London — The European Union has an ambitious climate law that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030.
It’s a big reduction and raises a serious problem. How much and how long does the block of 27 countries depend on gas to reach its goal?
Natural gas, more accurately described as methane or fossil gas, emits less carbon dioxide than coal, but much more than wind and sunlight.
So should gas be called “green”? That is exactly what the European Union’s executive branch has proposed. That’s what I want to talk about in today’s newsletter, so I contacted Matina Stevis Glidnev, the Times bureau chief in Brussels.
The bill will be issued to vote in Congress on Wednesday, and it’s more than a simple labeling issue. If the proposal is approved, European governments, businesses and banks will be able to subsidize or provide cheap loans for gas projects, according to Matina.
Gas now accounts for a quarter of the European Union’s electricity and almost all of its heat. Most of that gas comes from Russia, but European policymakers are struggling to get gas from elsewhere, including the United States, to pull the continent away from Russia’s fuels.
Beyond the immediate political decisions faced by European legislators, Gas faces calculations. How dependent is the world on gas, and for how long and who needs to burn it? Which direction the wealthy and industrialized Europe will go this week will undoubtedly have to do with other countries.
What are the pros and cons?
The European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, states that gas is a low-carbon fuel and is correct when compared to coal. The commission says it will closely monitor gas projects and allow banks and governments to offer cheaper loans.
Authorities call this a practical approach. “We also need a stable source to accelerate the transition to zero greenhouse gas emissions.” The committee said When I introduced the proposal last year.
But not everyone buys it.
A broad coalition of European legislators states that the move is counterproductive and contrary to the substance of Europe’s commitment to carbon neutrality. There is widespread opposition to the proposal to classify gas and nuclear as green energy.
In fact, the Commission’s ability to get the blessings of Congress on Wednesday hangs in balance. By Matina’s final count, the legislation had 20 or so votes, less than the majority it had to pass.
Opponent Instead, Europe wants to double the expansion of renewable energy sources.
“Everyone knows that by now we need to remove the incentives to increase fossil gas exploration,” said Bas Eickhout, a prominent member of the European Parliament representing the Alliance of Green and local political parties. I am saying. “By labeling fossil gas as’green’, the EU sends a devastating message to the private sector and other parts of the world that gas is as legal as renewable energy. “
Will EU measures reduce dependence on Russia?
This measure will allow the European Union, individual European governments, and the private sector to gather behind the new gas pipeline and immediately import liquefied gas from abroad.
Russia has skillfully used the gas as a leverage over Europe. Having reduced its gas supply to the continent over the past two weeks, Germany has begun to return coal to its energy mix and consider distributing electricity. More and more European policymakers are arguing that this proposal will allow them to quickly raise cash to build more gas-based energy projects in order to reduce their dependence on Russia. increase.
European policy makers are quite insensitive to this choice.
“The most important strategic decision is to withdraw from Russia’s oil and gas,” said Frans Timmermans, vice president of energy and climate for the European Union, in Davos, Switzerland, in late May. I told Matina and me in an interview at the World Economic Forum. “We cannot rely on Russia’s energy supply.”
Should big pollutants of history like Europe use gas?
The debate over gas isn’t just about whether there is room for gas in the future of net zero. It’s about who can produce those emissions. Therefore, part of the global debate over gas is who should expand fossil fuel production and for what purpose.
Africa faces great demand for new energy sources. Some of the countries there also have huge gas reserves. Should they be able to develop their own resources for their own industrial growth? There is debate within Africa about this. Stay tuned to read more about it in future newsletters.
So far, what we have seen is something else. European countries are courting African countries to ship their liquefied gas to warm and power European homes.
Important news from the Times
Cities and states step up: As climate change measures stagnate at the national level, regional efforts are becoming more important in combating climate change. The community is tackling that challenge.
Companies submitting bills: Breakthrough California law requires plastic manufacturers to pay for recycling and strive to reduce or eliminate the production of disposable packages.
Disasters to unfold: In many parts of the world, fuel costs are rising even more rapidly than in the United States, and the subsequent misery is far more serious.
Low leverage in the US: With President Biden’s weakening position in the country, it is difficult for the United States to convince other countries to take decisive climate change measures.
Lessons from the EPA ruling: The Supreme Court becomes stronger when Congress struggles to pass legislation. Climate change measures are a good example.
Two Americas: With regard to climate change, abortion, gun rights, etc., the country’s northeast and west coasts move in opposite directions from the central and southeastern parts.
Offshore drilling: New plans for offshore oil and gas projects under the Biden administration will enable several new lease sales. It can offend both environmentalists and the fossil fuel industry.
Before going: Durability testing gets even harder
The Tour Divide, a bike race from the Canadian Rockies to the US-Mexico border, has always been a test of stubbornness. But extreme weather makes it much more dangerous. Along the 2,700-mile route, cyclists frequently face flash floods, landslides, strong winds, and wildfires. “I feel like something can happen,” said Sophian Sehiri, a racer from Paris who won this year’s tour. “Yes, it’s climate change. You can see it in this race.”
thank you for reading. I’ll be back on Friday.
Manuela Andreoni, Claire O’Neill and Douglas Alteen contributed to Climate Forward.
Please contact Climateforward@nytimes.com. We read every message and reply to many!