Berlin-Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seemed like an unexpected opportunity for environmentalists who struggled to get the world’s attention to the types of energy self-sufficiency that renewable resources could provide. The debate over solar and wind power seemed stronger than ever as Western nations tried to break away from Russia’s oil and gas.
But four months after the war, scrambling to replace Russian fossil fuels caused the opposite. Fossil fuels are making a wartime revival as the heads of groups of seven industrialized nations gather in the Bavarian Alps for a conference to consolidate their commitment to combat climate change, leaders price More focused on lowering oil and gas than immediately reducing their emissions.
Countries have overturned plans to stop burning coal. They are fighting for more oil and spending billions of dollars on the construction of a terminal for liquefied natural gas known as LNG.
Fossil fuel companies have long been defensive, but have taken advantage of energy security concerns and are working hard on long-term infrastructure investments that risk breaking the international climate goals agreed only last year. increase.
Jennifer Morgan, ambassador for climate change at the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former President of Greenpeace International, said: “We are in a moment of massive turmoil due to aggression, and it is a great risk or it is a great opening to the climate.”
The leaders of a group of seven countries, including the United States and Germany, are sandwiched between the ambitious goal of withdrawing from fossil fuels and the imminent political and economic pressures caused by the war. I noticed that. These more pressing concerns are much of the Bavarian agenda, as leaders are looking for ways to contribute to rapid global inflation and mitigate war-induced energy cost spikes to secure supply in the near future. Will dominate.
At a clear turning point, Germany is urging a group of colleagues from seven countries to break its joint commitment to ban public investment in fossil fuel projects abroad by the end of this year. If member states agree, it will not only make it difficult to convince other countries in the world to reduce emissions and invest in renewable energy, but it will also limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Analysts warn that they will endanger their goals.
Another proposal that has recently gained momentum and is expected to be featured at the summit is Russia’s oil price cap, which allows European countries to import it, but at an artificially low price. There is only. This could help lower oil and gasoline prices around the world and reduce the energy income undertaken by President Vladimir Putin’s war effort in Ukraine. It also has the potential to promote more Russian oil production.
The idea designer, US Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, said that imposing so-called price caps on Russia’s oil sales to Europe would be minimized by their leaders. I personally say it’s the only best thing I can do right now. The potential for a global recession, according to people familiar with the conversation.
A better understanding of the Russian-Ukraine war
On the eve of the summit, the organizer, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, argued that dealing with the short-term energy crisis caused by the Russian war would not undermine long-term climate goals.
“It’s important to discuss today’s situation and at the same time ensure that anthropogenic climate change is stopped,” he said in a video posted Saturday. “Because that’s what we have to do. In the long run, by stopping the use of fossil fuels.”
Many of the climate activists on the streets of Bavarian protesting the summit have not bought it.
“Instead of a major resurgence of renewable energy, we are experiencing a major fossil retreat,” said Luisa, Germany’s most prominent activist at the international movement Friday for Future. Neubauer said. “Germany is one of the countries driving this fossil repulsion through both domestic and foreign policy.”
Prior to Russia’s invasion in February, a group of seven countries had made several climate change efforts. Decarbonize the power sector by 2035. Increase public investment in renewable energy. And by the end of this year, it will end public funding for overseas fossil fuel projects.
But as the energy joust between Russia and Europe escalated, the tone changed.
This month, Russia reduced the amount of gas it supplies through Nord Stream 1, an important pipeline serving Germany and other countries, by 60%. As a result, the European government has decided to dismiss coal-fired power plants that are closed or will be phased out.
Germany subsidizes gasoline prices and extends the life of coal-fired generators. The Dutch coal-fired power plant, operating at 35% capacity, is allowed to start up to 100% by 2024. Austria will reopen its stagnant coal-fired power plant in April 2020. Italy is preparing to allow a half-dozen coal-fired power plant to step up. Manufacture.
In the United States, Russia’s oil price cap idea is seen as a way to lower oil and gasoline prices and hurt the Kremlin’s finances. To date, Russia has found a way to avoid western sanctions and embargoes by selling to China and India.
This proposal would effectively allow Russia to sell more oil to Europe, but only at a significant discount on current prices above $ 100 a barrel.Yellen too As the top economic official in Ukraine, Says it serves two important purposes. It is to increase global oil supply to put downward pressure on oil and gasoline prices while reducing Russia’s oil revenues.
Proponents say Russia is likely to continue producing and selling oil at discounted prices because it is easier and more economical than covering wells to reduce production. Simon Johnson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates that continuing to sell oil at a low price of $ 10 a barrel could be in Russia’s economic interests.
Some supporters say China and India also insist on paying discounted prices, which could further depress Russia’s earnings.
According to analysts, the most worrisome is the current struggle for gas supply with long-term investment in infrastructure that makes it nearly impossible to reach the goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Germany has passed legislation authorizing the construction of 12 new LNG terminals and has already outsourced four floating thing.
Critics have accused building all 12 terminals of excessive capacity. But even half of it, according to a recent report released by the German Environmental Watchdog, produces three-quarters of the carbon emissions allowed under international agreements. As promised by Mr. Scholz’s government, the terminal was in use until 2043, but it was too long for Germany to be carbon-neutral by 2045.
And countries aren’t just investing in domestic infrastructure.
Scholz stayed in Senegal, one of the developing countries invited to the Group 7 Summit last month, to discuss cooperation on gas extraction and LNG production as well as renewable energy.
In promoting Senegal’s gas projects, Berlin violates its own Group 7 commitment to not provide publicly funded guarantees for fossil fuel projects abroad, analysts said.
These contradictions are not overlooked by poor countries wondering how a group of seven countries can drive their commitment to climate goals while investing in gas production and distribution.
According to activists, one explanation is the level of lobbying that hasn’t been seen among fossil fuel companies for years.
Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, Berlin’s advisory group, referred to the groundbreaking 2015 International Convention on Climate Change, saying “it looks like the oil and gas industry is trying to end the Paris Agreement.” increase. “And I’m very worried that they might succeed.”
Morgan of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs shares some of these concerns. “They are doing everything they can to move it forward in Africa,” she said of the industry. “They want to lock it in. Not just gas, but oil, gas and coal.”
But she and others hope Group 7 will be a platform for linking climate goals to energy security.
Environmental and foreign policy analysts say a group of seven can help invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency while promising funding for poor countries at the mercy of climate disasters. Insist.
Among other things, activists warn, rich countries need to resist the temptation to react to short-term energy shortages by betting on fossil fuel infrastructure again.
“Currently, all the discussions are at the table,” said Neubauer, an activist for the Fridays for Future. “We know exactly how fossil fuels affect the climate, and we also know that Putin is not the only dictator in the world. Relying on fossil fuel imports. As long as we know, there can be no truly free and safe democracy. “
Katrin Benhold Benhold reported by Berlin, and Jim Tankasley From Telfs, Austria. Erica Solomon When Christopher F. Schutze Contributed to the report from Berlin.