Fighting in Ukraine may negatively affect global warming
Digest
Before Russian hydrocarbons are phased out, there could be an energy crisis and Europeans will continue to rely on fossil fuels for heating their homes and electricity.
The Russian military operation against Ukraine has made it a top priority for the Joe Biden administration to provide more fossil fuels to Europe in order to deprive European Union member states of Russian energy. But it's also because both Europe and the US are falling behind on their goals to reduce carbon emissions quickly to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for an immediate switch to renewable energy and notes that the world will need to absorb carbon from the atmosphere to keep warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius. This tension has sparked concern among climate activists, warning that more fossil fuel exports will mean more emissions, leading to warmer temperatures.
But some energy experts say the situation is also an opportunity to change course, stressing that clean energy is critical to national security.
Although, as Bordoff points out, that direction may change.
Western experts point out that the impact of the war on climate is still undetermined and depends on how governments balance the urgent need for fossil fuels with long-term changes in energy production.
What American politicians can and cannot do for Europe
In a joint statement with the European Commission, President Joe Biden outlined a plan to help Europe reduce its dependence on Russian energy and keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. To do this, he promised to work with other countries to provide the European Union with an additional 15 billion cubic meters of liquefied gas in 2022, and several times more by the end of the decade. If necessary, the US will also support additional export or import infrastructure needed to deliver LNG to allies, the statement said.
This proposal has been met with enthusiasm in some quarters and skepticism in others.
“The US Department of State is not responsible for the movement of goods. The market is responsible for that,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer advocacy organization.
Politicians can be held accountable for what happened," said Clark Williams-Derry, an energy finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a group that supports the shift away from fossil fuels.
Firstly, US energy companies have already increased LNG exports to Europe this year in response to rising demand and higher prices. Capacity, which declined due to reduced demand during the pandemic, is returning, Williams-Derry said. The promised additional volumes are small in the context of how much energy the EU needs, less than 10% of the 155 billion cubic meters of natural gas that the EU received from Russia in 2021.
It's "kind of a donut hole," Williams-Derry said of the extra LNG promised to Europe. "They will probably only go through with this plan for the sake of willing buyers and sellers."
However, the way the US tries to help could have serious consequences. Speaking on Fox News, Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy called the moment a reality check. “The Germans are relying on us to provide natural gas to cut off Russian energy supplies. They need more coal, they need more oil,” he said.
Cassidy promoted his Warp Speed energy plan to increase domestic production of all types of energy. He suggested that the US not only allow more exports of fossil fuels, but also fund the infrastructure for it.
This is because even when natural gas reaches Europe, there are bottlenecks in the economy.
Most of Russia's natural gas enters Europe via pipelines, but special facilities are required to import gas from other countries. To transport natural gas, it must be purified, recooled until it becomes scarce, and pumped into refrigerated tankers at so-called export terminals. An import terminal is required to regasify the cargo upon arrival at the destination.
Germany is considering building both onshore terminals, which could take years, and floating terminals, which can be installed faster, according to the Associated Press.
According to a Reuters report, the Biden administration is considering lifting its own ban on overseas fossil fuel infrastructure funding in response to the need. The joint energy plan also leaves room for expansion of the US LNG export infrastructure.
This is a red banner for climate advocates who claim that such infra
Финансовая аналитика, прогнозы цен на сталь, железную руду, уголь и другие сырьевые товары.
More news and analytics on
Metallurgprom telegram channel - subscribe to get up-to-date market information and price forecasts faster than others.
