avatarRonan Cray

Summary

The article argues that despite the global mobilization against Russia's invasion of Ukraine demonstrating the capacity for swift and decisive action, similar comprehensive measures are unlikely to be taken to combat climate change due to a lack of collective will and prioritization of immediate economic and energy security interests over long-term environmental sustainability.

Abstract

The swift international response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including cutting oil and gas production, ostracizing Russian energy sources, and increasing military budgets, has shown that the world can act decisively when motivated by a perceived "good fight." However, this contrasts sharply with the decades-long struggle against climate change, where similar actions have been resisted due to economic and political concerns. The article suggests that the world's population understands the concept of war and is willing to make sacrifices for what they believe is a just cause, yet they have not shown the same commitment to addressing climate change. Despite some positive steps towards renewable energy and electric vehicles, the article contends that these are temporary and insufficient to address the scale of the climate crisis. The ongoing conflict has led to increased coal use, a resurgence of oil rigs, and a focus on short-term energy solutions rather than a transition to sustainable practices. The author asserts that even with the knowledge and technology to combat climate change, there is a lack of desire to make the necessary changes, as evidenced by the prioritization of defense spending over climate action by many countries.

Opinions

  • The global response to the Ukraine war demonstrates the potential for rapid collective action, but this capacity is not being applied to the climate crisis.
  • People are more willing to make sacrifices for what they perceive as immediate threats, like war, rather than the slower-moving but equally existential threat of climate change.
  • The status quo of fossil fuel dependency persists because of a lack of genuine commitment to climate action, not due to

The War in Ukraine Proves We Won’t Stop Climate Change

The massive and swift international mobilization against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine showed us exactly what we can do, but never will do, for climate change.

Photo by shahin khalaji on Unsplash

Within days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the EU cut oil and gas production by 20%. Key international players ostracized Russian oil and gas from the global market, stopped pipeline projects, cut Russians from the banking system, and pledged military budgets to help Ukraine. Though gasoline prices skyrocketed and the global finance market took a hit, consumers and financiers kept their grumbling to a minimum, knowing they were fighting the good fight.

Seeing war compel the world into actions we’ve been demanding since the 1980’s, it is clear the status quo does not believe climate change is the “good fight”.

For decades, we’ve fought fossil fuels on four fronts: replace demand with renewable energy, remove supply, refuse finance for pipelines and supply chains, and redirect the trillions of dollars spent on military, fossil fuel, and other destructive practices toward scientific research and infrastructure. The status quo resisted. No politician would willingly raise gas prices by even pennies; no consumer would vote for a politician who did. Financial returns on oil made it a safer and more profitable investment than renewables. Drilling, fracking, and pipeline projects oozed across the world to fill gas tanks and fertilize fields. Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and smaller regional conflicts hoovered up money for things that go boom in the night. These wars demanded, not coincidentally, more oil for tanks, airplanes, and missiles. Climate change took a back seat, deemed too costly, too slow to be a crisis, too painful for sacrifice, too dovish, too… left wing.

Then the war. Everyone understands war. Wars, we think, are something worth fighting for.

We always believed the key to climate action was education, but the truth was… the world just didn’t want to. They know all about it. They don’t care. It took a war, a reason they believed in, a traditional motivator, to make change happen.

On the surface, this is a net positive, right? We’re doing it now. Whatever the reason, the oil stopped flowing, renewables are back on the table, consumers yearn for electric vehicles. That’s good in the short term, but will it stick?

No. And here’s why.

Action after inaction

Literally overnight, the world cut 7% of its oil supply. Europe removed 20% of its gas supply. That loss of energy hurts.

Gas prices shot up 30%, a move that will ripple through the supply chain for years to come, a move that comes on top of two years of supply chain pain and inflation. For two years, or more, we’ve printed money like hoarded toilet paper, trying to survive the Covid downturn. Those debts will come due.

The EU pledged to be free of Russian oil, gas, and coal by 2027. How will they do it? With solar? No. With salivating American suppliers. In order to meet the vacuum left by Russia, in one week alone, America increased on-shore and off-shore oil rigs by 27. We’re replacing one fossil fuel supplier with another.

In climate change vernacular, that’s called net-zero.

Coal, once predicted to be on the decline, is enjoying a resurgence. China re-opened two coal fired power plants after four years in mothballs. Germany is reopening coal plants, as well as extending deadlines for phasing out coal. Nations around the world with coal plants nearing their closure dates have re-entered negotiations to extend them. Even before the war, the International Energy Agency predicted record coal use in 2022. Now nations are scrambling for coal.

These are status quo answers to status quo questions. People grew tired of the “good fight” in a matter of weeks. And we talk to them about 2050.

We’re not learning to live with less. We’re scratching for more. With every increase in capacity brought on line, it will be even harder to back off. It’s like running out of methadone and switching “temporarily” back to heroine.

We are Sisyphus watching the boulder roll downhill.

The good news (?)

What about electric vehicles? Surely this price shock will encourage more EV orders? Yes, and no. EV sales were already predicted to rise 37% this year, and with gas prices as high as $12 a gallon in many countries (and EV owners telling us how much they pay), EV may draw attention from consumers. But as the supply remains low, prices remain high, so this shock may not have the impact expected.

If oil prices remain high, that could be a boon for the EV industry, but that’s a big if. Here’s another prediction. Even purchased before this surge, customers will wait ten months for their new EV. Assuming that time frame, this allows the oil and gas industry ten months to ramp up production and drive down prices. If the war in Ukraine ends, Russia will flood the world with cheap oil to entice an end to sanctions and recoup their costs.

We’ve decreased supply, not demand. OPEC+ (of whom Russia is a member) vowed not to increase supply to ease prices. Read this for what it is. At any moment, the Gulf has the ability to increase production, and the world is begging them to.

The choice between losing customers and dropping prices is not a tough one. Cheap oil will delay EV and renewable energy implementation further.

And that’s if the economy remains good. If the economy tanks this year as many predict, weighted under supply chain pressures, inflation, debt, and high oil prices, customers will put off new purchases indefinitely.

Consumers who lost their job, seeing cheap gas again, will re-think that $75,000 Tesla. They’ll cancel orders. Thousands of cars will sit on the lot. Investors who poured money into new EV companies like Rivian, Lucid, and Nio will dump their shares like it’s 1991. The switch to electric vehicles is still inevitable, but this may set it back a decade, a decade we don’t have.

The new wars

Nations don’t want this pain to happen again, but it needn’t have happened in the first place. They had thirty years to install renewables. The EU committed to a fossil free economy by 2035. Boris Johnson, too, vowed to increase solar and wind production. These pledges, old and new, are enjoying renewed popularity. Nations are pledging billions of dollars, pouring them into energy related security, and what will they spend it on?

The war in Ukraine frightened countries around the world to increase their defense spending. Germany pledged to spend $100 billion Euros on defense spending. China’s increased by $16 billion. Denmark by $2.65 billion. Even Sweden by $300 million. Former Soviet-bloc countries, for what it’s worth, raised their spending as well. In the US, after increasing defense spending by $32.5 billion, Republican lawmakers called for “dollar-for-dollar parity between defense and nondefense increases.”

These increases come at a time when none of these countries are at war, but all of them are threatened by climate change. Every dollar spent preparing for hypothetical wars is a dollar not spent fighting climate change. That’s the choice. Stop climate change and secure a sustainable energy future, or invest in things that blow up when used properly.

No one stated this more clearly than French President Emmanuel Macron. Standing shoulder to shoulder with his black-clad, stony faced EU leaders. “Everywhere you look historic choices are being made.” If you read “historic” as “choices made historically”, you’ll see where this is going. The 21st century is shaping up to look a lot like the 20th, just one decade ahead.

And that won’t stop climate change.

Why we won’t stop climate change

The war in Ukraine showed us something powerful about ourselves. The world has the ability to mobilize against climate change. We have the money to pay for renewable infrastructure. We have the willpower to suffer higher energy prices to help people in need. We have the ability to work immediately against oil interests, to block their bank accounts, to stop their oil pipeline projects, to cut off huge chunks of production overnight. We have viable technologies to replace nearly the entire carbon-emitting machine. Everything we’ve worked for over four decades is achievable. We have the political and popular power to make great strides right now, today, this instant.

We just don’t want to.

Climate Change
Ukraine
Climate Action
Electric Vehicles
Fossil Fuels
Recommended from ReadMedium