We have become more accustomed to the alarm signals drawn by scientists about the thresholds that man continues to overstep in this process of violating nature. But the fact that we’ve now completely ignored such a warning is a first. It happened on February 28, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, the world's most knowledgeable body in in this field) published a new and consistent report of over 3,600 pages. It was barely mentioned by the international press - not to mention the Romanian one, which constantly ignores the subject, I would say programmatically. And the explanation is simple: Russia had launched the invasion of Ukraine four days earlier. Who cares what climatologists say when President Putin talks about nuclear alert?!
“An atlas of human suffering”: humanity can no longer avoid the effects of climate change
Remarkable in this latest report is the climatologists’ new approach. Regardless of geopolitical developments - after all, the bulk of the report was ready when the war broke out - they introduced the concept of a new kind of reaction to climate change. The main emphasis had been on strategies to slow down pollution. However, this year's IPCC report introduces a unique element, namely climate change adaptation policies. Resignation? Realism? Just an innovative idea? I don't know what was behind this concept, which seems like entailing a lot of time. What is clear, however, is that scientists are signaling a “readiness for impact” as pilots do with passengers on a plane that is to undergo forced landing. We are no longer trying to avoid forced landing, we are preparing to survive it.
Here, the data of the report - called by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, “an atlas of human suffering” - are telling in themselves. Extreme heat temperatures have risen even further, both on land and in water. Let's just remember last year's records in Canada (49,6°C) and Iraq, where at 50 ° C people took to the streets because the government cut off the power supply to air conditioners. The number of torrential rains globally has increased; as well as droughts. Areas vulnerable to vegetation fires have multiplied. Over the past decade, drought and storm-induced mortality rates have increased fifteenfold in regions considered vulnerable as to the least vulnerable. Five hundred million people, the report says, live in areas where humidity has risen significantly since the 20th century. The phenomenon is important because it is a combination of humidity and heat that make it impossible to survive outdoors; at 100% humidity, the human body cannot withstand temperatures above 35 ° C because it can no longer cool down through perspiration.
And here comes the phenomenon of adaptability that I was talking about. The report says that where authorities have prepared for the impact, people have suffered less. One such example is the city of Ahmedabad in the Indian state of Gujarat. New construction rules have been introduced here so that buildings can no longer retain heat. Also - a premiere for Southeast Asia - a heatwave warning system was adopted, which last summer saved many lives. Another example of the “adaptive” attitude mentioned in the report is Kenya, where the use of sand dams has made it possible to supplement the river's water supply by almost 40%, thus helping the population to overcome the drought.
But scientists are also warning that adaptation has its limits. Efforts to achieve it have been growing. If two decades ago the sufficient conditions to achieve it were at a certain level, today they are even more difficult to achieve. The greater the climate change, the more intense our effort to adapt. And this warning from climatologists came when the war in Ukraine had not yet broken out. How much does this war complicate things in the field of climate change? - It is a difficult question not only for scientists but also for politicians.
“A fossil fuel war”; How oil and gas fund the war, while at the same time contributing to climate change
Because, at a closer look, we can see that Russia's war has close and multiple links to climate change. The Kremlin is financing this war from its gas and oil trade. That is why it is ”a fossil fuel war” said Svitlana Krakovska, a climate change researcher in the besieged capital of Ukraine, Kyiv. She leads the team of eleven Ukrainian scientists who contributed to the February 28 IPCC report; they finished the last pages of the chapter they authored in between the times they had to take refuge at the subway, for fear of Russian bombing. The irony of the scene is perfect: those who point out that the world is in danger because of the fossil fuel used by humans are being chased by bombs made with money obtained from the sale of this fuel.
The war in Ukraine is not just the “child of pollution”, as Krakovska would say. It is not only an effect of the way people live, but it can also be a cause for the decisions people will make with regard to climate change. For better or worse - the direction solely depends on them. And here's why.
The boycott of Russian oil and gas exports is part of the range of sanctions with which the West, proving a previously unsuspected unity, punished Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Americans may be more agile in this area, with Russian oil accounting for only three percent of their imports. Europeans may find it harder to break away, but their energy “independence” from Russia is not impossible to achieve either. The question is what kind of energy is to replace that coming from Russian oil and gas. Optimists say the opportunity to switch to green energy has now been created. If we give up the one resulting from the Russian fossil fuel, with all the pain that accompanies this separation, let’s at least make a change all the way through and invest heavily in solar and wind energy. This is the position taken by Ed Markey, an American Democrat involved in drafting and supporting the Green New Deal agenda in the United States. It's just that it’s a long way from saying to doing, at least for now.
Let's take the case of America. As President Biden was trying to convince Congress of the need for a boycott of oil against Moscow, his administration was releasing data on domestic oil extraction, “which exceeds the one from the time of the Trump administration”. The reason American oil wells are working harder than ever is because of the global oil crisis triggered by the war. God forbid that the effect be felt at gas stations, because, as we know, the price of gasoline in the US is a ruthless electoral barometer. And so, in fact, Americans are only exchanging one oil for another, which doesn't help Joe Biden's ambitious environmental platform with which he came to the White House. Moreover, a decision by the Supreme Court on the US Environmental Protection Agency is expected this spring, namely whether or not it should have levers to limit an industry that is becoming too polluting.
In Europe, things are even more complicated. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also promised to change the strategy for Germany to no longer depend on imports of energy. The solution he talked about was green energy and higher gas and coal storage capacities. But by 2020, more than half of the gas consumed in Germany was Russian. And at European level, between 2011 and 2020, 38% of the gas consumed was imported from Russia. How could this direction, consolidated in years, be reversed over nigh?
The European “trilemma”. The need for energy security from alternative and cheap sources
An answer could come from the European Commission, which is preparing an ambitious project in this area of “energy independence”. Much of it had already been worked out when the war broke out in Ukraine, so the European executive postponed its completion to consider the new situation. One that The Economist magazine called the “European trilemma”, from the three scales that Europe needs to balance in order to achieve its goals.
Specifically, Europe must now consider three directions: price, ecology and security. All of them are important and favoring one of them would mean downgrading the others, with major consequences. At the moment, energy security is at the forefront in the context of parting from Russia. By this logic, it means that there will be effects on the cost of energy and its quality from an ecological point of view. Some experts say that these effects of increasing energy security are temporary; that solar and wind energy can make up for the elimination of Russian imports in a few years, and at least the ecological aspect will be safeguarded. They cite the example of China, which plans to invest 370 gigawatts in green sources by 2025 - about the amount of energy Europeans get from Russian oil and gas imports. But Europe is not China, others point out, and party decisions cannot be implemented in democratic countries just because their leaders have decided so.
So what's the European Commission's margin? In the short term, it is expected to propose an increase in the quotas for mandatory gas reserves for Member States and a significant expansion of investment in green energy production. In the long term, the Commission intends to stimulate the development of hydrogen-based energy technologies, which have the quality of being environmentally friendly and relatively inexpensive. Another recommendation would be the proper capture and storage of carbon waste from the use of fossil fuels.
We will soon see the options chosen and, based on that, what place is reserved for ecology in the new equation which has also included a European war for almost a month now. Especially because of that, but also for other reasons, the current year is already ruined for environmental activists. The energy fight in Europe will be over the establishment of gas deposits for next winter, in the event that Russian imports will be eliminated. And in the United States, despite all the promises of environmental protection made by President Biden, oil lobbying is very strong: a staunch supporter of the environmental agenda, Sarah Bloom Raskin, has just withdrawn from the race for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board. Only in 2023 will it be possible to better assess the Euro-Atlantic commitment to reducing the causes of climate change - a commitment that is currently on standby.
