The covid pandemic in Ukraine and the invasion of Ukraine will be two major events that will impact the twenty-first century. This will not only result in human loss and destruction, as well as the unquestionable political, economic, and financial volatility, but it will also impact everything that is related to the environment, climate, and development agendas. Anybody who believes we can return to business as usual after the events of 9/11 is wrong.
The world had not yet taken the first steps towards recovering from the pandemic which infected 500 million people. This caused over six million deaths due to covid-related diseases within two years. The war is threatening to end the devastating effects of the pandemic, which has also wrought havoc in politics, the economy, and the natural environment. It is now necessary to find new ways of dealing with the unprecedented number of consecutive disasters. It will not be enough to make good with slogans like “green recovery” that refer to using the huge budgets allocated for recovering from the impacts of the pandemic in ways that help the environment and fight climate change. No real achievements are being made. The pace of the transition is not fast enough to meet the enormity and challenges. This is evident in energy, transportation, consumption policies, and other areas.
Two years after billions were injected into recovery plans for the environment, polluting activities are still attracting the largest number of investments. While some countries have set goals to switch to electric vehicles and cleaner fuels, many airlines continue to emit more pollutants, operating tens to thousands of ghost flights during the covid deal to retain their air slots. These airlines received billions of dollars in subsidies, but the promises to reduce short-haul flights within Europe for fast electric trains have not been fulfilled. It has been clear that these types of reckless consumerism continue under the auspices recovery funds and not efforts to rationalize consumption. This is most evident in the fact the European consumption of natural gas increased significantly last year despite the substantial rise in prices and the fact the 40 percent of it is imported directly from Russia. It would have been better to take immediate steps to reduce consumption than to encourage wasteful patterns and heavily subsidize gas prices.
Europe was also reminded by the consequences of relying on one external source for energy, governed geopolitical conflict-free. The calamity could have been worse if not for the stability of oil supplies from Arab producing countries.
People in many parts of the globe discovered that they rely heavily on wheat from Ukraine. This has led to serious concerns about the availability of Russian gas. The panic reached many Arab countries that import most of their wheat in Ukraine. This forced them to find other sources if they were not available and at high costs. This brought food security, which has been overlooked but is equally important as national security, to the forefront. In 2014, the Arab Forum for Environment and Development published a report about the challenges and opportunities faced by food security in Arab nations. It found that they rely on imports for most of their food security needs. However these countries could achieve self sufficiency in grains, particularly wheat, if this sector was modernized and expanded and regional cooperation bolstered.
In both peace and war situations, the nuclear threat may be the most important challenge that the invasion of Ukraine presented. The Russian occupation of Chernobyl, the site where the radioactive remnant of the 1986 nuclear disaster was located, and the bombardment of Zaporizhia, Europe’s largest nuclear power station, rekindled the fear of nuclear calamities. The threat of using nuclear weapons is still the most frightening aspect of this aggression, especially when Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. This gives it more weight that the rhetorical nuclear threat of Saddam Hussein a decade ago. It became obvious that all the slogans about sustainable development and green economies could soon fall apart, as long as there is a nuclear threat.
On the bright side of things, the horrors caused by the invasion may open up the possibility of a true green shifting, which could prove more effective than the pandemic. Live images of human casualties, displacement and physical destruction are more shocking than microscopic viruses images. This will increase public pressure against wars, particularly in terms of banning nukes, and will also place food security and energy security at top of the national agendas. After all, the invasion proved that money cannot buy this kind of security. People will be more willing to accept, even reluctantly, that rationalizing consumption can improve the quality of life and not accept greed as a legacy.
Regardless of how much consumption limits can be put in place, they won’t fill the energy gap created by excessive dependence on Russian Gas, especially in Europe. This is because there aren’t any other sources that can meet our essential needs. Some countries may need to continue to generate electricity from coal plants that are scheduled to close, or even reopen those that have been closed. It is possible that some countries may reconsider their previous decision to close down nuclear power plants. The future will see countries looking for safer sources.
The most immediate impact of the invasion on climate policy will be to adjust priorities and accept the fact that setbacks in decarbonization are inevitable. This will cause a temporary delay in implementing the commitments to reduce carbon emissions, and financing the transition towards cleaner energy. However, the renewed panic over Russian gas’ political subjugation may cause delays in implementing the commitments to reduce carbon emissions and financing the transition to cleaner energy. This will not only affect energy. Countries will reconsider their dependence on imports, especially from China, to avoid being held hostage in the case of a political conflict. It is clear that switching from transcontinental transport to local production will reduce emissions.
My friend who lives in Europe has managed to cut his gas consumption by half in the past two weeks. He made simple adjustments to increase thermal efficiency and wore thicker, more warm clothes rather than walking around in light clothes. My friend, a strong advocate for consumerism, previously refused to accept that this was necessary for environmental reasons. He explained that he, along many of his family and neighbors, is now taking these and other measures to reduce Russian natural gasoline imports. Once they realize the benefits of sustainable consumerism and start to embrace it, they’ll also discover that it is equally good for the environment and economy as it is to national security.