The War in Ukraine Dims Hope for a Global Energy Transition

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the vital importance of energy security has become apparent. Russia supplies Europe with more than a quarter of its oil and 40% of its natural gas. Dependency on Russian fossil fuels means that, despite the current conflict, European countries are still filling Russian coffers. This dilemma of energy security has accelerated European efforts to transition to renewable energy, with the European Union recently vowing to eliminate imports of Russian natural gas by 2030. Crucially, then, by bringing energy security to the forefront, the war in Ukraine may have positive results regarding climate action in a European context. However, on a global level, the implications of the conflict regarding energy security may have a more negative effect on climate change. The same questions of energy security that may encourage renewable energy in Europe could promote fossil fuel use in the Global South and hinder climate cooperation between the two principal rivals of a New Cold War, the United States and China. 

First, to understand these energy and climate implications, it is necessary to comprehend the geopolitical transformations that the war will cause and has caused so far. Many analysts believe us to now be in a New Cold War. One prediction involves a near-total division into distinct ideological spheres, with a liberal democratic world led by the United States and an authoritarian world led by China and Russia, complete with separate supply chains, Internet networks, and other modern economic phenomena. Whether the division will reach that drastic extent is far from certain. But an increased emphasis on self-interest and competitiveness—can be seen in the renewed European focus on energy security.

In an increasingly tense New Cold War, the hotter the conflict becomes, the less likely it is that working together on climate change will be possible. On both sides of the divide, there is an underlying evaluation of climate change and clean energy security as bargaining chips of sorts. China now controls 70% of world cobalt production, a mineral needed to make electric cars, after Chinese companies obtained control of cobalt mines in Africa over the past decade. Russia has, likewise, become a mineral superpower, and Western sanctions over the war in Ukraine place an enormous strain on the global supply of Russian-mined minerals essential to clean energy transition, such as lithium and nickel. With energy security needs now pushing European countries toward clean energy, Chinese and Russian control of minerals required for the shift has induced a commensurate focus on the supply of critical minerals from the West. Notably, on March 31, the Biden administration announced that it would invoke the Defense Production Act to promote domestic mining of minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries. European countries have sought to undertake similar moves. Unfortunately, as both sides approach obtaining minerals required to transition to clean energy like a Cold War arms race, they bypass a crucial fact of climate change: it has no borders. When political purposes and energy security are increasingly prioritized, the likelihood of developing timely, worldwide climate solutions decreases. 

On the one hand, while the speed at which European and other Western countries can transition to renewable energy remains uncertain, it seems probable that the motivation to eliminate their dependence on Russian fossil fuels will soon accelerate that transition. These countries have the resources—despite immense challenges, including Russian and Chinese control of critical minerals— to undertake the shift. However, on the other hand, as previously noted, fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate change no matter where they originate. So, if the clean energy transition only occurs in the Global North, that will not be enough. Countries in the Global South also desire prosperity and energy security. They lack the resources, though, to undertake a clean energy transition, a problem worsened because of rising global fuel prices induced by the war in Ukraine. Last November, at the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow, Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley defended her country’s decision to increase offshore drilling as “a way to finance our route to net-zero.” Countries like Barbados want to grow their economies and, understandably, will not stop when wealthier nations are responsible for the bulk of historical carbon emissions. Amid a New Cold War, embodied by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has accentuated energy security issues essential to that growth, the Global South seems increasingly oriented toward a fossil fuel-dependent future. 

This likely division regarding clean energy transition between the Global North and South, worsened by geopolitical constraints on climate cooperation because of a New Cold War, would be disastrous. Under the landmark 2015 Paris Climate Accords, if humanity is to minimize long-term global temperature increases and avert climate catastrophe, we must achieve net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050. That ambitious goal demands that practically every country fully transitions to clean energy production, requiring considerable international cooperation in investing in clean energy technologies. Unfortunately, in light of the recent geopolitical energy security changes precipitated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it seems much further off. 

There is thus a need for a new approach to climate change. First, whether countries eliminate their dependency on fossil fuels is terrific, but that does not mean anything if emissions continue to rise in the Global South. Therefore, wealthier countries must do a better job of providing financial and technological aid to developing nations such as Barbados to support their clean energy transition. It concerns both equity and the scientific reality of climate change. Think of it as a sort of climate change Marshall Plan. Second, in terms of the renewable energy technology divide of the New Cold War, efforts must be made to reach out. It will not be easy. But some optimism exists that China, which has its own net-zero commitment, will be willing to collaborate. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a horrific, despicable act whose aftereffects will be felt for years to come. If the world does not act on climate change, the same will be true, except over a far more immense and even more devastating scale. 

“Oil Derrick” by verifex is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0