[ad_1]
Since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine just over two weeks ago, payments to Russia for fossil fuels have already exceeded 9 billion euros ($10 billion) from European Union member states alone, according to the Europe Beyond Coal’s tracker. While the war in Ukraine was shocking news for many, the involvement by the fossil fuel industry is not unknown.
The largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for heating, electric, and transportation. It is also a major cause of the devastating global warming, which threatens to make parts our planet unlivable for human survival in the near future. This is highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report.
Global governments therefore face an increasingly wicked dilemma – saving their citizens from imminent climate change catastrophes versus protecting them from military aggressions such as Putin’s war machine. The escalating Russian war in Ukraine and the failure of the Budapest Memorandum intended for the country’s international protection once again shift the balance towards ensuring internal securities as the top goal.
Both a reduction in use immediately and a reduction of long-term dependence on fossil oil would be a significant contribution to the enactment of more severe sanctions against the core of the Russian war machine.
Not surprisingly, both Ukraine’s immediate and distant neighbors have rushed to increase their military budgets (for example, Germany raised its military speeding immediately by $100 billion and committed to future increases). This is not news. Back in 2000, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) – a United Nations-led global assessment of the human impacts on environment – outlined four plausible scenarios of the world’s future.
Only two of these scenarios offered hope for saving biodiversity, climate and vital ecosystem services through proactive approaches to ecosystem management, strengthening local institutions, global collaboration, and environmentally sound technology.
Yet, unfolding in front of us is another scenario, the grimmest of the four – Order from Strength, which exacerbates global fragmentation and investments in security, and under which all critical types of ecosystem services are likely to irreversibly degrade.
Ironically, this occurs at a time when we have begun to discuss the solutions for the climate crisis more actively, rigorously and with a greater attention to environmental justice. A remarkable wave of global climate strikes occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic of 2019, which helped raise awareness about climate and stimulate proactive decision making at various levels.
In January 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom allocated $22 billion over the next five years to address the escalating impacts of a changing climate and to promote proactive, innovative solutions for economically and environmentally sustainable state’s future.
In 2013, the University of California made a commitment to become carbon neutral by 2025. But, because both ecosystem services and climate are interdependent, their success depends on the ability to work together locally and globally.
The climate crisis is not yet considered a crucial topic in the discussion about the resolution of the Russian war on Ukraine. Due to the risk of nuclear war escalation, the US and NATO forces are currently not allowed to direct involvement. Yet, the most immediate alternative to that also looks grim – a long-term cold war underlined by constant nuclear blackmail, merely delaying rather than preventing the risk of such a disaster. When the global trust is so severely eroded, how will we really be capable of fighting climate change and its cascading impacts on food security, human health, and food security?
We need a third alternative – the path to which could be in fighting the energy crisis, for the sake of our planet, democracy, and freedom. Both a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and a reduction in the dependence over the long-term would make it possible to impose more severe sanctions on the Russian war machine.
This path could save the global community from a catastrophic planet-scale crisis. However, not all nations can afford to reduce their fossil fuel consumption at the same pace. Already, plans for this are emerging, such as a 10-point plan by the International Energy Agency for the EU.
Furthermore, sustainable strategies for combating climate crisis don’t have to be one-size fits all. It is crucial to find distributed solutions that can be implemented at local scales and tailored to specific communities and their stewardship.
The Russian war in Ukraine is a reminder of the unsettling truth that the modern world heavily depends upon fossil fuel. Many countries refuse stop buying Russian oil and gas, as well as coal, despite the destruction and death in Ukraine. But this could be the time when fighting climate change and national security are on the same page: de-fossilization helps the climate and denies Putin’s Russia the ability to pay for the war.
Iryna Donova
Berkeley Blog
[ad_2]
