Fossil Fuels, War, And Climate: Women On The Frontlines Call For A New Security Mindset
The climate emergency is a security threat, the war in Ukraine is 'a fossil fuel war,' and business-as-usual is no longer acceptable. That's the rallying cry from a riveting panel at The Earth Day Women's Summit that I moderated on April 22nd at EarthX2025 with two women literally on the frontlines of war and global leadership.
'There is sometimes a lot of talk and focus on state security. And I think we need to…look more into human security that should supersede state security.' Mirian Vilela said on the panel. She's Executive Director of the Earth Charter International Secretariat and originally from Brazil. In a world still focused on borders and political posturing, Vilela explained that, 'Without air and water, we cannot survive, right? So that's a basic human needs' (sic). And, she warned that as climate change advances, it will 'inevitably, will affect our access to water, our basic needs.'
'So,' she continued, 'I think that we are facing a major issue here with a lack of ecological literacy and a lack of ethical literacy. So I think everywhere across the world, northeast, southwest, we have a number of leaders, not only the governmental side, but also business sides that are ethically and ecologically illiterate. And that's a big issue.'
This echoes the United Nation's report on 'Five ways the climate crisis impacts human security.' The report found that, 'Unpredictable rainfall and extreme weather events can trigger competition for food and water; declining agricultural output can lead to a loss of income for a broad segment of the population; droughts, floods, storms and sea-level rise are already causing more than 20 million people to leave their homes and move to other areas in their countries each year.' The UN report added that climate change 'intensifies resource scarcity and worsens existing social, economic and environmental factors.'
UN report on climate change and security - un.org
screenshot UN.org
Therefore, it increases and changes security demands, as Sherri Goodman – former Deputy Undersecretary for Defense for Environmental Security, who coined the term 'threat multiplier' – delineated in her recent book, 'Threat Multiplier: climate change, military leadership and global security.'
For Ukrainian climate scientist Svitlana Krakovska, Ph.D. the connection between war and fossil fuels isn't theoretical, it's personal.
Two hours after co-chairing an online meeting of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), she was awakened by missiles striking her town, Kyiv. And, within 48 hours of her arrival at The Earth Day Women's Summit, her first trip to the U.S., bombs fell just 300 meters from her home, school and her daughter's playground.
Krakovska heads the Ukrainian delegation to the IPCC and was named one of the top 12 scientists in the world by Nature magazine in 2022.
'Climate crisis has roots in fossil fuels, but at the same time, fossil fuels, they fund this Russian invasion of Ukraine. So it means this is fossil fuel war,' Krakovska explained at the Summit, 'it's just funded by these fossil fuels…So that's why I said it's fossil fuel war.'
Over 50% of Russia's national revenue comes from oil and gas exports, she added, saying 'Every day Russia got something like $800 million to $1 billion' from it, referencing data from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) which tracks it.
Fossil fuels are both a climate threat and a weapon of war then, Krakovska emphasized.
The carbon footprint of this war against Ukraine is massive too, though rarely discussed, according to Krakovska. 'Environment is just silent victim as well of the war,' she said, citing that this war has emitted over 230 million tons of CO₂. That 'is actually equivalent of annual emissions European countries such as Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia combined,' Krakovska gave as comparison.'
She added that there are indirect impacts too, for example, funding that was going to climate adaptation and resilience is now going to the war effort. Also, the bombing of Ukraine's Kakhovka Dam alone was 'a huge disaster,' led to massive ecosystem collapse, and 'we still don't know how many people actually died due to this flooding.'
Krakovska sees an opportunity in the devastation: 'We don't care about the buildings which were destroyed because we can build better' She is calling for a 'climate resilient renaissance' in Ukraine, where the country can 'be a role model for other places which were destroyed.'
'If we all unite against this climate crisis, we can win. We will not surrender in Ukraine and I hope the world will not surrender to fight climate change. And we will win altogether.'
To address this challenge, Vilela and Krakovska suggest a 'planetary consciousness.'
'We are interdependent. It means that there are ripple effects,' Vilela said, emphasizing that each of us need to be aware of the short and long-term impacts of our choices.
'In every decision we make as individuals or as institutions, as a society. These decisions generate an impact,' including on future generations and on the earth, she said. Therefore, we need a 'planetary consciousness.'
Vilela explained that Brazil, the host of COP30 in a few months, 'is calling for a 'planetary renaissance,' which is 'a new mindset that…really looks at the interdependence and interconnectedness of our challenges.'
We have the policies on the international level, she observed, but what's missing is broader implementation and to 'help clarify what are the ethical implications of climate change.' That's why COP30 is calling for 'a new industrial revolution that should be climate conscious,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Putin under pressure to declare war on Ukraine
When Ukraine smuggled dozens of drones into the back of freight trucks and launched a surprise attack on Vladimir Putin's prized nuclear bombers, Russia's most radical voices were furious. 'Shock and outrage' is how one high-ranking Russian official described the mood in the Kremlin the day after the strike. Another Russian official told The Telegraph: 'Like every thinking patriot, I took it as a personal tragedy.' The fury ran so deep in some quarters that there were renewed calls for Putin to 'declare war' on Ukraine – a demand that may seem baffling to Western observers, given that the conflict is already Europe's bloodiest since the Second World War. But amongst Russia's hardline nationalist elite, there is growing belief that Putin has not gone far enough, that he should formally declare war, recruit a million more men, and wipe out Volodymyr Zelensky's government with daily missile strikes on Kyiv. The Telegraph spoke to Kremlin insiders to assess whether Ukraine's drone attack – dubbed Operation Spider Web – might push Russia to escalate even further. All agreed to speak on condition of anonymity. 'Explosions, drones, sabotage, and possibly even terrorist attacks are what the future may hold for us if the Zelensky regime is not completely destroyed,' said a current high-ranking Russian government official. He described himself as hawkish and admitted sympathising with Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Wagner warlord who led a failed mutiny against Putin in June 2023 and was later killed in a plane crash. 'If Ukraine ceases to exist in its current form, the criminal underground will be demoralised,' he claimed. Yet despite the scale of Ukraine's strike, which damaged at least 20 Russian nuclear bombers, according to US estimates, the Kremlin has so far stuck to a more cautious approach. 'This did not catalyse a political discussion or a change in the format of military operations,' said a former senior Kremlin official who once directed operations against Ukraine. 'In the Russian power system, where inertia and preserving the current balance are essential, that speaks volumes.' Another source, based in an analytical centre close to Russia's defence ministry was blunt: 'Could the president declare war on Kyiv? Right now, unlikely. As cynical as it may sound, the leadership is satisfied with the current situation.' Traditionally, opposition to Putin has come from liberal critics. But since the invasion, a new breed of nationalist opposition has emerged – figures who claim the Russian president is too cautious. The roots of this anger go back to 2014, when some hardliners accused Putin of failing to fully support Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. One of the most prominent is Igor Girkin – also known as Strelkov – a former FSB officer and leading figure in the 'Angry Patriots', a faction demanding Ukraine's total destruction. After criticising Russia's handling of the war, Girkin was jailed for extremism in 2024. 'I serve the Fatherland!' he shouted after the verdict. Such figures may be marginal, but they wield outsized influence inside Russia's security apparatus. 'The fact they're the guys with the guns means the Kremlin has to at least be aware of them,' Mark Galeotti, a British historian and expert on Russian security, told The Telegraph. To most in the West, the conflict is clearly a war. But Putin still refers to it as a 'special military operation' – a distinction that matters to Russia's hawks. They argue that only a formal war declaration would permit full-scale escalation – daily inter-continental missile strikes, mass mobilisation, and perhaps even the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Earlier this month, the nationalist podcast Russians with Attitude argued: 'Liberal Putinism has its perks – comfortable, modern, and nearly sanction-proof. A true 21st-century experience. But the cons are clear – soft-glove warfare, sparing enemy leadership, and burying failure.' Currently, most Russian soldiers are volunteers attracted by pay packets of about 200,000 roubles (£1,900) a month – a significant sum in rural areas. Declaring war could enable the mobilisation of two million reservists. 'The government and the authorities would essentially be given carte blanche to move the country on to an explicit war footing,' said Emily Ferris, Russia analyst at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). But even as the bloodshed continues, the Kremlin has been careful to shield most Russians from its effects. At the outset of the invasion in 2022, Putin banned the words 'war' and 'invasion' from the media. Recruitment has been focused on the outer regions, not Moscow or St Petersburg. Russians may be dying in droves, but they do so mostly out of sight. In Moscow, Artyom, a cybersecurity researcher who did not want to give his real name, told The Telegraph that most young people trust in Putin's decisions as the country 'stands proud' with living standards still high despite the sanctions. The Kremlin is forecast to spend 6.3 per cent of GDP on defence this year, which is the highest since the Cold War but not what would be expected of a country on a full war-time footing. For comparison, Ukraine spent 34 per cent of its GDP on defence last year. British defence spending as a percentage of GDP rose to more than 50 per cent during the Second World War. 'Mobilisation undermines economic stability,' said one current government employee. According to him, those close to Putin are able to persuade the Russian president that mass mobilisation would be a step towards the war effort's collapse. 'And why is it needed now? We have Kalibr missiles, we have volunteers. Their resources are not yet exhausted,' he added. A new wave of mobilisation would mean not only economic strain but also a public acknowledgement that the Kremlin is not succeeding in its three-year war against its neighbour. 'That is too costly an admission in a situation where everything hinges on the illusion of control,' noted the former high-ranking Kremlin official. While that illusion may not last forever, experts believe Putin's military will be able to fight at the current rate into next year, and possibly for years. 'I think next year is when a certain number of economic chickens come home to roost,' Mr Galeotti said. 'But the Russians will be able to fight this war for years.' The Kremlin appears to agree. Vladimir Medinsky, Putin's chief negotiator, recently told The Wall Street Journal that Russia could continue fighting for 'another 21 years' – invoking Peter the Great's long war with Sweden. Putin's popularity has surged since the invasion of Ukraine, according to both state-owned polls and those of the Leveda Centre, an independent institution that has frequently drawn the Kremlin's ire. However, that could change if Putin were to start mass mobilisation. There's also the question of fear. 'As soon as you call it war, every parent who has got a kid doing national service or going to be soon is going to start getting scared that they are about to be sent to the front,' said Mr Galeotti. In other words, escalation is not without political risk. While nationalist bloggers and pro-war influencers dominate Telegram and the Z-pilled commentariat, the Kremlin is all too aware of how fragile domestic control might become if the war truly came home. That explains Putin's brutal repression. There is no longer an organised war party in Russia. The prominent figures of that camp – and liberal opponents – have been removed. Mr Prigozhin, who at one time had been close to Putin, was killed in a suspected bombing weeks after his failed mutiny. Girkin is in prison. Alexei Navalny, Russia's most popular politician, died in a penal colony. This served as a signal from Putin to anyone who might display political initiative. Simultaneously, the security services are tightening control over radical patriotic and nationalist circles that have become more active after the invasion. 'So far, no power centre inside the country is capable of imposing its will on Putin,' said a Telegraph source close to the State Duma leadership. In any case, for all the hawkish rhetoric, Putin's capacity to escalate is not limitless. That much was exposed by his response to Operation Spider Web. Given the significance of the attack, warmongers had demanded a massive response. They didn't get one. There's no denying the horror Ukrainian cities like Kyiv and Kharkiv have faced during massive drone barrages in recent days. But the retaliation was limited, by both Western standards and Russian expectations. 'The response to Operation Spider Web could have been a lot worse. That would've been the time to have a major response, they didn't do it,' Ms Ferris said. Experts believe Putin's military simply lacks the resources. Despite sabre-rattling over tactical nuclear weapons and strategic missile strikes, Russia doesn't have the capacity to launch the kind of daily missile barrages some of its loudest nationalists fantasise about. 'There's always more room for escalation,' Mr Galeotti said. 'Maybe Putin could fire a few hundred extra drones per day. But that's about it.' For now, though, the fantasy of full-scale war – of Oreshnik missiles fired daily at Kyiv, of Zelensky's government turned to rubble, remains just that – a fantasy. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Israel's war against Iran is America's war, too
Israel's Operation Rising Lion has so far unfolded brilliantly. Within two days, Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The goal of Israel's military campaign is to disable Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program once and for all. It waited to strike until after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, reported that Iran Advertisement But it isn't only Israel that has an overwhelming justification to act against Iran. The United States does, too. Advertisement The radical and apocalyptic Islamists who rule Iran hate America as much as they hate Israel. They have been waging war against the United States for 45 years, a war that began when they invaded the US embassy in Tehran and abducted dozens of American diplomats. In the decades since, the Iranian regime has killed many Americans, attacked US targets, and repeatedly proclaimed its aspiration of ' Start with the body count. Iran is responsible — directly or through proxies — for the deaths of many hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans. In 1983, Iran-backed terrorists During the Iraq War, Tehran armed Shiite militias, training them to attack US troops with devastating roadside explosives that, Advertisement These weren't random acts of violence. They were the fruit of a long-standing Iranian strategy to sap American willpower and intimidate its allies. And they have been accompanied, time and again, by explicit calls from Iranian leaders to attack and destroy America. In the 1980s, the speaker of Iran's Parliament, Hashemi Rafsanjani, On at least a dozen occasions, Iranian government spokespersons or media outlets have Given that history of hatred, fanaticism, and slaughter, can anyone disagree with Trump's repeated declarations this week that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon'? Some voices not with a cease-fire but rather a 'real end' to Iran's nuclear-weapons quest — or with the regime 'giving up entirely.' He's right. The brilliance of Israel's operation has handed the president the chance to achieve a permanent solution to one of the longest-festering sores in international affairs. He must not squander it. Advertisement Trump likes to describe himself as a peacemaker. At this hour, the best hope for peace lies in shattering Iran's nuclear threat — for good. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
As G7 Talks End in Canada, Ukraine Comes Away With Little
As Russia was unleashing its deadliest attack on Ukraine's capital in nearly a year, President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in the Canadian Rocky Mountains early Tuesday hoping to meet with President Trump and secure more support for Ukraine from the Group of 7 industrialized nations. Instead, Mr. Trump left the global powers' summit early, canceled his meeting with Mr. Zelensky, lamented Russia's absence from the leaders' get-together and rejected the idea of issuing a joint statement in support of Ukraine. A single, brief reference to Ukraine in a summary of the talks' conclusions, released by the host, Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada, backed Mr. Trump's peacemaking efforts and did not directly criticize Russia, though it said the leaders would explore ways to bring more pressure to bear on Moscow. At a news conference at the end of the summit in Kananaskis, a scenic mountain resort in western Canada, on Tuesday evening, Mr. Carney said that several of the Group of 7 nations would have preferred stronger language on Ukraine. 'There would be things that some of us, Canada included, would say above and beyond what was said in the chair summary,' he said, referring to his own statement. Instead, Mr. Carney said, he had chosen to focus on securing a joint statement with the other leaders on the escalating crisis in the Middle East. 'Given the exceptional, fast-moving situation in Iran, we concentrated on that,' he said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
