The future of the global environmental movement is in doubt as at least three significant European economies have chosen to back out of their pledges to “green energy” during the ongoing energy crisis. Another illustration of the global impact of the West’s economic conflict with Russia is the devastating policy change that has just occurred.
Following the proxy war between the West and Russia in Ukraine and the application of numerous rounds of economic sanctions and cultural boycotts against Russia, people throughout the continent are seeing an unprecedented surge in the prices of necessities, including food and petrol. Common people are compelled to suffer as a result of the collective errors made by policymakers who neglected to consider the potential effects of pursuing geostrategic aspirations blindly at the expense of the wellbeing of the populace.
In light of this self-created crisis, the EU’s hasty retreat from its green energy obligations raises concerns about the direction of global climate action and the framework established by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
Europe feels the effects of the sanctions
Early this month, Russia’s state-owned Gazprom vowed to cut off gas supplies to several nations and restrict its supply to others, like Germany, by 60% in retaliation for the economic penalties the EU had imposed. In addition to already sanctioning Gazprom, the EU has opted to revoke its authorization of a new gas pipeline with Russia.
Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck stated that “to minimize gas usage, less gas must be used to generate electricity.” This was in reference to the country’s determination to switch to coal-fired power plants in order to meet its electricity needs. Instead, more coal-fired power plants will need to be employed. He also said that while it was an unpleasant solution, it was essential.
The choice to switch to production using coal creates the mistaken impression that there are no other possibilities. Delaying the shutdown of nuclear power facilities or reducing energy use in many industries has also received little attention from German policymakers. Leyen and Habeck advised regular Europeans to limit their electricity use rather than urging a temporary suspension of production in non-essential units. In order to “compensate for the entire delivery [Nord] stream,” Leyen urged Europeans to turn down the heat in their homes by two degrees.
With only 57% of the necessary 90% of gas reserves, according to Habeck, Germany has officially reached the second phase of its natural gas emergency. According to Habeck, Germany needs to conserve gas to prepare for the upcoming winter.
The governments of Austria and the Netherlands have both made declarations of a similar nature. All coal-fired power stations in the Netherlands were required to run at 35 percent of their capacity under a law. The cabinet, according to Dutch Minister of Climate and Energy Rob Jetten, “has resolved to immediately relax the restriction on production for coal-fired power stations,” he added.
On Sunday, June 19, Austria, which had mandated the closure of all coal-fired power facilities two years prior, made the decision to reactivate one of its largest coal-fired reactors, run by the private energy behemoth Verbund AG. Only 39% of the country’s yearly gas requirements are supposedly covered.
The future of the international battle to combat climate change has been seriously questioned by these actions. Commentators have noted Europe’s hypocrisy in that it consistently advises others, primarily third-world nations, to switch from fossil fuels at the expense of their economic development while refusing to make comparable concessions and turning to fossil fuels in times of energy scarcity.
