- Husam Fazula
- BBC News Arabic
The film was released, Getty Images
Is the war in Ukraine preventing the transition to clean energy?
The effects of the Russian war in Ukraine affected various global sectors, and its economic and political consequences occupied the agendas of the nations of the world. But despite its severity and the gravity of the damage, the impact of war on the environment and climate change may be small.
On March 21, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the crisis and fluctuations in the energy market could prevent the transition to clean energy sources, declaring that “fuel addiction will lead us to real disaster.” He specifically mentioned the effects of the Russian War on the global climate agenda. This could result in European countries and major economies adopting strategies to find alternatives to Russian fossil fuels.
Where is the world from the 1.5 degree Celsius target
“These short-term actions could lead to long-term dependence on fossil fuels,” Guterres says; The goal of the 2015 Paris Climate Summit is to control global warming by only 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the current century.
The goal, emphasized at the Glasgow summit four months ago, is that countries reaffirm their commitment to the environment and ensure a rapid transition to clean energy.
To achieve this goal, global consumption of fossil fuels must be reduced by 55%.
But since the start of the war in Ukraine, indicators have changed and it is expected to increase the use of fossil fuels by 14% to make up for any shortfall in energy supplies amid controversy over Russian exports.
Russia’s fuel giant
Russia is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, and Russia’s gas accounts for 40% of EU demand.
It is also the second largest exporter of petroleum derivatives after Saudi Arabia, with half of its exports to European countries and the other half to the United States, China and South Korea.
Russia is the third largest coal exporter after Indonesia and Australia.
But after the war, sanctions on Russia and fears about importing its products into markets affected distribution; Countries are eager to secure alternative long-term contracts for fossil fuels.
New long-term contracts
Some traditional energy companies have recently taken advantage of the market need to achieve greater stability after investing in clean energy.
“What is happening in Eastern Europe is unfortunate, but these high prices and fluctuations are leading us to a more stable environment and a longer-term contract,” said Jacques Fusco, CEO of Cheniere Energy, a US company. 7.6% since the outbreak of war.
According to Aramco, the war reached $ 2.3 trillion and became the second largest financial institution in the world after Apple, announcing that it would raise its capital expenditure on oil production to $ 50. Billion per year.
Germany has begun negotiations for a long-term partnership to import gas as an alternative to Russia’s energy sources.
One of the most detrimental effects of the war on the environment is the reliance on coal as the primary source of energy, and it is also the most polluting source of energy.
One of the effects of war on the environment is the dependence on coal as the primary source of energy, and it is also the most polluting source of energy, accounting for only one-third of global warming.
Countries such as Poland, France, Italy and Germany have already begun to return to coal for a portion of their fuel needs.
The UK is still abiding by its pledge to stop using coal by 2024.
Ecosystems are affected
On the other hand, the conflict has affected civil society organizations that protect the environment. The environment, especially the forested area, stretches between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Poland.
Demonstration in the Australian capital condemning the impact of the war on the environment
Many environmental organizations around the world lost part of their funds to support Ukraine in the war. Like the German Frankfurt Zoological Society, it lost a third of its operation due to the conflict.
An employee of the international (Green Peace) organization Green Peace says during a demonstration in the Australian capital condemning the impact of war on the environment.
“It’s really a war against the people, a war against the environment, a war against the climate.”
But why is war increasing the use of fossil fuels when there are clean energy alternatives?
Pure energy is the way out of crisis
The world’s long-term plan is to switch to clean energy, which means relying on wind, solar and other green energy.
As a result of the war, Germany accelerated its five-year clean energy conversion program. According to Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, the war has drawn the attention of European nations, especially the need for a rapid transition to renewable energy sources.
Angela Terry of the Climate Alliance in London
“Renewable energy is cheap, you do not buy sun or wind, it’s free,” said Angela Terry of the Climate Alliance in London. “You will solve the climate crisis, not only saving energy, but also reducing carbon emissions into the air.”
Despite all this, fossil fuels still represent 80 percent of global energy sources. Therefore, replacing clean energy with conventional energy will not be an option that will be available to the world anytime soon, as trust in green energy sources is increasing, according to some. But the UN Secretary-General describes the fall in global warming targets as a “game of blame” and a lack of cooperation among nations.
“Award-winning beer geek. Extreme coffeeaholic. Introvert. Avid travel specialist. Hipster-friendly communicator.”
