- Angel Bermudez (@angelbermudez)
- BBC News World
5 hours before
Credit, Getty Images
caption,
LNG can be transported by ship and is one of the alternatives used by European countries to replace Russian gas
Some of the commitments made by nearly two hundred leaders during the last climate summit COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland in November 2021 are at risk amid the war in Ukraine.
These include updating targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2022 and phasing out subsidies that artificially lower the cost of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
A report released last week on the impact of the conflict caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian territory in the fight against climate change points to the existence of a kind of global “gold rush” for building infrastructure to produce, transport and process fossil fuels Fuels, in particular liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The document was produced by Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent project that monitors government action to combat climate change and links it to the Paris Agreement’s goal of “keeping warming well below 2°C and increasing efforts undertake to limit warming to 1.5°C”.
For example, the report highlights plans to build new LNG plants in Germany, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, while countries like the United States, Canada, Qatar, Egypt and Algeria plan to increase their exports of the fuel.
In parallel, many countries that produce fossil fuels have increased their production, and governments in more than a dozen developed countries are reducing taxes on fuel or energy use, encouraging consumption.
The idea of increasing fossil fuel consumption to respond to the current energy crisis was questioned on Tuesday (14/6) by UN SecretaryGeneral António Guterres, who argued that investments in coal, oil or gas face the consequences of the wars in Ukraine are “illusory”.
BBC News Mundo (the BBC’s Spanishlanguage service) spoke to Niklas Höhne, an expert at the NewClimate Institute, a Berlinbased nonprofit organization that is part of the consortium developing the CAT, about the results of the study and today’s needs in the context of climate change combating climate change.
Credit, Getty Images
caption,
Germany, Italy and Greece are some of the countries planning new plants to produce LNG
BBC News Mundo The Climate Action Tracker has produced a study on the global response to the war in Ukraine from a climate change mitigation perspective. What are the conclusions?
Niklas Höhne Right now there are governments trying to do things differently because of the energy crisis. They have to respond to the current situation where they can no longer import fossil fuels from Russia.
And they can do two things: try to get fuel from elsewhere, or work to increase efficiency and make better use of renewable energy.
Unfortunately, we find that most countries are experiencing a kind of “gold rush” in their quest for new fossil fuelcentric infrastructure, new LNG (LNG) pipelines, new LNG ports, and new oil and gas fields.
This is very counterproductive to climate change policy because once this infrastructure is built, it will be used for several decades, locking us into a highcarbon future.
BBC News Mundo Why should the new infrastructure be used for several decades?
Höhne The thing about new infrastructure is that it’s expensive to build, say, a pipeline, and that means once it’s built, investors want to use it for decades.
The problem is that we want to reduce global gas consumption to zero by midcentury and if we build new infrastructure now, that reduction will be very difficult. These investments will link us to high greenhouse gas emissions or end up as idle assets.
Credit, Getty Images
caption,
In order to import LNG, countries need purposebuilt port terminals.
BBC News Mundo You are concerned about the construction of this new infrastructure. But what other ways are governments working against climate targets in the current crisis?
Höhne The main problem is infrastructure, but there’s another problem nearly every government we’ve reviewed has lured consumers with tax cuts on fossil fuels. That’s not a good idea.
I understand that governments want to help consumers and industry, but they should only give support to those who really need it, more to the poor or to the industry that is really at risk.
But what they are doing is lowering taxes on fossil fuels [de maneira ampla], lowering costs for all citizens and oil companies, even those who can afford it and move away from fossil fuels. That’s not a good idea either.
BBC News Mundo But in the current context, with inflation and energy prices so high, what are the alternatives for governments? Many people today find it difficult to fill up the tank to go to work. Is there a workable solution?
Höhne Yes, when it comes to compensating for rising energy prices, you should compensate the poorest families, not the richest.
Some suggested a compensation policy based on a per capita basis, so that everyone received the same amount. Others say it’s better to go through the tax system so the poor can get an extra tax break or extra money in their pockets, which is definitely possible and a better option.
However, the real longterm solution is to save energy and use more renewable energy. Saving energy is always a viable option.
For example, drive more slowly, turn down the heating a bit in winter, limit car traffic into the cities so that people can use public transport. Increasingly subsidize public transport so that people use public transport instead of cars there are many ways for governments to help their citizens and businesses in this crisis.
Credit, Getty Images
caption,
Spain is one of the countries that have reduced fuel taxes
BBC News World In the report you point out that most western countries have tried to reduce or stop buying fossil fuels from Russia, and many have announced ambitious targets for the transition to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Isn’t that good for the fight against climate change?
Höhne Yes, there are things that some countries do well. Some have increased their renewable energy targets and some have also introduced public transport subsidies.
Okay, but we are so far behind on climate policy and need to cut emissions so drastically that we don’t have time to make mistakes.
The International Energy Agency says we should stop investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure from now on. And if we now see a “gold rush” in fossil fuel infrastructure investments, that would be a serious problem in that regard.
Right now we need to put the same money, effort, and time into driving energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure.
BBC News Mundo But is it really possible to use renewable energy sources in the short term to solve the current crisis?
Höhne Well, expanding renewable energy isn’t fast, but neither is building a new gas pipeline or building a new LNG terminal. Basically it’s the same problem.
The fastest way is to reduce energy consumption drive more slowly or turn down the heating. That would happen very quickly, but unfortunately many governments do not use this opportunity.
Credit, Getty Images
caption,
Also in response to the crisis, some countries started to invest more in renewable energy
BBC News World The CAT report makes no mention of China, the world’s largest energy consumer. What do you think of Beijing’s response to this crisis?
Höhne I think China is a little less affected by the crisis. The country has some energy trade with Russia but is not as dependent as Europe.
China is also considering raising its renewable energy targets. That would be good. But at the same time it is considering buying cheaper oil and gas from Russia. Under market conditions this could be the case, but for other reasons this would not bode well.
From a climate point of view, China is very important. It is responsible for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and what happens there is very important to global emissions and the planet’s climate.
BBC News Mundo What about Latin America? Latin American countries are not mentioned in the report.
Höhne Not. Currently, LNG and gas exports are more concentrated in North America, Africa and Asia.
But there’s another positive thing we’ve seen: some governments are making deals to supply or buy green hydrogen. I think it’s a new chance. We thought that would happen in about five years, but it’s happening now. So there is acceleration, which is good.
Latin America has a lot of potential for renewable energy. I could think about exporting green hydrogen from renewable energy and selling it to Europe or other regions and I think that would be a good business opportunity.
BBC News Mundo Do you have any other recommendations or alternative solutions to this crisis?
Höhne There is one more thing. Many fossil fuel companies are making record profits because energy prices are high while production costs remain the same.
Some governments have started taxing these extra profits and reinvesting the proceeds in renewable energy. However, few have done so and this could be another measure currently being taken by governments.
Have you already watched our new videos? youtube? Subscribe to our channel!