Article
Experts described how the world keeps financing the climate crisis rather than the fight against it and what the Russian impact is.
Tackling climate crisis requires significant action — and even more money — to keep global warming at an acceptable level and prevent a global catastrophe. Despite the obvious climate threats, countries across the world still fail to allocate enough funds for climate action. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars are spent daily to purchase fossil fuels, further exacerbating climate change.
How the world keeps financing the climate crisis rather than the fight against it and what the Russian impact is — read more in our article.
Who should pay for fighting climate change?
According to Oxfam study, the richest 1% of the world’s population accounts for twice as much CO2 emissions as the poorest 50% of the population. However, more than 91% of deaths caused by climate-related disasters over the past 50 years have been in developing countries.
The developed countries of the Global North, gaining their wealth since the Industrial Revolution, exploited the resources of colonial countries and caused significant greenhouse gas emissions. The poorer countries of the Global South, which contribute much less to the climate crisis, are suffering the most from it.
These facts underpin the concept of climate justice, the idea that those who have contributed most to climate change should mainly pay for tackling it. Richer countries with the highest levels of historical emissions should support the climate action of less developed countries.
In 2009, developed countries agreed to allocate $100 billion annually to support climate action in developing countries in the form of international aid, grants, or bank loans. The target amount was only raised in 2022, while countries are expected to set a new, more ambitious financial target at the Conference of the Parties in Baku this year.
Both the public and experts believe that the amount of climate finance should involve trillions rather than billions. A 2023 study demonstrates that even if we manage to limit global warming at 1.5°C, Global North countries will still owe the Global South $192 trillion, i.e., $5 trillion annually.
In practice, the question of who should provide and who should receive climate finance is a deadlock in climate negotiations, with no clear consensus. The most popular solution is to assign this obligation to the countries listed in Annex II of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): the European Union (EU) countries, United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (UK).
However, this division leaves the countries of the former Soviet Union in the “gray zone.” Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus are in a separate group of transition economies. This approach disregards both Russia’s historical role in exacerbating the climate crisis and its imperial policy. For a long time, it was Moscow — first as the Russian Empire and then as the Soviet Union — that made decisions for its neighboring countries, exploited their natural resources, encouraged intensive extraction and combustion of fossil fuels, and profited from that.
Russia’s Contribution to the Global Climate Crisis Then and Now
Russia ranks third in the world in terms of historical carbon emissions and thus climate change impact. Its cumulative CO2 emissions for 1850-2021 account for about 7% of global emissions. In this rating, only the United States and China surpass Russia. Russia’s historical dependence on fossil fuels and its focus on industrial growth caused these greenhouse gas emissions, even at the expense of environmental well-being.
Most developed countries bearing historical responsibility for climate change provide financial and technical support to vulnerable countries to help them adapt to climate challenges. However, Russia has not made any significant contribution to international climate finance since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Moreover, while other countries are setting and working towards goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Russia’s “climate” goal is to increase emissions.
Despite the Paris Agreement and other international climate agreements, Russia is not even trying to abandon fossil fuel production. Russia is one of the three largest producers and exporters of oil and gas in the world, with its industry revenues accounting for 30-50% of the total federal budget revenues annually. Despite sanctions, the Russian budget receives at least $600 million in daily revenues from fossil fuel exports.
These fossil fuels, which Russia profits from, not only exacerbate the climate crisis but also help fund its military spending, including the full-scale war against Ukraine. Russia’s 2025 draft budget includes a record $135.5 billion for war-related expenses. This is 16% more than the climate finance allocated by developed countries in 2022. That is, Russia on its own could have achieved the financial target mentioned above but chooses to invest in gaining new territories.
Russia is expanding its sphere of influence and promoting its own interests at the cost of the environment
While Russian fossil fuels are directly killing both people and the environment, Russia is actively using greenwashing tactics in the international arena, particularly in relation to gas and nuclear power. Its government promotes natural gas as a “transition fuel,” positioning it as a key resource needed for energy transition. Herewith, the impact of gas production and transportation on the environment is disregarded, e.g., through methane leaks significantly affecting climate change.
The same is true for the nuclear industry. Russian nuclear monopoly Rosatom is involved in foreign nuclear projects worth $133 billion. In 2021, Russia supplied almost a third of the EU’s and a quarter of the United States’ enriched uranium needs. No wonder that a Greenpeace investigation found a trace of Russia in the EU’s “green taxonomy,” which recognized nuclear energy as “green.” This decision will enable Russia to make money from “sustainable” investments, as well.
Russia’s ambitions also extend to the Arctic. Melting ice sheets open opportunities for new shipping routes and resource extraction, including natural gas. This, in turn, will exacerbate the climate change impact and pose significant risks to vulnerable Arctic ecosystems. This strategy clearly demonstrates Russia’s focus on resource extraction rather than environmental protection.
A less obvious way in which Russia harms climate ambitions is its pressure on civil society. In 2012, the country passed a federal law to combat foreign funding of non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) “political activities,” thus launching a hunt for activists. The first ones targeted were NGOs involved in democracy building, human rights, and environmental protection – over 400 organizations and individuals in 10 years.
Other countries under Russia’s influence followed this example. Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, and now Georgia have their own versions of foreign agent laws or anti-terrorism laws that are used to intimidate and restrict NGOs’ work. In some cases, they simply copy the text of the Russian law on foreign agents. This restriction of democratic freedoms directly harms the ability of the entire region of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia to effectively address the climate crisis.
Russia’s war in Ukraine, which escalated into the full-scale invasion in 2022, also has a straightforward impact on climate crisis. According to experts from the Greenhouse Gas Accounting Initiative, the war has caused as much greenhouse gas emissions in two years as the Netherlands generate annually. The war not only harms the environment but also slows down climate action in Ukraine and beyond.
Afterward
At the beginning of his presidency, Vladimir Putin joked that a temperature increase of two-three degrees Celsius could be good for Russia, as the population would “spend less on fur coats.” Still now, it is becoming clear that this “joke” is actually a state strategy of Russia’s permanent president. Greenwashing, ignoring environmental problems, promoting global dependence on fossil fuels, and a complete lack of support for vulnerable countries are Russia’s actions that reflect the priority of its own military and economic interests over global environmental and climate sustainability.
Ignoring these facts, giving Russia a platform to advance its own political ambitions, and continuing to finance its aggressive policies by buying fossil fuels from it means further delaying the much-needed climate action. Only by ending funding for Russian fossil fuels, and thus ending funding for Russia’s military capabilities, will global justice, including climate justice, be achieved.
