Connect with us

conflict

The West’s Green Energy Delusions Empowered Putin

Published

15 minute read

This article submitted by Michael Shellenberger

While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production.

How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?

There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.

Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe.

Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.

The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.

That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal.

The math is simple. A child could do it.

The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas.

The question is why.

How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War?

Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need“degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)

John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”

But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.

As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.

While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy.

While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking.

The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent.

For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”

The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.

Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons.

In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine.

Share

Take Germany.

Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.

At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)

By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to nextdoor France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)

Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere, and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.

The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s, and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.

Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighboring countries or inviting the wrath of Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.

Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany, and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.

This is why Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration’’s first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, for now.)

Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specificallyexempted energy products so Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.

We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.

The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs…

Subscribe to Michael Shellenberger to read the rest.

Become a paying subscriber of Michael Shellenberger to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Conservatives warn Canada is fuelling Putin’s war machine by returning turbines

Published on

OTTAWA — Conservative MPs have accused the Liberal government of fuelling Vladimir Putin’s war machine by agreeing to allow pipeline equipment in Montreal for repairs to be returned to a Russian energy giant.

Tories claimed the government’s decision to return the turbine means more funds will be pumped into Gazprom, which is controlled by the Russian state, and in turn will allow the country’s president to buy more arms to attack Ukraine.

The accusations were made during heated exchanges on Thursday at a meeting of a parliamentary committee where Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson gave evidence about Canada’s decision to return the equipment.

Last month, the Liberal government drew criticism for granting Siemens Energy an exemption on sanctions against Russia and allowing the turbine to return to Germany and then eventually to Russia for installation in the pipeline.

Siemens Energy was granted a permit to import, repair and return up to six turbines for Gazprom. Kyiv has accused Canada of setting a dangerous precedent, arguing the exemptions undermine the sanctions.

Conservative MP James Bezan told the committee that Canada had been “outmanoeuvred by the Russian Federation.”

He said it seemed that Putin was playing chess while Canada was playing checkers, and accused the Liberal government of “enabling” Gazprom, which would give Russia more funds to buy weapons to kill Ukrainians.

“It’s embarrassing that the government of Canada capitulated,” he said.

Alexandra Chyczij, executive director of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, told the committee that the decision to return the turbines was “the thin edge of the wedge” and the first waiver of sanctions since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February.

She warned that “appeasement of dictators” never works and just “emboldens them.”

But Joly denied that Canada was capitulating and insisted it was rather calling Putin’s bluff. She said returning the turbine denied Putin a pretext for reducing the flow of natural gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline that runs to Germany from Russia.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson echoed this sentiment and said revealing Putin’s dishonesty had always been a reason for the decision.

But Tory MP Marty Morantz noted that the government didn’t use this language when the decision was first made. He questioned when it decided the rationale was about calling Putin’s bluff, rather than about securing gas supplies to Europe.

The Conservatives also questioned whether the alternative of funnelling gas through pipelines through Ukraine had been actively explored by the government.

Wilkinson said the option had been looked at in detail but was not seen as viable, not least because the Ukraine pipelines were through a war zone. He added that Canada was working closely with European nations to help wean them off their reliance on Russian energy to heat their homes, including by planning to supply natural gas from Canada.

Both Wilkinson and Joly said the decision was taken after wide consultations, including with Ukraine, and was a difficult one.

Wilkinson said the intention of sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is to punish Putin and not to punish Canada’s allies in Europe.

Joly said the government was firmly committed to continuing sanctions to squeeze Putin and was planning new rounds every two weeks.

Russia has proven to the world that it cannot be a reliable economic partner, she said.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Canada, Yulia Kovaliv, was expected to make clear her country’s disappointment with the decision in an appearance before the committee later Thursday.

On Wednesday, Joly and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock insisted at a joint appearance in Montreal that it was necessary to return the turbine.

Since the equipment arrived in Germany, Russia has reduced the pipeline’s flow to 20 per cent of capacity, which the ministers said shows Putin is using energy as a weapon of war.

The turbine remains in Germany, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov arguing that Gazprom needs documents from Siemens Energy proving that the equipment isn’t subject to western sanctions before it can be returned to Russia.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 4, 2022.

Marie Woolf, The Canadian Press

Continue Reading

conflict

Ukraine’s ambassador to tell MPs Canada must reverse Russian turbine decision

Published on

OTTAWA — Ukraine’s ambassador to Canada will today make clear her country’s disappointment over Canada’s decision to allow pipeline equipment that was in Montreal for repairs to be returned to a state-controlled energy giant in Russia despite war-related sanctions.

Yulia Kovaliv is to appear before a committee of MPs looking into Ottawa’s decision to allow a turbine to be released to Gazprom, which Canada has sanctioned over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for use in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline supplying Germany with natural gas.

Last month, the Liberal government drew criticism for granting Siemens Energy an exemption on sanctions against Russia and allowing the turbine to return to Germany and then eventually to Russia for installation in the pipeline.

Siemens Energy was granted a permit to import, repair and return up to six turbines for Gazprom and the Ukrainian Embassy says Kovaliv will renew calls for Ottawa to revoke the decision.

Kyiv has accused Canada of setting a dangerous precedent, arguing the exemptions undermine sanctions put on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson are also to appear before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee today, and Liberal chair Ali Ehsassi says it is important for Canadians to hear how the decision was made.

\On Wednesday, Joly and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock both insisted the return of the turbines used in the Russian pipeline was necessary.

But they also said the fact that the turbine remains in Germany after Canada allowed its release — and that Russia has since reduced natural gas supplies to Germany to 20 per cent — reveals the level of dishonesty from President Vladimir Putin.

Russia had cited the delayed return of the equipment as a reason for reducing the flow of natural gas through the pipeline that runs to Germany from Russia.

“We called his bluff,” Joly said in Montreal on Wednesday in a joint news conference with Baerbock. “It is now clear that Putin is weaponizing energy flows to Europe.”

Ehsassi said Thursday’s meeting of the foreign affairs committee would help establish “the diplomatic representations that were made” around the decision.

Germany’s ambassador to Canada, Sabine Sparwasser, is also expected to appear before the committee, alongside the European Union’s ambassador to Canada, Melita Gabrič.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 4, 2022.

Marie Woolf, The Canadian Press

Continue Reading

Trending

X