Russia, energy, and the climate – where’s waldo?

Europe imports about 45% of its gas supply from Russia. Those money are financing the war against Ukraine. What can European countries do to keep their houses warm at reasonable prices, shifting away from Russian gas, and trying to achieve the Paris goals?

Credits to CartoonArts International

Cities have been bombed. More than three million people have fled Ukraine. Is it even appropriate to talk about climate change in this moment? I think so. The immediate crisis is capturing all our attention but this is intrinsically linked with energy and climate change for two key reasons. One is dependence – particularly in Europe – on Russian oil and gas. And the other is the global cooperation urgency of tackling climate change together. 

Over the past weeks, the EU has been scrambling to diversify away from Russian energy imports. Not only we are facing an astonishing political and humanitarian catastrophe, but also we are witnessing the consequences of an energy-dependence flawed system. So what awaits us in the next 12 months or so? 

Italy imports around 30% of the gas it consumes from Russia, Germany 50%, Austria 65%, Poland around 70%, Spain very little, Portugal nothing. Now, let’s swap over the question: how reliant is Russia on the gas it sells to Europe? A lot. Revenues from oil and gas are at the core of the public finances of Putin’s kingdom. 

Last summer, Russia has reduced the amount of gas it was willing to sell to European countries. Since the war started, the situation has quickly changed. Russia sent more volumes of gas to the European market because it desperately needed this revenue stream to finance its war. 

Unlike the US which has banned the import of Russian oil and gas, European countries are still giving a lot of money every day to Russia. On March 2nd, the daily value of those imports has jumped, reaching a record 689 million euros! So what? Either Putin will close the tap, or European countries will find alternatives. And this is the key point: depending on the energy we chose, there will be different impacts on the climate. 

For example, Italy imports 90% of the gas it uses (much of it comes from Russia) and the fuel is at the heart of the country’s survival. My fellow Italians still cook a lot with natural gas at home. They warm houses predominantly with natural gas. And half of their electricity is produced with this fuel.  

The price of gas is about nine times its level one year ago. "It could be necessary to reopen coal plants to cover eventual shortfalls in the immediate term," said Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi immediately after the Russian invasion.  

But coal isn’t just old-fashioned, it is the dirtiest fossil fuel that has severely contributed to climate change over the past decades. If all of the gas that Russia supplies to Europe was replaced by coal, this would add hundreds of million of tons of emissions to the atmosphere. 

So, do we really want to use coal again? Or is there any green alternative? Well, we need to find some. Switching to renewable energy takes time and you cannot simply throw money into green projects. Back to Italy, the real challenge is about simplifying the administrative procedures, overcoming bureaucracy, and fast-tracking projects that have been waiting on the desk of several ministries for years.  

Let’s give it another try. In the short term, can’t countries simply switch their reliance on gas from Russia to other countries on the planet? This is exactly the direction that Mr Mario and many Foreign Ministries have followed, going to different gas producers (including Qatar and Algeria) and trying to secure certain amount of gas volumes. 

Yet another issue. Buying more gas is one thing, getting it is entirely different. The easiest way to transport large volumes of gas is by pipe. There are eight pipelines running from Russia to Europe. Few pipelines exist from Libia, Algeria, and Azerbaijan but they have been barely maintained over the past years. This implies that for reopening those lines, Italy would need huge investments and a lot of time – which we have not.  

*** 

So far, we have assumed that if Europe doesn’t buy gas from Russia, it stays in the ground. But this is not the case because Russia has another market on its doorstep, China. The reign of Sir Jinping has plans to use gas for 12% of its total energy – which would be very bad news for the climate.  

You don’t need to be a genius to figure out that China would get the volumes of gas it needs at quite convenient pricing. Luckily, Russia only has one pipeline running to China – making it rather a medium to long-term solution. 

The war in Ukraine is above all a humanitarian crisis but it is clear that in the short term the true challenge is keeping the lights on and houses warm. While re-assesing their reliance on Russian gas, many European countries might take a step backward, relying once again on coal. 

The question is: how long will this approach go on for? I believe this crisis has made the case for renewable energy even stronger. Ultimately, none can control the wind blowing or the sun shining. And this means that we can overcome the will of a bunch of people opening or closing the gas tap at their discretion. 

If short-term energy security solutions are needed (including coal), we accept them. But at the same time, we need to make sure that we have increased investments in renewables. We can decouple our future from Russian gas, while striving to achieve the Paris goals. But we need to act fast, wisely and – once for all – looking beyond a twelve months horizon.