Raphael Thys
Whether nations pursue domestic fossil fuel expansion or embrace renewables will have dramatic consequences on decarbonization efforts
Photo by Kevin Schmid on Unsplash
First and foremost, my heart goes out to the Ukrainian soldiers and civilians who are fighting for their lives, their country, and their values against an onslaught of Russian forces that seek to overthrow the Ukrainian government and bring the country under Russia’s control. There has already been much bloodshed in this senseless foolish invasion, and I fear this is only the beginning. I stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and admire their bravery in the face of such an intimidating and destructive force.
With most of the world’s attention focused on the immediate conflict and how to best limit further escalations, it is easy to forget about the many other threats and crises we face — as they become essentially background noise. The international focus on climate change is likely to take a backseat as nations navigate this new conflict and decide how to respond to it, much like what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not intended to be a criticism as it is only natural and rational to respond to more immediate threats whether it be a pandemic or war before dealing with what might be perceived as longer-term or less severe threats. Rather, it is an acknowledgment of the reality that threats such as climate change will always take a backseat to what is deemed as more immediate threats, and this has important consequences for how climate change may impact us in the future.
It is far too early in this conflict to tell what the ultimate outcomes will be, but I believe the following scenarios are worth some consideration. Each scenario could lead to a drastically different future and determine what kind of planet we inhabit in that future. Yes, the stakes really are that big. Anyone who thinks the only way they might be impacted by this conflict is through higher gas prices is dead wrong.
Scenario 1: Massive fossil fuel expansion that exacerbates the climate crisis
Russia is currently the third-largest oil producer in the world and accounts for 11% of global production. It also ranks as the second-largest natural gas producer.
As of 2019, oil and gas, collectively, represented about 60% of the global primary energy consumption while low-carbon sources (i.e., nuclear plus renewables) represented only about 16%. As the graph below shows, despite the share of primary energy from low-carbon sources more than doubling since the 1960s, fossil fuels still dominate our energy consumption by a large margin.
Low-carbon sources in global primary energy consumption have been increasing since the 1960s. Source: Our World in Data
However, this graph doesn’t tell the whole story as renewable sources of energy have seen substantial growth, particularly in recent years, but as far as their percentage share of primary energy consumption it has been partially masked by the decline in nuclear energy sources.
Renewables are on the rise, but nuclear is on the decline. Source: Our World in Data
So despite decarbonization efforts in many nations across the world, we still have a long road ahead of us to achieve net-zero (and ideally, zero) emissions. And now with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that road may become much longer than anyone anticipated.
With so many countries reliant on oil and gas supplies from Russia, this conflict has already caused gas prices to spike globally, hitting US consumers particularly hard as they also have been grappling with record-high inflation. As prices climb for both oil and natural gas, there will be increasing pressure on all nations reliant on Russia for their energy supply to begin expanding their domestic energy production.
Oil and gas companies wasted little time to take advantage of the conflict by pressuring the Biden administration to expand oil and gas drilling on public lands to “ensure energy security at home and abroad.” If the pressure works, we may see a massive expansion of domestic fossil fuel production in several countries. This would have equally massive implications for our ability to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement when existing fossil fuel project reserves could already push us beyond the 2°C threshold of global warming.
Even if most countries don't expand their domestic fossil fuel production in the wake of this conflict, the planned increases in exports of Russian coal and gas to China will contribute significantly to global emissions. The new 30-year gas contract between the two nations is significant in itself and represents locked-in emissions for decades to come unless the contract is rescinded.
Scenario 2: A more rapid deployment of renewables that helps mitigate the climate crisis
Unless you’re profiting significantly from the fossil fuel industry, this is the more optimistic and hopeful scenario for those hoping we can mitigate the climate crisis.
Just like with the pandemic, there is a very real opportunity for countries to pursue a “green transition” away from fossil fuels and towards a renewably-powered future.
Renewables were the cheapest source of power in 2020 and costs continue to decline. Climate concerns aside, for developed nations — and increasingly for developing nations — it no longer makes cost-effective sense to build out more coal or natural gas plants.
Lithium-ion batteries, used in both electric vehicles and energy storage, have also seen a 97% price decline over the past three decades while their energy density (i.e., how much energy can be stored in the battery) continues to increase. Batteries are critical to addressing the intermittency issues associated with solar and wind power.
Oil and gas advocates often use this intermittency issue associated with renewables to argue that fossil fuels are required to provide baseload energy. But with batteries increasingly coming down in price and becoming more readily available, this argument is quickly losing its strength. The combination of renewable power with energy storage is currently the most promising way for us to decarbonize our electricity supply.
If combined with efforts to electrify transportation and buildings, nations could very well move away from both oil and gas production in the coming years.
The EU seems to understand the critical opportunity it has to not only wean itself off of Russian-supplied energy, but also do its part in addressing climate change based on its newly announced strategy. The shelving of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project that would provide Russian gas to Germany is already a significant development and it will be interesting to watch what other EU countries do in response to the conflict in Ukraine when it comes to their energy supply.
Although both scenarios could lead to less reliance on foreign oil and gas, only one of these scenarios leads to a more sustainable future where we have a much better chance of meeting the Paris Agreement goals. It is up to all of us to put pressure on our political leaders to not use this conflict as an excuse to expand fossil fuel production at a time when we need to drastically decarbonize our economies. By doing so, we may also be able to prevent future conflicts and wars over energy resources and save countless lives in the process.
Mainstream media, politicians, and elites have consistently let us down. It’s time to stop relying on them and rely on ourselves if we are to address the crises we face. If you share my vision of trying to build a better future together, then please consider subscribing here to get my stories delivered straight to your inbox.