sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Josep Borrell and Werner Hoyer offer a blueprint for reducing Europe's dependence on Russian energy as fast as possible

Public Policy / opinion
Josep Borrell and Werner Hoyer offer a blueprint for reducing Europe's dependence on Russian energy as fast as possible
solar panels

By Josep Borrell and Werner Hoyer*

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced the European Union to accelerate the pace of our energy and climate policy. Since the Kremlin has increasingly used energy as a tool for political influence, we must deprive it of its leverage by radically reducing our dependence on fossil-fuel imports from Russia.

The geopolitical rationale for doing so overlaps with the imperative to tackle climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report on mitigation underscores the urgency of that task. Total greenhouse-gas emissions must peak by 2025 if we are to avoid a catastrophic increase in global temperatures. Moreover, the economy-wide shift to clean energy must be managed carefully to account for the inevitable social and economic consequences; it must be a “just transition.”

The EU and the European Investment Bank have a vital role to play in this transition. Investments in renewables, energy efficiency, and innovative technologies such as green hydrogen are important tools for dealing with Russia’s aggression and helping to save the planet from dependence on fossil fuels. Every euro we spend on the energy transition at home is a euro we keep out of the hands of an authoritarian power that wages aggressive war. Every euro we spend on clean energy enhances our freedom to make our own decisions. Every euro we spend helping our international partners accelerate their own decarbonisation strategies is an investment in resilience and in the fight against climate change.

Since Russia’s invasion on February 24, the EU has been accelerating its energy transition plans to help end Europe’s reliance on Russian fossil-fuel imports as soon as possible. Although this will not happen overnight, the incentives to do so are now greater than ever. We can achieve energy independence by improving efficiency, diversifying supplies, and ramping up renewables. This process requires a mobilisation at all levels – from supranational bodies down to households and individuals.

There are two important caveats to consider. First, the search for alternative suppliers of natural gas – critical as it is in the short term – must not lock us into a new long-term dependence that requires heavy investments in fossil-fuel infrastructure. That would be costly, catastrophic for the planet, and ultimately unnecessary, given the more climate-conscious options that are available.

Second, we must not trade one bottleneck for another by swapping our over-dependence on fossil fuels for over-dependency on raw materials needed for the green transition. These resources are heavily concentrated in just a handful of countries, not all of which hold the same values and interests as the EU. Strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy and resilience must remain a key objective of the transition.

Europe cannot do this alone. Winning the battle against climate change and standing up to Russian aggression are global challenges that demand a global response. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war has strengthened the strategic rationale for all countries to reduce their fossil-fuel imports and invest more in climate-friendly energy solutions.

That is why the EU is actively engaged in climate diplomacy. We want to encourage others to raise their climate ambitions, and we have committed considerable resources to working with partner countries so that they, too, can move to a resilient net-zero-emissions economy. Through the European Green Deal and the EU’s new Global Gateway initiative, EU institutions and member states are mobilising up to €300 billion ($325 billion) of investment in green and digital infrastructure to address the climate, biodiversity, and energy crises.

Moreover, the EIB has pledged to support €1 trillion of investment in climate action and environmental sustainability by 2030. Through its new development arm, EIB Global, the bank is working with partners around the world to mobilise finance for energy efficiency, renewables, and electricity grid projects.

Working as part of the EU’s joint effort under Team Europe, the EIB’s support for a clean-energy future ranges from investing in solar power in Senegal to financing more energy-efficient kindergartens in Armenia. The bank has also helped forge a Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa; provided backing for the India-based International Solar Alliance, which supports solar power development across 105 tropical countries; and signed on to an integrated water management and flood prevention scheme in Argentina.

The EU stands ready to support the global community in ending its dependency on fossil fuels. Russia’s war on Ukraine is not a reason to delay investments in climate action. On the contrary, more green investment will give us more strategic autonomy. Decarbonisation has become a geopolitical imperative. We call on our global partners in government and across international financial institutions to join us in accelerating finance for clean energy. By pursuing climate neutrality, we can also achieve energy security.


Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is Vice President of the European Commission for a Stronger Europe in the World. Werner Hoyer is President of the European Investment Bank. This content is © Project Syndicate, 2022, and is here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

20 Comments

innovative technologies such as green hydrogen

Christ. Looks like Megan Woods isn't the only one drinking the kool-aid.

Ridiculousness aside, Western Europe has desperately needed to reduce its reliance on Russian energy for decades, and they've been trying. The brick wall they keep running up against however, is that the type of advanced industrial society which Westen Europe wants to run can only be sustained using fossil fuels. Nothing else will do, because nothing else provides the necessary levels of plentiful, cheap energy.

Renewables may be green, but they are neither as plentiful nor as cheap as fossil fuels. Don't mistake the sun shining or the wind blowing for "free energy"; there's a lot which must happen to convert those things into electricity. That's not to say renewables are a waste of time - they're not, and they will play a major role in future societies - but those societies will not look like the ones we have today, because in the absense of fossil fuels they can't, and herein lies the problem; people like their energy-intensive lifestyles, and being told by politicians that they have to change is unacceptable. Just look at what's happening with people being told they need to turn their thermostats down a few degrees, and it's going to take much more than that.

The world is going to have to deal with major changes in the way we lead our lives. It is the only hope for Western Europe's energy independence, and the future sustainability of the world as a whole. The solutions will not come from the top down.

Up
7

Great comment.

Up
2

Seconded - great comment.

 

Up
0

and it isn't just rare earth metals etc that are a problem, look at that photo and then consider this

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/sand-crisis-looms-as-world-population-su-idUSKCN2MI0YL

something as "simple" and "plentiful" as sand could be an issue...

Up
1

"First, the search for alternative suppliers of natural gas – critical as it is in the short term – must not lock us into a new long-term dependence that requires heavy investments in fossil-fuel infrastructure. That would be costly, catastrophic for the planet, and ultimately unnecessary,"

What is this supposed to mean? What is the short-term? 5years? 15/20 years? "Alternative suppliers". Does this mean from existing supplies or new developments?

The article says nothing about the role of fossil fuels in enabling any transition to a less carbonised economy. How else are the many essential minerals  to be mined?

Germany in particular finds itself beholden to Russia for energy partly out of a badly mistaken policy of 'embracing the bear' and partly because it was in far too big a rush to shut down its existing sources of electrical supply.

Up
1

Israel has plenty of spare gas - but they have yet to start the $6 billion pipeline to the EU. But that would solve the EU's dependence on Russian gas.

Up
1

Isn't that just shifting your reliance from one dodgy regime to another? 

Up
3

"Israel has proven reserves equivalent to 17.6 times its annual consumption. This means it has about 18 years of gas left (at current consumption levels"

Sounds like something worth doing - build a pipeline that will be useless in under 18 years (dependent on how much goes through it).

That's like the stupidity of Brownlee here, years ago, re coal. Quoting rates then advocating growth - which inevitably truncates the timeframe. Nuts.

Up
0

Europe has the technology , political and tax regime to do it . It may create a shortage of renewable technology in the short term, but I expect production will ramp up pretty quickly. 

Up
1

Reading your optimistic postings, I'm sure you do.

But nobody produces energy. Not even fossil energy. The latter is extracted, renewables also rely on extractions; of mineral resources and fossil energy. Two commentators above, get it. And renewable technology isn't really renewable; you'd have to 100% recycle the materials (requiring a s---load of energy) and re-manufacture them using their energy output. It's never been done, and that's probably a permanent arrangement. I live on solar and micro-hydro, but I can't see those panels delivering the grunt to make new ones. I see all that energy-requiring tech succumbing to entropy, over the next 1-5 decades. By say 2050, high-tech windmills? All dead. PV panels? Those remaining, fading. Manufacturers of tech? Gone.

We're headed for a low-tech, easily repaired on site, world. Old-school windmills, hydro, a bit of geothermal, firewood, biomass. Local food, local everything.

https://www.realgnd.org/

 

Up
0

 

 

 

Up
0

Why are there no incentives for home generation? I have a north facing roof and the sun has shone most days since December. Why not cover every property with solar panels rather than filling up paddocks and hill sides with solar panels and wind turbines?

Up
2

Because self sufficiency doesn't contribute to the corporate cartel model of enforced consumer slavery. 

Up
2

But actually, covering every home in PV misses the point.

The sun only falls on a square metre once, and the more directly you access it, the less the loss. So passive solar is almost certainly the better primary option. Perhaps even food-production, may be better than PV. And once PV has created electricity, a little distance is of not much consequence.

Not saying don't do it, just that all things have to be considered. I have 3 arrays (300 watts x1, 200 watts x2) and a passive-solar house; the arrays aren't in the house's sun, that's for sure. Why subtract?

Up
0

Anyone can be energy self sufficient, it's just usually more expensive than surrendering to a cartel.

Up
0

Probably because:

- roof types vary

- working at height is more expensive, health and safety, etc

- building one large solar farm is more efficient than 100s of thousands of individual installs

- maintenance of 100s of thousands of roof installs would be less efficient

 

Up
0

Looking at that photo makes me think that those huge solar installations compete with food production.  Solar generation for electricity or photosynthesis for food; take your pick.  The underlying issue for both is that the world is grossly over populated. Our leaders refuse to talk about that, let alone address the issue.

If we are to sensibly utilize solar power why are we not putting it on every roof top?  You would think that the government would address the vested interests in the generation and marketing sectors to make it attractive for owners to do install solar generation.  But no they steadfastly support the stranglehold of the incumbents.  At the very least they could be installing it on government buildings.  Look at schools - a perfect match.  The school day pretty much  perfectly matches the solar energy production day.  Duh!

In the interim we can do a lot to clean up fossil fuel use.  Blue hydrogen can be cleanly produced from fossil fuels if the resulting captured and concentrated CO2 is sequestered underground in spent gas fields or similar.  We just need to get off our butts and do it.  There is no point using electricity to split water into hydrogen while we are still reliant on fossil fuels for any of our electricity.  Power generated from fossil fuels and the hydrolyzing processes combined are so inefficient that any renewable generation is best directed at replacing fossil fuel generation.

Electricity can be produced from fossil fuel, the CO2 captured at source and sequestered by using the Allam cycle 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allam_power_cycle#:~:text=The%20Allam-Fet….

Basically oxygen is extracted from air by well established processes and burnt with fossil fuel.  CO2 and water are the only products and can be sequestered.  To prevent extreme high temperatures that would otherwise destroy the equipment, some of the CO2 is recirculated around the process.  There are a number of these plants now operating. 

Note that this system uses largely off the shelf hardware and achieves 60% efficiency net of all parasitic losses. 

Up
1