The man-made Ukraine crisis is a serious drag on climate actions
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has derailed the energy transition process. As the next conference COP27 approaches, political leaders must find ways to showcase real progress
Last November, the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) concluded with a lot of promises. While all parties to the COP could not agree on coal phase-out, they vowed the phase-down of coal in the energy systems of the respective countries.
Parties came to a consensus on removing fossil fuel subsidies to create a level playing field for renewable energies. The renewed targets in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of the countries – although not compatible with the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would help achieve the 1.5° C temperature goal – are supposed to catalyse momentum for further ratcheting up of climate ambitions in the foreseeable future.
Last but not the least, developed countries again showed commitment to fulfilling the annual target of the $100 billion climate finance to support the poor and developing countries to stimulate climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Be that as it may, the euphoria surrounding the progress made at COP26 did not last long. As Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, causing further disruptions after the two-and-a-half-year-long Covid-19 pandemic, the outcomes of the COP26 turned out to remain on paper, at least to some extent.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Many countries were caught off-guard after the Ukraine invasion, as unexpected skyrocketing energy and commodity prices started to have knock-on effects on their economies.
These appear to overshadow the global energy order, which saw significant transformation over the last two decades. Affordability of energy and other commodities has become a priority in developed economies and not to speak of the need of the people of low-income strata in the developing and poor parts of the world.
Well, high prices of fossil fuels make clean energy transition favourable, but the transition process is time-consuming, as the experience of the last two decades suggests. Therefore, energy security concerns have transmitted shockwaves worldwide, influencing some countries to sign long-term LNG contracts which locked them in fossil fuels for years to come.
On the other hand, before and after the COP26 last year, the retiring of many operational coal-based power plants and reducing investment in new coal power plants were assumed to be the new normal. But, amid the global energy crisis, some countries have boosted coal production to cool down the heated gas markets. The rush among the countries to secure fossil fuels for the future is evident.
We experienced global emergencies in the past with cascading effects on climate actions. The 2008 financial crisis, for instance, threatened international efforts to slow down or fix climate change and resulted in a forgettable COP15 in 2009.
Nevertheless, countries agreed on the Paris Climate Deal during the COP21 held in 2015, keeping the hope alive for arresting irreversible damages to the planet by containing mean temperature rise between 1.5° C and 2° C.
The crisis led by the Covid-19 pandemic has provided opportunities for building back better and cleaner. Different countries have allocated funds for green recovery. However, beneath the discussions to address the greatest challenge of humanity "climate change", real efforts to cool the planet have not been entirely praiseworthy. Different analyses substantiate that some countries have considered financing fossil fuels and subsidising them in their recovery plans.
Now, as things stand, the Ukraine crisis may derail the energy transition process. While countries like Germany may have already charted pathways for less dependence on Russian oil and gas in the short run and for divorcing fossil fuels from Russia in the long run, this cannot be a case for all other countries relying on Russia.
For all practical purposes, it may not necessarily be the interest but the successive challenges resulting from the Covid-19 and Ukraine crisis appear to be unmanageable for the political leaders. This may, further, delay ensuring the flow of promised $100 billion in climate finance per annum to the poor countries.
There are, however, hopes as businesses now understand the risks of climate change and they are increasingly converging towards climate-friendly projects and operations. The young generation is fighting for their future.
More people, irrespective of their age groups, are supporting climate actions. The flip side is whatever we do, we need to do them fast. If scientific assessments are to be taken into account, we need to halve global GHG emissions by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Currently, global carbon emissions are recorded to be at an all-time high. Extreme and early heat waves along with different disasters are the new normal. Therefore, the global energy order needs a massive transformation that seems to take more time than perceived even a year ago.
When the tasks are already daunting to address climate change under normal circumstances, and challenges are only compounding due to the lack of actual attempts compared to the pledges, the man-made "Ukraine crisis" is simply a disaster, intensifying carbon emissions.
It is a serious drag on climate actions, delaying present and future efforts. The world cannot afford a disaster, like the Ukraine crisis, that not only ravages a country but also destabilises the global energy order. After putting so much effort into making progress on the unresolved issues of several years in COP26, it is inefficient only to see no or little headway afterwards.
As the next conference COP27 is about five months away now, political leaders must find ways to showcase real progress, both on measures taken to mitigate GHG emissions, adapt to the increasingly tricky climatic conditions and disburse the agreed $100 billion climate finance to the developing countries per annum. But will the Ukraine crisis allow that?
Shafiqul Alam is an environmental economist; He is a Clean Energy Fellow of the National Bureau of Asian Research, USA.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
