Towards an energy transition accelerated by the war in Ukraine? The third and last part of the sixth report of the IPCC on the climate gives solutions to States to counter the acceleration of climate change. Proposals published this Monday April 4, when the West has its eyes riveted on the atrocities committed in Ukraine by the Russian army under the orders of Vladimir Putin, with in particular the recent images of civilians arbitrarily executed by the Russian army in Boutcha. Climate issues do not seem, at first glance, to be the priority. However, this war could have direct consequences on the actions of the various countries in favor, or not, of the planet.
“Very clearly, this war in Ukraine is one of those moments when history is accelerating, when the lines are moving, and I believe that the impacts on energy transition and climate action will be numerous, predicts researcher François Gemenne, member of the IPCC, interviewed by L’Express In the medium term, it is also likely that the war will accelerate the energy transition, because we now realize that our dependence on fossil fuels is also a major geopolitical risk, which places us in a position of weakness vis-à-vis authoritarian regimes. To the ecological argument is now added the security argument, not to mention that of purchasing powerfaced with energy costs that we do not control.”
An expensive addiction
Western countries are indeed realizing the importance of their harmful energy dependence vis-à-vis Russia and authoritarian regimes in general, at a time when everyone condemns the war waged in Ukraine. Especially since the client countries of Russian fossil fuels – gas and oil – indirectly finance the Ukrainian conflict. “Every day that passes, every day that civilians are being slaughtered in Ukraine, Europe pays around 750 million euros to Russia in payment for its gas and oil. This means that all of us, when we heat up our accommodation or drive by car, indirectly finance the war in Ukraine, against our will”, confirms to François Gemenne, who considers the situation “unbearable”.
The lag of Western countries on energy transition is costly today, both economically and geopolitically. “Our dependence on hydrocarbons puts us in a weak position in the face of the authoritarian regimes that hold them”, judges the IPCC researcher, who believes that “if we had started the energy transition ten or twenty years ago, we would not be today in this situation of energy dependence, which prevents us from taking stronger sanctions against Russia, and above all which has made us extraordinarily complacent vis-à-vis Putin’s abuses over the past twenty years!”
“If we said nothing when he annexed Chechnya, Crimea and Donbass, when he poisoned political opponents, when his ally Lukashenko hijacked a European airliner or rushed refugees onto the barbed wire of the border Polish, it’s because we wanted to stay on good terms with our hydrocarbon dealer!” he protested. One could also add to this list the crimes committed in Syria, in support of the army of Bashar el-Assad, for seven years.
A train behind on clean energies
If some, like Yannick Jadot in France, are campaigning for an embargo on Russian gas and oil which would cost France between 0.15% and 0.3% of GDP according to the latest note from the Economic Analysis Council, i.e. 100 euros per year per person, certain European countries, such as Germany, are more dependent on Russian gas and refuse, for the moment, to pass the course. Charles Michel, the President of the European Council, however ruled on Wednesday April 6 that sanctions on Russian oil and gas will be “necessary sooner or later”.
Furthermore, in the short term, stopping these imports of Russian hydrocarbons entails a risk: that “that this decision – which I would like, because I think it is a moral imperative – will result in an appeal increased to other sources of energy that are just as harmful to the climate, or even more so, such as coal”, explains the researcher. Because, “for the Ukrainians, it makes a huge difference that European gas comes from Qatar rather than Russia, but for the climate, it’s the same thing”.
One of the solutions would then be to drastically turn to renewable energies. But in the immediate future, this is impossible given the scale of our energy consumption because if “over the past twenty years, renewable energies have experienced spectacular development, they have not at all replaced fossil fuels. They were added to it, to ensure our consumption surplus. As a result, the global energy mix has hardly changed, and that is the whole problem”, regrets François Gemenne. “Ideally, we could turn to clean energies, but they are not yet available, because we have taken too long to initiate the energy transition.”
In the immediate term, the option is therefore to seek these same energies elsewhere, “even if it costs a lot more, but also even if these energies are harmful to the climate – and that obviously makes me very It’s bad to say, but necessity is law.”
A solution: reduce our consumption
Rather than replacing all of our consumption of Russian hydrocarbons with other energies or other suppliers, one of the solutions would also be to simply have less need for these energies, and therefore to reduce our consumption. This includes less waste and better efficiency.
We can then turn to massive renovation plans in housing, an essential point for François Gemenne who recalls that in certain cities, such as Marseille, “the housing situation is catastrophic”, “the buildings are literally collapsing”. In 2018, two buildings in the hypercentre of Marseille, at 63 and 65 rue d’Aubagne, collapsed, killing eight people. “This need for greater energy sobriety is further underlined in the latest report from the IPCC, while it attracted ridicule just a few months ago. We absolutely must evolve”, insists the researcher.
This reduction in energy consumption is achievable in Europe, but comes up against distinct realities depending on the region of the world. “The consumption of emerging and developing countries will increase, which is absolutely a good thing, because it means that more people have access to energy to meet their basic needs”, explains François Gemenne. However, will these countries turn to low-carbon energies? Not sure.
“At the moment this is not at all the case: currently, the global energy mix is made up of 84% fossil fuels; twenty years ago, this figure was 86%. This means that in twenty years, we have only reduced the share of fossil fuels by 2%, despite the development of renewable energies, underlines François Gemenne.Russia will necessarily seek allies, particularly in Africa and Asia, and could buy them with grain deliveries and hydrocarbons, which would risk trapping many developing countries in a carbon-intensive development trajectory.”
In addition to a reduction in our demand for energy, Europe could “work on a real European energy strategy”, suggests François Gemenne. Indeed, the European Union (EU) “was first built on energy – with the ECSC [Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier] -, but we have the impression that it is a subject that was subsequently forgotten, in the construction of Europe”. If a country cannot become 100% independent in terms of energy, because there will always be a need raw materials, fuels, difficulties in storing electricity, “we can choose, among Europeans, to depend on each other rather than depending on authoritarian regimes”. “A major political issue”, he insists .
Acting on the climate without Russia?
The other central question for the climate in this context of conflict with Moscow is the place of Russia on the international scene and in particular in the discussions on the future of the planet. How can we hope to reduce all greenhouse gases without having the world’s fourth largest emitter around the negotiating table? “You can play a football world cup or organize a Eurovision contest without Russia, but you cannot eject it from the climate negotiations, notes the IPCC researcher. And it is not as isolated as we thinks.”
Indeed, if Ukraine won the communication war in the eyes of the West, this is not the case everywhere. Russian propaganda remains effective elsewhere in the world, and is reflected in the fact that only Western countries have taken sanctions against Moscow. Moreover, “the United Nations resolution condemning the war was not voted by countries like China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam or Venezuela, not to mention many African countries, including South Africa”, recalls François Gemenne, who fears “a recomposition of the world into blocs, with Western democracies on one side and authoritarian regimes on the other”.
So if until now, the States of the world had succeeded in sanctuarizing the negotiations on the climate and isolating them from international tensions, François Gemenne does not see “how we will be able, in November, to sit down at the COP27 table with the Russian delegates pretending nothing had happened”.
In any case, it is urgent to understand that this war in Ukraine is “an additional reason which must push us to action against climate change”. Because, “if the war diverts us from this question, then we condemn ourselves, in the long term, to relive the same scenario”, abounds the climate expert who judges “dramatic” that it took an armed conflict for the governments are finally ready to review their energy policy.