The crucial issues of access to energy are returned to the fore since the invasion of Ukraine. This war could well accelerate the always too slow turn towards the transition energy, but it also risks harming climate negotiations, which are already struggling to place the planet on a viable climate trajectory.
The warning given earlier this week by UN Secretary General António Guterres was unequivocal. Because of its major implications for energy policies, theinvasion of Ukraine risks delaying the energy transition even further, which would be dramatic for the climate. “Countries could become so caught up in the immediate fossil fuel supply shortfall that they neglect or attack policies to reduce fossil fuel use,” he said. This is madness. »
In Canada, since the start of the war, several voices close to conservative circles and the fossil fuel industry have been calling for a significant increase exports of natural gas oil to Europe, but also the construction of the new pipelines and maritime terminals necessary to do so. In response, the Trudeau government announced Thursday that “Canadian industry has the capacity to gradually increase its exports” of oil by 200,000 barrels per day, but also by 100,000 barrels “of oil equivalent” per day. of natural gas.
A fellow at the Center for International Studies and Research at the University of Montreal, Hugo Séguin understands the need to meet a “short-term” demand for fossil fuels, due to the crisis caused by Russia. “But those who claim that new deposits must be put into production are on the wrong track,” he adds. The war in Ukraine shows us how dependent we are on hydrocarbons. It proves to us once again that it is time to move on. Will this be enough? Probably not. But that adds to the reasons why more drastic measures should be deployed. »
According to Mr. Séguin, there is no doubt that we are heading towards an acceleration of the decarbonization of the energy sector. “Europe already wanted to reduce its dependence on hydrocarbons, but the war encourages it to go faster. In a few years, there should be a significant drop in demand for hydrocarbons”, he underlines. A point of view shared by Erick Lachapelle, associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Montreal. He believes that in the current context, countries will seek more than ever to turn to “local production” of wind, solar or nuclear energy.
Very dependent on Russian gas, Italy now wants to accelerate the development of wind projects in the Mediterranean Sea. The same goes for the United Kingdom, which is also betting on solar and nuclear power. The Netherlands also announced this week its intention to double its wind energy production by 2030, thanks to new projects in the North Sea. In other cases, the crisis on the contrary forces the postponement of certain decisions taken to protect the environment and populations. Belgium has thus decided to postpone its exit from nuclear power, and Germany indicated on Thursday that it “could” suspend the planned closure of certain coal-fired power stations.
Tense negotiations
The war led by Russia could therefore amplify the movement in favor of renewable energies, but it also risks harming international climate negotiations, deplores Hugo Séguin, who has been following the file for several years. However, the blockage is not likely to come from Russia, a country whose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are double those of Canada, but which has always been “very recalcitrant to act”.
MM. Séguin and Lachapelle both believe that the conflict risks rather aggravating relations between the United States and China, while Beijing remains ambivalent about its support for Moscow. However, the commitment of the two countries is essential to move things forward, says Eddy Perez, of the Climate Action Network, since they alone represent more than 40% of global GHG emissions.
“Good international relations allow for breakthroughs. Prior to the signing of the Paris Agreement, the United States and China had signed bilateral agreements that set the stage for negotiations. But here we are in the opposite situation. Relations between the United States and China risk being tainted by China’s policy towards Russia. The context is less conducive to international cooperation,” explains Erick Lachapelle.
The war in Ukraine shows us how dependent we are on hydrocarbons. It proves to us once again that it is time to move on.
Hugo Séguin also notes that since the signing of the agreement of Paris, in 2015, several other “huge issues” entered the landscape, including the ongoing war, but also the global pandemic. “So we cannot put all our energies on the climate issue. The year 2022 and the next UN climate conference (COP27), scheduled for this fall, will probably be no exception.
But, whatever the politico-strategic waltzes-hesitations, the climate science remains crystal clear: with the commitments made by the various States at the present time, global GHG emissions are expected to increase by 14% during the decade, while that a 45% reduction would have to be imposed on them in order to hope to preserve a viable planetary climate.
António Guterres therefore recalled this week that the world is still heading towards a warming of 2.7°C compared to the pre-industrial era, while the objective of the Paris Agreement is to limit it to 1.5°C. “We are sleepwalking towards climate catastrophe,” he said. And unless we implement the radical changes that will be proposed in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to be published on April 4, climate change will provoke violent conflicts in the coming decades.