The 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), held in Glasgow, UK, last November, saw a glimmer of hope. Two weeks of deliberation culminated in the signing of the Glasgow Climate Pact, an agreement between nations. If global warming is to be controlled to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the agreement stipulates that carbon dioxide emissions must drop by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010.
As is the norm in global climate policy, the European Union member countries were at the forefront of the fight, promising to reduce emissions by at least 55% below 1990 levels within the next eight years, as was the case historically. This is an increase of the previous pledge of 40%. The United Kingdom and EU member countries have set some of the most ambitious climate goals in the world since the 1990s. While the United States and LMICs have been working together, European scientists, policy-makers, and campaign groups played a crucial diplomatic role in trying to achieve consensus on an issue that is extremely polarized. The threat to Europe’s energy security posed by Russia’s invasion in Ukraine could endanger decades of hard work.
Global supplies of fossil fuels are being squeezed by sanctions on Russia, which is one reason why energy prices have soared around the globe. These sanctions have meant that Europe, once an important importer of Russian oil and gas, now pulls every fossil-fuel lever in order to keep the lights on. Europe’s governments don’t want to be restricted in any way, whether it’s reopening coal-fired power stations or increasing oil imports.
Europe must realize that such a strategy is a risk to the planet and more importantly, the trust in the COP process. LMICs argue that LMICs should be allowed to increase their emissions to ensure that all citizens have access to basic amenities, just like households in high-income nations. This has been true for decades. This is particularly true in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where many of the poorest households don’t have access to electricity, water, or gas networks. Many European policymakers, researchers, and campaign groups urge LMICs to focus on renewable energy and not build energy systems around fossil fuels. They also advise them to avoid mining for coal.
They give their own examples. The EU has more than doubled its renewable-energy consumption, from 9.6% in 2004 to 22.1% by 2020, without affecting economic growth. The share of coal-fired electricity has dropped by nearly one-third since 2012. Ten countries, including Sweden, Portugal, and Austria, had gone completely coal-free by 2021. Six other countries, including France, Italy and Spain, pledged to be coal-free within the next three year. Yet, Europe’s leadership, with a few exceptions like the European Parliament, has largely remained silent about its climate ambitions since February’s invasion in Ukraine.
Europe must accept the fact that it is not the only one experiencing precarious energy security and that it now finds herself in the same situation as other countries. As it advises others, Europe’s leadership should prioritize renewable and low-carbon energy over automatically trying to fill the energy gap using fossil fuels. It will be difficult to justify LMICs rapidly decarbonizing if it fails to do this.
The trust between nations is again deteriorating. LMICs saw a positive outcome from the Glasgow talks. They were promised to discuss “loss and damage”, a type of finance in which countries that have historically high emissions would pay for the negative effects. Last month, however, talks in Bonn (Germany) ended in an effective deadlock.
There are just four months before the UN climate conference (COP27) takes place in Egypt. Europe needs a continental plan to increase low-carbon energy after Russia’s attack against Ukraine. If it doesn’t change its energy stance within the next months, any future calls on LMICs for faster reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions or the phase out of coal will be hollow and the world will suffer.
