Russia ‘killing’ climate, activists say ahead of court decision

Activists in Moscow are requesting that Europe’s top rights court hold Russia accountable for causing a “climate catastrophe” due to its involvement in the conflict in Ukraine.


Last year, Russian environmental group Ecodefense and 18 people filed a petition with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) alleging that Moscow’s activities were exacerbating the global climate catastrophe and violating human rights.

“Russia is killing the climate,” Ecodefense co-chair Vladimir Slivyak told the AFP in a recent interview in Geneva.

He emphasized that Russian President Vladimir Putin had signed the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, which established a target of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

However, he claimed that Russia was failing to curb greenhouse gas emissions or reduce the extraction of fossil fuel.

Instead, he stated that internal policy documents reveal that Russia intends to increase its extraction of coal, oil, and gas for at least the next decade.

“In some scenarios it is up 50 percent.”

Slivyak, who left Russia in 2021 amid a crackdown on civil society before of legislative elections, claimed Russia’s rising emissions were inextricably related to its war in Ukraine.

While official numbers are unknown, he stated that “there must be a big increase in greenhouse gas emissions during the war” due to new production lines for tanks and weaponry, as well as emissions when the arms are deployed.

At the same time, “Russia can continue the war only if it sells enough” of its fossil fuels, he said, calling for additional sanctions.

“If the world right now stopped buying fossil fuel from Russia, that would likely lead to the end of this war this year.”


The plaintiffs filed their complaint in August after initially attempting to take it to Russia’s Supreme Court, which declined to hear the issue.

Read: Study details massive emissions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“We want the court to decide that the Russian policy… is dangerous for climate and the world,” says Slivyak.


The concept is not too farfetched.

In a landmark decision in April, the Strasbourg-based ECHR determined that Switzerland was not doing enough to address climate change.

And the situation with Russia is considerably worse, according to Slivyak, winner of the Swedish Right Livelihood Award in 2021, which is sometimes referred to as an alternative Nobel Prize.

“It’s not about not doing enough, but about actually killing the climate,” he said, criticizing Russia for “undermining international efforts”.

While other governments invested in breakthroughs and technologies, “there is the largest-by-territory country on Earth that thinks it can ignore everybody else”.

Ecodefense had asked the court to expedite the case, as it had done for the Swiss case and two other climate-related matters proceeding concurrently.

However, the court denied that motion last week, indicating that the process could take a long time.

The last time Ecodefense assisted in bringing a matter to court was in 2013, when it was one of several organizations seeking a verdict against Russia’s foreign agent statute, which requires anyone receiving funding from outside to be labeled as a foreign agent.


The court took over a decade to rule, and while the 2022 verdict favored the organizations, Slivyak claimed “it was too late,” pointing out that the groups had already fled the country.

He speculated that an earlier ruling, when Russia appeared more susceptible to being swayed by foreign opinion, could have changed the course of history.

He recognized that it was more difficult this time.

Russia was ejected from the Council of Europe, which includes the ECHR, after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

However, accusations about alleged infractions committed by Russia before to its expulsion from the body on September 16, 2022, remain admissible in court.

While Russia is certain to reject any ECHR decision, Slivyak argued that a ruling in the case might help shape policy when Russia’s “fascist dictatorship” crumbles.

He also stated that it might set a “precedent” on a global scale, encouraging governments to implement more aggressive climate measures.

“It could change the whole field.”