countries were once participants in key global climate initiatives. But the war has diverted national resources toward military spending, displaced millions, destroyed infrastructure and increased dependence on fossil fuels, especially in Europe, which was forced to find alternative energy sources quickly after limiting Russian gas imports. This sudden shift led many nations to reopen coal plants and delay clean energy investments. In essence, the war has made climate policy a secondary priority. Moreover, geopolitical tensions have fractured the international consensus needed to address climate change. Climate action requires global cooperation, but war breeds mistrust and nationalism. Sanctions, diplomatic stand-offs, and polarized UN sessions are delaying or weakening international climate agreements. The withdrawal or reduced participation of key players disrupts the delicate balance of responsibility-sharing between developed and developing nations. For instance, the war has slowed progress in areas like climate finance, loss-and-damage mechanisms and global carbon pricing agreements. One of the most ironic consequences is that while climate change is a long-term global threat, wars tend to demand short-term national responses. Governments justify increased emissions for “emergency needs,” ignoring the long-term damage being done. The military-industrial complex is one of the largest carbon emitters globally and yet, its emissions are often exempt from climate treaties. In wartime, transparency vanishes and environmental monitoring becomes nearly impossible in conflict zones. Is there a way out? The answer must be hopeful, even in the face of such disruption. First, peace must be seen not only as a political goal but as a climate imperative. International bodies like the United Nations must integrate environmental concerns into peace negotiations. A ceasefire or de-escalation in any major conflict, particularly the Russia-Ukraine war, would instantly free up diplomatic bandwidth and economic resources for climate action. Second, nations must reaffirm that climate change is not a negotiable issue. It affects all, belligerents and neutrals alike. Countries should establish "climate sanctuaries" or protected agreements that keep climate cooperation alive, even during political or military conflict. This may include maintaining joint research, shared data platforms or continuing multilateral environmental funding mechanisms irrespective of diplomatic hostilities. Third, the global community must hold accountable those who use war to delay climate commitments. There must be stronger enforcement of environmental standards, including in war zones. The International Criminal Court could evolve to treat ecocide and deliberate climate sabotage as serious crimes. Lastly, civil society and non-governmental organizations have a key role to play. When governments are paralyzed by war, people’s movements, academic institutions and grassroots organizations can continue advocating for climate action and can operate across borders with fewer political constraints. The fight against climate change cannot be paused for war. Climate crisis and global conflicts are interconnected. They feed each other. Drought, food insecurity and climate-induced migration often lead to tensions and wars; wars then make it harder to address the root causes. In conclusion, the Russia-Ukraine war and other ongoing conflicts undeniably compromise international climate efforts. But with renewed diplomacy, an insistence on keeping environmental issues above the political fray and stronger institutions, the world can still find its way forward. Peace and climate action must walk hand in hand for the survival of both humanity and the planet. -HN Singh, Lions International Faculty, Member SPHEEHA, Naturalist, HAM Radio Licensee, Trekker & Mountaineer
युद्ध के कारण ग्रीनहाउस गैसों के उत्सर्जन में वृद्धि हुई है, जिसमें अनुमानित 100 मिलियन टन कार्बन पहले सात महीनों में वातावरण में छोड़ा गया है। नॉर्ड स्ट्रीम पाइपलाइनों की तोड़फोड़ के परिणामस्वरूप मीथेन का सबसे बड़ा एकल स्रोत उत्सर्जन भी हुआ है। युद्ध ने जलवायु कार्रवाई को भी बाधित किया है, जिससे कई देशों ने ऊर्जा स्वतंत्रता को डीकार्बोनाइजेशन पर प्राथमिकता दी है। इससे नए ग्रीनहाउस गैस उत्सर्जन में वृद्धि हुई है, क्योंकि सरकारें अक्षय ऊर्जा के बजाय तेल और गैस विकास में निवेश कर रही हैं। युद्ध ने जलवायु-सुरक्षा जोखिमों को भी बढ़ाया है, विशेष रूप से आर्कटिक जैसे क्षेत्रों में जो जलवायु परिवर्तन के प्रति संवेदनशील हैं। जलवायु परिवर्तन के कारण पर्माफ्रॉस्ट के पिघलने से वैश्विक सुरक्षा और स्थिरता पर महत्वपूर्ण प्रभाव पड़ सकता है। युद्ध का जलवायु परिवर्तन पर प्रभाव बहुमुखी है और इसके प्रभाव वर्षों तक महसूस किए जाएंगे। -डॉ. मोनिका रघुवंशी, सचिव (एन.वाई.पी.आई.), अधिकारी (एन.आर.जे.के.एस.एस.)
Topic of the month: Recent incidents of hill collapse in Jharkhand and Rajasthan have exposed the vulnerability of even plateau areas to illegal mining activity. What do you think should be done to curb the mining mafia? You may send your views (either in Hindi or English) in not more than 800 words along with your latest pic to [email protected].
Leave a comment