Bills to improve the environment, hundreds of cases against poachers, illegal logging and environmental pollution, active coverage of environmental problems and ways to solve them – it would seem that this could create the foundation for solving environmental problems and moving society to a new level of environmental awareness. However, the environmental situation in Ukraine has not improved. On the contrary, we observe a trend towards significant pollution of air, water bodies, the sea coast and an increase in radiation emissions.
In addition to local violations, such as improper garbage disposal, illegal logging in the Carpathians, and violations of sanitary standards by enterprises, there is now a global problem too – the war. Every day, it destroys dozens of square kilometers of the territory, leaving scorched earth for Ukrainians to deal with. It’s not only people who suffer, but also wildlife around the front line.
The consequences of the war have already caused significant damage to Ukraine’s environment, and recovery will take years of targeted policymaking and strategic recovery programs involving specialists.
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has suffered not only military and economic, but also environmental losses. Therefore, the topics that used to be the focus of eco-themed media in 2021 gave way to the problems associated with active hostilities.
Next, we will analyze the most high-profile environmental topics that appeared in Ukrainian eco-themed outlets before the full-scale invasion (in 2021), as well as the largest environmental problems after February 24, 2022, and the impact of the war on the environment.
Environmental problems in the Ukrainian media space in 2021: a view before and after a full-scale invasion
In Ukraine’s environmental context, 2021 stood out not only in terms of the coverage of environmental issues but also in the adoption of ambitious public policy goals. The media focused on the following matters:
Second Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement:
The adoption of this document was an important step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Ukraine has committed to reduce them by 65% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. This goal was ambitious, especially given the fact that the European Union set a lower figure for itself – 55%.
The implementation of this plan required significant financial resources – about EUR 102 billion. Therefore, at the end of 2021, various models and ways of attracting investments were actively discussed.
This topic was widely covered not only in environmental outlets, but also on national news platforms. “In bold commitment to Paris Agreement, Ukraine pledges further reduction in emissions,” the article published on the UN website in Ukraine said. Ecobusiness was also optimistic about this initiative, citing data from the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
Most media expressed a positive view of this step, emphasizing the pro-European vector of Ukraine’s environmental policy. However, there were skeptical voices too. Some experts and business representatives expressed doubts about the feasibility of achieving the goals. They drew attention to the lack of a clear action plan, roadmap and mechanisms for attracting investments.
The Ecopolitics portal published an article titled “Ecological patriotism the Ukrainian way: why do we need an ambitious NDC2?” The article raised issues of previous experience implementing such initiatives, financing, and the feasibility of such events on a global scale. The authors noted that it might be worthwhile to focus on more pressing issues such as drinking water quality, landfills, and deforestation.
GMK Center was also skeptical about this step, focusing on its socio-economic implications. Experts, in particular Deputy Minister of Economic Development Taras Kachka and Director of the Center for Economic Recovery Kyrylo Kryvolap, emphasized the need for a balanced approach to reducing emissions and economic development of the country.
Volodymyr Omelchenko, director of energy programs at the Razumkov Center, in his article “Is it possible to achieve more ambitious goals with fewer losses?” also expressed skepticism about the government’s inflated commitments. He proposed ways of effecting decarbonization, but at the same time drew attention to potential negative consequences, such as an increase in electricity prices and the need for significant investments in the modernization of energy infrastructure.
National Emission Reduction Plan from Large Combustion Plants
This topic was also actively discussed in the media in 2021. The plan, approved back in 2017, provided for the reduction of emissions from manufacturing enterprises. In 2021, it was amended, which caused a lively response in the media.
In particular, they discussed the postponement of the project implementation until 2038. Environmental outlets such as SaveDnipro and Green Post expressed concern about this decision. They stressed the importance of meeting deadlines and funding the National Emission Reduction Plan for Large Combustion Plants. Why was this plan put at risk?
In 2021, the Green Post platform published an analytical report that caused a wide response in the environmental community. It discussed how the changes adopted by the government call into question the implementation of the National Emission Reduction Plan from Large Combustion Plants and how this would negatively affect the environment.
The author of the material was not trying to hide her emotions. She was indignant about the amendments that allowed outdated, unsustainable equipment to work for another 10 years. In addition, the description of technical solutions that would reduce emissions disappeared from the document. This means that plant owners will be able to independently choose these solutions without coordinating the decision with the relevant authorities.
At the time of publication of the material, the Minister of Energy opposed the postponement of the deadline for the implementation of the plan until 2038. However, these deadlines were later postponed.
Most environmental outlets just reported the fact that amendments had been made without elaborating on their impact on the implementation of the plan.
In early 2025, the topic of emissions from large combustion plants might not seem all that important. However, compared to the local environmental problems that were highlighted in 2021, this issue is quite significant and large-scale.
The fact is that emissions from Ukrainian thermal power plants are the highest in Europe. According to the EMBER organization, in 2018-2019, 72% of the total volume of fly ash emitted by coal plants in the EU, Energy Community member states and Turkey combined came from Ukrainian thermal power plants. According to experts, the air polluted by Ukrainian thermal power plants has caused more than 2,500 deaths in Ukraine and about 1,300 deaths in neighboring European countries.
Ecological Events during the Full-Scale Invasion and Their Coverage in Eco-Themed Media
After February 24, 2022, the number of environmental changes has increased significantly, and the war has had a strikingly negative impact on the environment. Every day, hostilities cause significant damage to nature. During the three years of the full-scale invasion, the war has caused serious environmental tragedies and almost led to man-made disasters. Let’s take a closer look at these events and the response of eco-themed media to them.
In the first days and weeks of the full-scale invasion, oil depots were attacked (about 60 facilities were destroyed), which immediately led to air pollution. Ammunition depots were also hit, and the resulting explosions and combustion were comparable to the damage caused by the burning of oil depots. During March 2022, large chemical and metallurgical enterprises were destroyed, including the famous Azovstal, Avdiivka Coke and Chemical Plant, and Lysychansk Oil Refinery. Explosions of ammunition, combustion of military equipment along with fuel on the front line pollute the atmosphere as well as the soils every day. The downed aircraft have repeatedly fallen into water bodies. Destroyed military vessels, often with fuel, lubricants and ammunition on board, caused considerable damage to the Black and Azov Seas.
As of January 2024, according to the Ministry of Environment, the amount of losses due to the war is estimated at more than UAH two trillion. Due to constant shelling, more than 750 thousand tons of destruction waste have been generated, which have already contaminated about 30 million hectares of Ukraine’s land.
This text requires further development and analysis of the coverage of these events in eco-themed media. It is important to note how different media reacted to each of these tragedies, which aspects were covered most actively, and which were left out. It is also worth exploring how the tone of publications has changed over time and how eco-themed media estimated the scale of damage and predicted the consequences for the environment.
Serebrianskyi Forest: Tragedy Caused by the War
The destruction of the Serebrianskyi Forest was one of the greatest tragedies caused by the war in Ukraine. Since 2022, the front line passes through the territory of the reserve, so the area, which until recently was home to a lot of wildlife listed in the Red List of Threatened Species, has turned into scorched earth. This event became widely publicized, it was discussed both in eco-themed and mainstream media.
“There is no one but a shell-shocked fox,” one of the soldiers of the 63rd separate mechanized brigade said to NV journalists. This quote became the headline for a small report on the tragedy of the Serebrianskyi Forest. RBC-Ukraine Information Agency, which is by no means a specialized eco-themed media, also covered this event. It used video materials from the official page of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine to report on the difficult situation around the defense line in the forest area, but the article was only aimed at sharing information and contained no analysis or opinions on how the destruction of the reserve can affect the ecosystem of Ukraine in the future.
In July 2024, UNIAN (not an eco-themed media either) published a rather extensive interview with Volodymyr Zhdanov, the commander of the Burevii brigade. And although the media text focuses mostly on the issues of tactics and peculiarities of combat in this area, it also covers environmental components. In particular, it highlights the problem of constant wildfires as a result of shelling and how the troops have learned to localize this problem. Another issue that the report mentioned was that of extensive forest mining both by Ukrainians and by the enemy. The battalion commander’s forecasts concerning the mining are quite bleak, he said that the area would not be safe even in 50 years.
In the spring of 2024, TSN in their War section also covered the events in the Serebrianskyi Forest and released several news pieces about the situation there. There is not much text here, but the full scale of the events is shown in the photo/video report. The pictures show dead charred tree trunks, smoke-filled air, and a bright burning fire on the horizon. The footage demonstrates scorched earth, craters from bombs and artillery shells, and scrap metal remnants that used to be military equipment. Despite the uninformative text, the publications cause concern and regret, because the photographs and video footage taken from a drone seem to transfer the viewer to the place where the hostilities took place, the consequences of which will be felt there for a long time.
Destruction of the Kakhovka HPP: Tragedy That Shook the World
Despite the fact that this event occurred in the early summer of 2023, it remains one of the largest tragedies, which claimed hundreds of lives, destroyed dozens of settlements and natural resources, and inflicted direct and indirect financial losses on the country. Most media, both environmental and general political ones, immediately reacted to the blowing up of the dam of the Kakhovka HPP. The news went beyond the Ukrainian media, and the BBC, The New York Times and other foreign platforms that report on the war in Ukraine immediately wrote about the Kakhovka HPP.
BBC News Ukraine has created a series of materials on this crime. On the first day, the team promptly released a lengthy report explaining the situation and adding photo reports from already flooded settlements. As the events unfolded at the time of the publication, the editorial board informed about potential risks and the settlements at risk, how people were evacuated, as well as about important environmental issues, in particular, whether there was a threat to the nuclear power plant and who would be left without water. Finally, the report elaborates on how it happened and how the global community reacts, adding comments and statements by the President of the European Council Charles Michel, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Marija Pejčinović-Burić, and the Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz.
In just 4 days, the BBC published the next report, which focused on environmental implications, in particular it analyzed how the destruction of the dam would harm the Ukrainian environment and what irreversible changes it would bring. Journalists involved experts to objectively assess the consequences of the event. The estimates, by the way, varied a lot. What they had in common was the assumption that arable land will turn into a desert due to the disruption of water supply for farming. The flow of water, which carried garbage, chemicals and even mines, had a negative impact on the environment too. The mass deaths of fish and animals were also inevitable. Finally, the report summarizes expert opinions and the likely consequences in both short-term and long-term perspectives.
Another analytical material, released by the BBC a few days after the dam was blown up, elaborates on political and environmental implications. Journalists analyze the prospects of the Kakhovka Reservoir and consider different scenarios, such as “restoring, improving or leaving as is?”. This rather lengthy report contains a retrospective overview of the history of the creation and operation of the HPP and shows how inappropriate it would be to restore the Kakhovka HPP due to potential environmental damage, citing the opinion of the Kyiv ecologist Mykhailo Petelitskyi, who believes that “the restoration of the Kakhovka HPP will be a greater crime against the environment than its destruction.” In particular, there is an idea to adopt the European experience of restoring the natural flow of rivers, which is now a widely accepted trend in the West. The text also contains the opinions of other experts and provides the reasons for restoring the dam, arguing that it is the right decision from a practical point of view as a source of power for the public, so that’s the reasoning the government will in all likelihood follow. However, the authors conclude the material with calculations: it will take at least 5 years to build a new hydroelectric power station (even if the construction works are conducted round-the-clock) and about one billion dollars. This means that the project is impossible to implement relying exclusively on the Ukrainian budget, so in order to start the restoration, the government will need to approve a plan and find partners.
High-quality examples of coverage of the events at the Kakhovka HPP in niche periodicals include the series of materials published by Ecopolitics. The first publication is a dispatch published on the first day of the tragedy. It briefly highlights the course of events with references to the statements of the Prime Minister and the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, as well as the decisions taken during the NSDC meeting. The text also included feedback from the environmental community, as well as infographics that clearly demonstrate the consequences of the HPP destruction.
The next report on Ecopolitika focused on the scale of the crime rather than the chronology of events. The editorial sites OSINT researchers who equated the consequences of destruction (environmental and economic) with the consequences of the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The third material, released on the day of the tragedy, has an exclusively environmental focus. The media reports that 150 tons of engine oil from the Kakhovka HPP got into the Dnipro River and describes the potential risks. The publication also elaborates on further coordination of actions to evacuate local residents and save lives.
Deforestation and Air Pollution: Environmental Consequences of the War in Ukraine
Illegal logging was a significant problem even before the full-scale invasion. Especially in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Transcarpathian regions, officials regularly caught locals engaged in the “business” without any permits. Violations were registered by environmental inspectors and foresters, who informed law enforcement agencies, and, subsequently, such cases were referred to the court. During the year, dozens of news stories covering similar cases were published in eco-themed periodicals (Ecopolitics or Green Post). But despite systematic violations, illegal logging was but a local story, albeit highly common.
But everything changed in 2022. In the spring of 2023, the Institute of Analytics and Advocacy released a study, in which it analyzed the environmental damage caused to the environment by the war. According to the material, at the end of 2022, more than 3 million hectares of forests were affected (a third of the forest reserves of Ukraine). Experts believe that it will take at least 10 years to restore forests. But it will not be possible to completely restore them, because some are already lost forever. Most of the loss of forests is due to shelling, which causes severe fires that kill trees as well as wildlife.
However, fires are not the only problem. In April 2024, NGL released a journalistic investigation that clearly proved the Russian army’s involvement in illegal logging. We are talking about the destruction of more than 60 thousand hectares of Ukrainian forests, the losses amount to more than UAH 14 billion. The investigative journalism platform provides the methodology of their research and demonstrates how the calculations were carried out. In addition to the text, the publication contains infographics with which the reader can interact, namely satellite images of the terrain in the Luhansk region for September 2021 and 2023. The images show how in 2-year time green areas turned into leafless brown spots. These are the destroyed forests. NGL writes about the work of military mobile sawmills. Part of the raw materials received is used for fortifications by the Russian army, everything else is sold for commercial purposes. Similar satellite interactive images were published from the Donetsk region. The situation in September 2021 and 2023 is compared, and the difference between the shots here is much more significant than in the previous photos. According to the authors, the situation in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions is just as frustrating. These regions never had large forests. Now part of their forest reserves has been destroyed, and almost half of the surviving territory has been mined. The authors also show how seriously the forests were damaged as a result of the explosion of the Kakhovka HPP, which we have already mentioned. Satellite images taken with a 2-day difference – on June 5 and 7, 2023 – locally demonstrate the consequences in one of the areas. Globally, according to experts, almost 55 thousand hectares of forest on the left bank were flooded.
The investigation concludes with a summary of the consequences of these events for the environment, such as reduced biodiversity, drying up of reservoirs, an increase in the likelihood of fires, as well as a significant deterioration in the air condition.
Air Pollution During the War: an Underestimated Threat
Eco-themed and socio-political media alike have repeatedly written about the air we breathe. Back in June 2022, according to a poll covered by Ukrainska Pravda, most respondents considered air pollution the least critical consequence of the war. However, war-related air pollution is becoming more and more serious every day. The Institute of Analytics and Advocacy, which has already been mentioned, has identified a number of aspects that affect air pollution. The war has significantly increased the number of these factors. The main factors, according to the platform, include the massive use of diesel and gasoline generators by businesses (from the smallest to the largest ones) because of the blackouts. Just to be clear, almost 670 thousand generators were brought to Ukraine in 2022. One liter of gasoline pollutes approximately 15 cubic meters of air, and in terms of the number of generators on the streets, this is an issue that clearly needs regulation and the scale of environmental damage it causes is drastically underestimated. Our lungs are at risk from exhaust fumes. Internal combustion engines produce emissions of carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, soot and fine dust. The latter penetrates into the blood and blood vessels, which causes dysfunction of the brain and nervous system. All the other components harm our lungs. The periodical estimates that at least 109 plants/enterprises were damaged, destroyed, or captured as of the time of the study publication. Detonation of ammunition, burning of military equipment along with fuel, and attacks on ammunition storage sites also significantly contribute to air pollution. The authors note that approximately 30% of the territory of Ukraine is covered with mines, which, when exploding, tend to cause the above-mentioned fires.
How Has Media Coverage of Environmental Issues Changed over the Past Few Years? Brief Summary
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, environmental issues have received much more attention in the media. Unfortunately, this is not due to the raising eco-awareness of society or expansion of the niche media market. The main trigger was the war, which has grown extremely large-scale, adversely affects people’s lives and causes irreversible damage to the environment. And the worst thing is that the war brought about many such destructive events. This is a source of news-worthy events covered far beyond the niche media, and eco-themed materials (this is especially true for disasters) immediately appear in mainstream resources, often as series of materials or reports. Eco-events in Ukraine are now covered abroad (in mainstream political media). For instance, after the destruction of the dam of the Kakhovka HPP, the BBC, The New York Times and other media that regularly cover the events in Ukraine, immediately released materials about the explosion. The fact that these events were covered in foreign media attests to their high-impact status.
However, this applies only to coverage of large-scale environmental losses and man-made disasters. Local events (they did not disappear with the advent of the war) partly remain in the shadows and never attract journalists’ attention, while some are covered but fail to gain traction among the public. Materials about illegal logging or local violations of enterprises polluting reservoirs/air tend to gain very little views in niche media and never become the number one topic. Therefore, in addition to covering such topics, it is important to attract the reader’s interest. Few people will be concerned about the topic of air pollution when the consequences of missile attacks dominate in the information space. And hardly anyone will now read an investigation about illegal logging or businesses’ non-compliance with European integration commitments when there are other risks related to the war.
So, what’s next? Are eco-themed publications to be put on hold now? No, of course not. The market for eco-publications in the new media successfully operated both in 2021 and operates now, in early 2025. Moreover, there have been regrettably many more newsworthy stories since 2023. But for now, the eco-theme has not yet become a trend in journalism. And to develop it, we need not only media that work professionally in this area, but also time, responsible consumers, and legislative initiatives that can encourage positive environmental changes.
The author: Hlib Havrylov
This publication has received funding from the European Commission under Grant Agreement no. 2021-1-DE04-KA220-YOU-000028739, ERASMUS+ Strategic Partnership, “#NewME: New Media for Green Citizenship.” Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them