It is impossible to imagine Vladimir Putin as a climate advocate. Yet, and this is the paradox of the matter, the Russian president could be at the origin of an unprecedented acceleration of the energy transition. It is the old saying, ‘Every cloud has a silver lining.’
The Economist states: the timetable for global decarbonisation has been set back five to ten years by the war in Ukraine.
While coal has come back with a bang and hydrocarbon prices have soared - due to the Kremlin leader's constant blackmail - the return of fossil fuels hides a "bigger story", according to the British weekly: that of the growing competitiveness of solar and wind power in the face of oil, gas and coal, which have become "scarcer and more expensive". The political world is no stranger to helping with subsidies for the transition. In Europe, the Green Deal provides 250 billion euros for clean technologies; in the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act allocates 400 billion dollars to green technologies over ten years. As far as China, which has set a target of producing 33% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025.
The International Energy Agency predicts that green energy capacity will increase by 2,400 gigawatts between 2022 and 2027, equivalent to China's total electricity production today. This is 30% more than what the agency expected before the invasion of Ukraine. The trigger has already been set, according to Die Zeit: the European Union has saved 12 billion euros on its gas imports since the start of the war thanks to a "record" production of wind and solar power.
The energy crisis has raised consumer awareness. The New York Times is pleased to note that in Europe "the worst has not happened" in this winter of energy dangers. There were no shortages or blackouts, but calls for sobriety were heeded: gas demand fell by 24%.
It is true that consumption fell because prices soared and threats darkened the horizon. But this acceleration of the green transition is proof that it is possible to promote other ways of consuming without necessarily producing "armies of yellow waistcoats", notes the American daily's editorialist. And that it is not naive to think that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is right when it estimates that "demand-side measures" could reduce global CO2 emissions by 40 to 70%. This winter, which looked like a green energy spring in Europe, gives us reason to believe it.
Leave a comment