BERLIN (AP) — Before Russia’s war in Ukraine, Europe’s most urgent energy goal was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions due to climate change.
Now, the authorities are focused on quickly reducing the continent’s dependence on Russian oil and natural gas, and that creates friction between climate and security goals, at least in the short term.
To cut off Russian energy supplies as quickly as possible, Europe will have to burn more coal and build more pipelines and terminals to import fossil fuels from elsewhere.
This drastic change comes amid huge fuel price hikes for drivers, homes and businesses, and as political leaders reconsider the geopolitical risks of their energy dependency on Russia.
The European Union imported in 2021 around 40% of its gas and 25% of its oil from Russia, an economic relationship that the authorities thought would prevent hostilities, but instead is financing them.
Although some are calling for an immediate boycott of all Russian oil and gas, the EU plans to cut Russian gas imports by two-thirds by the end of the year and phase them out entirely by 2030.
This “will not be easy,” said Paolo Gentiloni, the EU’s top economic official. However, he noted, “it can be done.”
In the short term, cutting energy ties with Russia puts the goal of getting alternative sources of fossil fuels. But in the long run, price and geopolitical pressures stoked by the war in Ukraine could actually hasten Europe’s transition away from coal, gas and oil.
Experts say the war has reminded us that renewable energy is not only good for the climate, but also for national security. That could help accelerate the development of wind and solar power, as well as accelerate energy efficiency and conservation measures.
The EU has promised to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 55% compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Analysts and officials say those goals, enshrined in EU climate legislation , can still be reached.
The urgent pursuit of energy independence from Russia is likely to require “a small increase” in carbon dioxide emissions, said George Zachmann, an energy expert at the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. But “in the long term, the effect will be that we will see more investment in renewables and energy efficiency in Europe,” Zachmann said.
Plans are now being considered that would not have been considered just a few months ago, such as keeping German coal plants running beyond 2030, which until now was their deadline.
German Vice Chancellor and Energy Minister Robert Habeck said there would be “no taboos”.
The Czech government has also considered extending the life of coal plants.
“We will need them until we find alternative sources,” Czech Energy Commissioner Václav Bartuška told the Seznam Zprávy news website. “Until then, not even the greenest government will abandon coal.”
One of Europe’s priorities is to buy more liquefied natural gas that can be delivered by ship. US and European officials on Friday announced a plan under which the United States and other countries will increase exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe this year, although US officials could not say which countries would provide additional energy this year.
Germany, which has no import terminals to convert liquefied natural gas into gas after landing it, has started two multi-billion dollar projects on its North Sea coast.
The war has also revived Spain’s interest in extending a gas pipeline to France, on the other side of the Pyrenees. The 450 million euro ($500 million) project was abandoned in 2019 due to lack of interest from France and after a European study deemed it unprofitable and unnecessary. If built, it would allow gas imported into Spain and Portugal as liquefied natural gas to reach other parts of Europe.
In Britain, which is no longer part of the EU, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said “it is time to take control of our energy supplies.”
Britain will gradually reduce the small amount of crude it imports from Russia this year. More significant are Johnson’s announced plans to authorize new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, to the dismay of environmentalists who see it as incompatible with Britain’s climate goals.
Some members of Johnson’s Conservative Party and the broader political right want the British government to abandon its commitment to net emissions by 2050, a promise made less than six months ago at a global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Conservative Party co-chairman Oliver Dowden said last week that “Brits want to see a bit of Conservative pragmatism, not net-zero dogma.”
Even so, the effects of the war go in two directions.
A dramatic increase in gas and electricity prices and a desire to rely less on Russia are increasing pressure to expand the development of renewable energy obtained in each country and boost conservation.
The International Energy Agency recently published a 10-point plan for Europe to reduce its dependence on Russian gas by a third within a year. Simply lowering building thermostats by one degree Celsius on average during the heating season would save 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, or about 6% of what Europe imports from Russia.
At German rooftop solar panel firm Zolar, CEO Alex Melzer said inquiries from potential clients have increased since the conflict began.
“With the Ukraine crisis, we’ve really seen people wonder if Germany is going to stop buying gas and oil from Russia and what’s going to happen to our power and energy system,” he told The Associated Press.
Melzer noted that customers are less interested in saving the planet than saving money, despite an initial investment of 20,000 euros ($22,000). But in the end it is about the same: reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, and therefore emissions.
“Goal achieved, great,” he said.
___
Aritz Parra reported from Madrid and Jill Lawless from London.
–
