Ukraine Puts 311 Million-Ton War Emissions Tally Before COP31 Delegates

Ukraine used its official COP31 side event on Nov. 13, 2026, to argue that the war's climate damage can be measured, valued and eventually litigated: 311 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from four years of fighting, priced at $185 per ton. The panel was informational and took no votes. It still set out the accountability and recovery case Ukraine may carry into negotiations, with Estonian, Pacific, UNEP and legal voices largely in agreement.

---

• 311 million tons of CO2e: Ukraine's deputy minister tallies emissions from four years of war
• $185 per ton: Ukraine's figure for the social cost of carbon, used to put a price on war emissions
• Ecocide push: Pacific and legal speakers back accountability and recognition of ecocide
• About 20% of Ukraine is mine-contaminated: UNEP urges budgets for survey and clearance
• Energy as a target: Estonian envoy details the Baltics cutting ties to Russian gas and power grid

---

Ukraine Builds a Ledger for the War's Climate Damage

The basics: The social cost of carbon estimates the economic damage caused by each additional ton of CO2e emitted. The Rome Statute is the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court.

Why it matters: A damage-assessment method paired with a dollar value could support future claims against Russia. It could also shape how international law treats ecocide, meaning severe, large-scale destruction of the environment.

Where things stand: Ukraine's Deputy Minister described emissions caused by the war, totaling 311 million tons of CO2e over four years. The deputy minister also presented a method for assessing environmental damage from the war. Together, those two pieces form a record that could be used in later claims.

The pricing question came from the floor. Vladimir Demkin, of the National Ecological Center of Ukraine, asked how the social cost of carbon was set and what Ukraine's ecocide strategy is.

"What we have used is $185 per ton of CO2 equivalent," said Lennart de Klerk, Event Host. He cited a Nature article as the source for that figure.

The legal hurdle: No speaker opposed the accountability push. The main constraint is the law itself. De Klerk noted that under the Rome Statute, environmental damage must meet a threshold of widespread, long-term and severe harm. He named Kakhovka as a possible example that could meet that bar.

That threshold is the gap between an emissions estimate and a prosecutable case. Meeting it requires showing damage on all three counts, not just a large carbon number.

Allies at the table: Pacific and legal speakers supported both accountability and formal recognition of ecocide. The discussion also referenced the Pacific Islands Development Forum, an International Court of Justice advisory opinion and Stop Ecocide International. Linking Ukraine's war damage with Pacific nations' climate exposure suggests an emerging coalition around accountability for environmental harm.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: There were no votes or formal decisions. The likely beneficiaries are:

• Ukraine's government, which gains a documented method and a dollar value to support future claims.
• Ukrainian environmental groups, such as the National Ecological Center of Ukraine, which are pressing for a clear ecocide strategy.
• Pacific advocates, who find a high-profile partner on accountability.

The exposure falls on Russia, if these methods are used to support claims.

What's next: No formal next steps were announced. Audience members urged Ukraine to take the lead on ecocide and Rights of Nature, a legal approach that grants ecosystems their own legal standing.

---

Power Grids, Gas and Land Mines: Recovery Meets Security

Why it matters: Speakers argued that recovery and energy investments may need security and environmental safeguards built in from the start, rather than added later.

Where things stand: Panelists described energy infrastructure as a security target, not just a climate issue. The Estonian envoy walked through how the Baltic states have cut their ties to Russian gas and to the Russian-linked power grid. The envoy also flagged risks to undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea and pointed to the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Tallinn as a venue for these questions.

Demining comes first: UNEP put a number on one of the biggest obstacles to environmental recovery.

"Around 20% of Ukraine's territory is contaminated with mines and unexploded remnants of war," said the UNEP Regional Director.

The regional director urged that recovery budgets include money for mine survey and clearance. In this framing, demining is a precondition for environmental restoration, not a separate humanitarian line item. The discussion also referenced Nova Kakhovka.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: No decisions were taken. The arguments affect several groups:

• Recovery funders and planners, who were urged to budget for survey and clearance from the outset.
• Communities on contaminated land, whose environmental recovery depends on clearance happening first.
• Baltic energy operators, who face continued risk to undersea infrastructure.

What's next: Watch whether the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Tallinn, flagged by the Estonian envoy, includes dedicated funding for demining and environmental safeguards.

---

Minor Items

• Wide mix of voices: A U.S. state representative joined speakers from Estonia, the Pacific, UNEP and a legal scholar.
• Event format: The event included opening remarks, an installation, a panel discussion and audience questions.
• Floor pressure: Ukrainian civil society used the question period to press the government on its ecocide strategy.

---

Looking Ahead

Questions worth tracking:

• Will Ukraine formally adopt the $185-per-ton valuation in claims against Russia?
• Which cases, Kakhovka among them, could meet the Rome Statute's "widespread, long-term and severe" test?
• Will recovery budgets in Tallinn include money for mine survey and clearance?