Since Russian troops invaded Ukraine, it has been over four weeks. To impede the onslaught of Vladimir Putin’s war machine, countries in the EU and elsewhere have announced measures to cut imports of fuel and energy from Russia, draining the coffers of the world’s largest exporter of gas and its third-largest supplier of oil.
This could help to accelerate a global transition away from fossil fuels. Or just increase the reliance on less volatile sources by major emitters?
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Instead, get a weekly roundup delivered to your inbox. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
At the war’s outset, Ellie Martus and Susan Harris Rimmer, lecturers in policy at Griffith University in Australia, reasoned that EU efforts to curtail Russian imports, which comprise 40% of the bloc’s gas, could benefit the continent’s flagging green transition:
“We believe the crisis has the potential to accelerate Europe’s trend toward renewablesAs it seeks to reduce its dependence on Russian gas,
“We may see increased efforts to shift to interdependent renewable generation, such as the proposed offshore windfarms intended to be shared by multiple European nations.”
They cautioned that abandoning Russian fossil fuels doesn’t mean you have to stop using renewables.
“In the near term, there is a huge risk that the crisis in Ukraine focuses attention on energy security at the expense of decarbonisation,” they say.
“We may see a return to coal power. Germany and other countries may be forced to rethink their nuclear phase-out plans or delay it. Other major fossil fuel exporters such as Australia are already lining up to fill any gaps in European markets.”
A green deal harder
Germany, Europe’s largest economy, recently elected a three-party alliance which includes Green ministers. “With such figures now at the levers of power,” says Trevelyan Wing, a PhD candidate at Cambridge University’s Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, “a bolder climate plan appears possible.”
“The new government [has]A bold agenda was approved, with goals to eliminate coal by 2030 (eight years earlier that what Merkel had envisioned), achieve 80% renewable electricity (up 65% from the previous goal), earmark 2% land for onshore wind and achieve 50% climate neutral heating.
“It has also set big targets on electric vehicles, train electrification, green hydrogen and rooftop solar, with the overall aim of reaching climate neutrality by 2045,” Wing says.
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made all of this It is significantly more difficult to achieve..”
Wing’s pessimism stems from the fact that the German energy transition had, for decades, relied on gas as a “bridge fuel” which would wean the country off carbon-heavy coal power and buy time to build up solar, wind and other renewable sources. That bridge has now “collapsed” according to Germany’s climate state secretary. One minister claims that an embargo against Russian oil and gas would cause severe problems in Germany such as petrol shortages, mass unemployment, and poverty.
Wing believes that a German proactive response could still turn an energy crisis caused by war into a green chance. While lower- and middle-income Germans might balk at bearing higher costs for the energy transition, Wing believes that the federal government could secure public support by restoring energy cooperatives and other measures which shift “agency and power” over the energy system to “enterprising citizens and communities” and away from “large corporations”.
Wing says that the pain of Russian imports being cut off is not unbearable
“Some experts suggest an embargo could impact the country’s economy less than COVID-19, in the short term leading to a fall in GDP of between 0.5% and 3%, compared with a 4.5% decline during the 2020 pandemic. Meanwhile, renewables could be massively expanded to help make up the shortfall, with coal, for example, providing a temporary backup solution (nuclear remains a domestic bugbear).”
“This is also a moment pregnant with possibility,” Wing says. “A potential ‘Zeitenwende’ (historical turning point) for Germany, Europe, and the wider world.”
The rush to replace gas
Fear of being without Russian gas to heat homes and generate electricity is another blinding fear. the European Commission’s response to the crisisDavid Toke, a University of Aberdeen reader in energy policy, says:
“Altogether, the EU needs to replace 155 billion cubic metres of natural gas to end its reliance on Russian suppliers. This can be done without increasing the production of what the EU calls ‘renewable gases’ like hydrogen and biogas.”
Hydrogen is a low-carbon fuel which can be produced by splitting water molecules with renewable electricity (in which case, it’s called green hydrogen). Biogas is produced by the anaerobic digestion and conversion of energy crops like maize (grown with fertilisers that are typically made from fossil fuels) and farm waste, including manure.
“Incentives that would otherwise pay for producing green hydrogen or biogas should be used to install extra millions of electric heat pumps and renovate buildings to ensure they waste less energy instead,” Toke says.
“According to one analysis, heat pumps use renewable electricity to produce warmth four times more efficiently and at much lower costs to the consumer compared to green hydrogen.”
Putin’s war in Ukraine will continue to disrupt the energy policies of distant countries. Another consequence could be: Green technology slows downGavin Harper, a University of Birmingham research fellow in critical materials, said that the project was a success. That’s because Russia, as well as being a major fossil fuel exporter, also supplies much of the world’s platinum and nickel – essential elements for making hydrogen fuel cells and electric vehicle batteries.
International resolve to cripple Russia’s revenue streams will not translate into comprehensive strategies for phasing out fossil fuels on its own. The UK government has an opportunity to act on the fossil fuels that are funding wars, increasing household bills, and heating the planet in its forthcoming energy supply plan.