The bigger question now is whether it is a transition from oil and gas – or just Russian oil and gas. Right now, fossil fuels seem to be gaining ground. Oil companies in the United States want Europe to trade fossil fuels for another and build more infrastructure on both sides of the Atlantic to transport oil and gas to Europe. And despite their climate commitments, world leaders have shown timely support for strengthening fossil fuel infrastructure. On Friday, during President Joe Biden’s trip to Europe for G7 and NATO meetings, the United States announced a new joint agreement with Europe that promises 15 billion cubic meters of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) missions this year. This will be in addition to the shipments already going to Europe and will replace about a quarter of the gas imported from Russia. But the United States is not in the lead. European countries are faced with the real choice between building new fossil fuel infrastructure or accelerating their clean energy investment timetable. And they could speed up their transition from fossil fuels by prioritizing climate-friendly solutions, such as providing energy incentives, installing heat pumps and speeding up the licensing of renewable energy sources. Two new reports from independent think tanks this week outline a sustainable path that does not replace Russian oil and gas with other fossil fuels. One month after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, messages from the European Union were mixed. Earlier this month, the European Union ‘s executive power, the European Commission, included new LNG terminals and pipelines to import fossil fuels from other countries into its energy demand options. Even so, it reaffirmed its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels in just eight years. It would undoubtedly be a short-term idea for fast tracking of LNG terminals in Europe. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called it “crazy” to ignore the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, when it has become clear that people need to stop building new infrastructure. “Fossil fuel addiction is a mutually guaranteed disaster,” he said on March 21. “Countries could be consumed so much by the immediate shortage of fossil fuels that they neglect policies to limit the use of fossil fuels.” The European Union is second only to the United States in terms of the greatest impact on climate change since the Industrial Revolution, and the coming weeks could definitively reshape global energy policy. However, it is far from the given. EU members now have a choice: They can boost oil and gas from elsewhere, or they can make the most ambitious transition to renewable energy and energy efficiency in history.
There is a real possibility that Europe will choose fossil fuels
Energy prices may have been steadily rising over the past year, but there are currently no immediate shortages of gas in Europe. Next winter will be the real test of whether Europe can survive without Russian gas, because then heating the buildings increases the demand for gas. No country has more trains than Germany, which relies on Russia for more than half of its gas imports, followed by Italy. The European Commission has published an initial plan, called RePowerEU, on how to overcome the immediate crisis. One of the first steps advised by the European Commission was to increase gas storage before next winter to 80 percent of capacity. The EU is looking to other countries to store this gas. But the EU needs infrastructure to process and transport all this gas, and the existing infrastructure is not going to cut it. According to the German newspaper Deutsche Welle, there are 37 LNG terminals in the EU Member States and none in Germany. Countries like Germany are planning new terminals, but those already in the works will not be completed for several years. A proposed LNG terminal in the cities of northwestern Germany will not be built until 2026 and will cover up to 10 percent of the country’s gas demand. Discussions are now under way over two new terminals being designed in Germany in response to Russia’s war with Ukraine, a sign that countries are increasing their investment in fossil fuels in response to this crisis. This is not an energy revolution. Europe’s energy supply will remain largely the same in response to the crisis. it would just come from other parts of the world, at a higher cost. Proponents of the plan to boost LNG imports into Europe say it is the only way to fill the gap left by Russian gas. A senior White House official told a news conference on Friday that the LNG deal was necessary “in the very near future to prevent people from getting cold this winter and next winter before it develops on a clean energy scale.” This approach has its critics. “The measures needed to permanently reduce fossil fuel consumption go hand in hand with what is needed to achieve the EU’s climate targets,” said Matthias Buck, director of the German think tank Agora Energiewende. “The EU must now ensure that RePowerEU accelerates energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable energy sources to achieve energy sovereignty by 2027.” Jake Schmidt, director of the International Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program, argues that building a new fossil fuel infrastructure would be foolish. “There is a lot of skepticism about whether or not Germany can build the import facilities as fast as they claim,” Schmidt said. “The gas facilities will be connected at a time when they will not need this gas. So you are considering a 30-year investment facility that has a maximum life of five to 10 years. “It’s not great financially.”
Europe can overcome this crisis without clinging to more fossil fuels. Seriously.
Two reports published this week by European think tanks argue that almost all of Europe’s gas needs can be met by energy efficiency and by exploring unused clean energy options. It would require the EU to make a concerted effort to reduce energy consumption. A report by Agora Energiewende, which supports Germany’s transition to clean energy, suggests that total gas use in the EU could be reduced by 32 per cent by 2027.
A second report by environmental NGOs Bellona, Ember, E3G and the Regulatory Assistance Project concludes that combining clean energy expansion with accelerated energy efficiency efforts will replace about two-thirds of Russian gas demand by 2025.
Importantly, the report argues that “security of supply and reduction of dependence on Russian gas do not require the construction of new gas import infrastructure in the EU, such as LNG terminals”. NGOs argue that this can be done even without extending the life of nuclear power or increasing coal use in the coming years.
Some of the reforms proposed by the report require more accountability and oversight for the oil and gas industry, in particular doing more to prevent methane leaks during their operations, as this is a waste of fuel that could be saved and used. Other solutions are quite simple but require collective action. These are relatively small behavioral changes, such as consumers reducing their heating by one or two degrees, installing smart thermostats, sealing sliding windows, and installing LED bulbs.
These measures sound small, but add up to many, according to Agora Energiewende. For example, the report states that energy efficiency and the replacement of gas boilers in fossil fuel buildings could reduce gas dependence by more than a third by 2027, by 480 terawatt hours. Heat pumps – a technology that can be used to heat or cool buildings – are one of the modern alternatives to inefficient gas boilers. Industrial activities could also be made more efficient, so some similar energy saving measures could generate even greater profits.
In all, the report claims that of the 3,800 terawatt-hours of gas consumed by the EU in 2020, about a third could be displaced in five years.
Then there are the policy levers. Governments can speed up licensing of proposed offshore and onshore clean energy projects. In the meantime, the European Commission has already announced a plan to double the rate of heat pump installations by this winter. There are other policies that can ensure that the EU is less dependent on fossil fuels. France, for example, has announced that it will end subsidies for new gas heaters and increase subsidies instead of heat pumps.
In addition to energy efficiency, there are other policies that accelerate the transition to clean energy. The European Union is considering a proposed regulation that would end imports from countries with delayed climate policies, making it the world’s first carbon border tax. The idea behind the tax is to discourage companies from relocating to countries with more relaxed climate policies.
The common thread of many of these solutions is that more emphasis should be placed on energy efficiency. Leadership in many of these measures will not come from the United States. The United States has not yet passed any comprehensive legislation to tackle climate change, and Biden’s hopes for clean energy investment have been dashed in Congress. The US will not lead, but Europe can still.
