GECO - Sustainability virtual italian fair
So far, the international community's sanctions against Russia have primarily involved freezing financial flows, but the prospect of also reducing gas imports is becoming more likely.
Natural gas, in fact, binds Moscow to many European countries that import it and no longer intend to fund the Ukrainian war by investing in it. As a result, the EU intends to reduce Russian gas imports by two-thirds, or significantly, by 2023.
Other fossil fuels, such as oil, are already suffering from the same fate. Indeed, US President Joe Biden has imposed a ban on Russian oil, and both Europe and the United Kingdom intend to do so by 2023.
This brings back into focus the issue of sustainability, which has recently been at the centre of the debate on climate protection and limiting global warming to 1.5°. However, politicians ignored this debate, which is very heated among those who consider the climate emergency a priority, for a long time, until the Ukrainian issue brought it up again in a different way.
In fact, by relying heavily on Russian fossil fuels, Europe has found itself financing a war while continuing to emit massive amounts of pollution. Furthermore, the German government's decision to close the Nord Stream 2 pipeline demonstrates how the billions spent on its construction were a waste. In addition to that, the price of oil continues to rise.
Meanwhile, with the Russian front closed, other gas suppliers are being sought (the US, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Japan and Norway, among others). This is why proponents of sustainable economic policies are speaking out louder and more forcefully than ever before, stating that simply replacing the supplier is not the solution.
So, what are Europe's alternatives to Russian gas? The issue is primarily related to long-term imports and the need, which is also geopolitical, to transition away from imported fossil fuels.
The following are the main alternatives being considered by the EU.
Although liquefied natural gas (or LNG) is considered the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still harmful to the environment. It may be adequate as a short-term solution, but it should be abandoned in the long run because it is insufficient and has a negative impact on the environment.
The coal solution, which would reactivate old, decommissioned power plants, is even more out of date. In fact, coal is regarded as the worst fossil fuel in terms of environmental impact and global warming, accounting for more than 0.3° of the 1° increase in average temperature.
Leaving aside the objectively complex issue of nuclear energy, another alternative could be to import clean hydrogen-based fuels. This option, however, may reintroduce the issue of the dependence on Russia, as Moscow aims to capture 20% of the global hydrogen share by 2030. Another potential supplier, Australia, could come to the rescue, but the road is neither easy nor quick.
This inevitably brings us back to renewable energies, which are quickly becoming the preferred option in some countries. This is the case, for example, in Germany, where the Greens are part of the ruling coalition and where the Minister for the Economy, Robert Habeck, is also a member.
Habeck has long maintained that expanding renewables is the only way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and, by extension, Putin's Russia.
In fact, Germany is hastening the development of solar energy, as well as onshore and offshore wind projects. Demonstrating that it sees renewables as the key to addressing the most pressing and important issues of the present and near future.
If you are interested in sustainability issues, Join our platform!
Published on 21-06-2022
