Connect with us


The West’s Green Energy Delusions Empowered Putin


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.


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

armed forces

Things worth fighting for: Paul Wells

Published on

US ambassador David Cohen, Israeli ambassador Iddo Moed, Bill Blair, Cindy McCain, Peter MacKay. Photo: PW

Click here to subscribe to The Paul Wells Newsletter.

Of course people disagree. That’s what we’re trying to protect

“You really like going to those things,” an acquaintance remarked at Pearson Airport when I told him I was heading to the Halifax International Security Forum. Fair enough, I guess. I was just in Warsaw for their annual gathering of generals, defence ministers, think tankers and diplomats. I was in Halifax a year ago, and occasionally in previous years. I’ve been to security conferences in Herzliyah and Munich, long ago. The world is always on the brink of war, and lately has taken to spilling over several brinks at once. So there is always much to discuss.

Unfortunately much of what there is to discuss is horrible. On Saturday a panel moderator slumped into a plush chair, in front of the assembled cabinet ministers, diplomats, generals and think tankers, and introduced himself as Jason Rezaian from the Washington Post. He looked like any newspaperman from Central Casting, which means, approximately, like me. He reminded the audience that in 2014 he was taken prisoner by the Iranian regime and held in a Tehran penitentiary for over 500 days.

On Saturday at dinner I was reminded that Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen, has been in a Chinese prison for 17 years. Vladimir Kara-Murza, who spoke at Halifax in 2021, has been in a Russian prison for close to two years.

Prison is not even close to the worst fate that can befall a journalist, a dissident or a population. Halifax this year was preoccupied with continuing slaughter: in Ukraine, where the optimism of last year’s conference has been displaced by mounting concern; and in Israel and Gaza.

This newsletter is my full-time job. To support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I’d been at the conference venue, a Westin hotel at the end of Hollis St., for perhaps ten minutes when a visiting soldier who knows Ukraine well told me that pushing the Russians all the way out of Ukraine — that is, out of Crimea and the eastern Donbas region — would take twice as many weapons and equipment as the West has sent Ukraine to date. This was the soldier’s way of engaging a debate opened by former NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who’s suggested bringing Ukraine into NATO without the regions currently occupied by Russia. This sounds easier, but as former Estonian president Toomas Ilves told me in an interview that will soon be on my podcast, a Russian Crimea and Donbas would essentially be permanent bases from which to harass the rump Ukraine.

So much for the heady optimism of a year ago, when fighting the Russians to a standstill still felt like some kind of triumph. Joe Biden’s promise to back Ukraine “for as long as it takes” is starting to sound ominously like a promise to keep up the West’s end of a stalemate. Several commentators at Halifax said that if all the weapons that were sent to Ukraine in 2023 had arrived in 2022, 2023 might have gone better. As for 2024, if it features mounting Ukraine fatigue in Western populations and ends with Donald Trump’s re-election, this year might look rosy in retrospect.

Of course the big complicating factor in any discussion of today’s world is Israel’s response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack. The conference agenda had plainly undergone substantial surgery to accommodate a discussion of the Gaza violence and its repercussions. A crowd of local pro-Palestinian protesters appeared at intervals across the street from the conference hotel, although they were loudest on Friday night when just about everybody attending the conference was at a dinner several blocks away.

My own sense is that the establishment and perpetual defence of a Jewish state of Israel is very partial payment toward the heavy debt humanity owes the Jewish people. I note that there was a robust and enduring ceasefire in Gaza as late as October 6, and that Hamas brought that ceasefire to a monstrous end. Hamas having opened hostilities, it falls to Israel to end them, by destroying Hamas’s ability to contemplate or deliver any similar attack in the future. Carrying out that task is inevitably an enterprise of horrifying violence.

Too much, say the protesters. “You support GENOCIDE,” they shouted outside the Westin Nova Scotian. I guess that’s going to depend on definitions. I had dinner on Saturday with Dolkun Isa, the president of the World Uyghur Congress, and I got the distinct impression he’s against genocide. Yet I have a hard time dismissing those protesters outright just because they weigh horrors differently from me. I have friends who seem to have spent the last six week gleefully looking for reasons to write off people who disagree with them. I’ve often thought moral clarity was overrated. Shouldn’t these questions be morally tormenting? And in a world where such lesser matters as vaccine mandates and carbon taxes become the stuff of furiously polarized elections, should we really be so surprised that life and death on a vast scale produces divisions too?


I was nervous when I heard, late on Friday, that the Halifax Forum organizers were going to give their highest honour, a prize in the name of the late U.S. Senator John McCain, to “the people of Israel.” That sure wouldn’t go over well with the protesters outside the Westin. As it happened, by Saturday morning it was raining and the protesters were nowhere to be seen. More to the point, the prize went, not just to any people of Israel, but to Brothers and Sisters In Arms, an organization that spent much of 2023 protesting against Benjamin Netanyahu’s autocratic judicial “reforms,” but pivoted to assisting recovery efforts after the Oct. 7 attack. A neat way of emphasizing that Israel is a stubbornly pluralistic democracy, and that the Israeli state is not always the best steward of the Israeli people’s interest.

The conference, and the individual participants even more so, found other ways to express a diversity of opinion that might have surprised outsiders. (It’s easy enough to see for yourself: streaming archives of most of the sessions are on Youtube.) A panel with the title “Victory in Ukraine = Example For Israel” featured panelists politely disagreeing with the premise of the title. For starters, Ukraine had no settlements on occupied Russian territory, as one questioner in the audience pointed out.

Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, was one of several people at the forum who argued that the Israeli government’s heavy and deadly bombardment of Gaza is counterproductive at best. “Such a campaign, where there are thousands and thousands more children being killed than Hamas fighters, is not something that makes, frankly, Israel or the West safer,” he said.

This sentiment — that even when brutally wronged, Israel is not automatically right — was reinforced Saturday afternoon by the publication in the Washington Post of a long essay on Israel-Gaza by Joe Biden. Biden moved early to support Israel and ward off Iranian escalation, moving two aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean and himself to Israel. Now he was signaling — hell, saying in so many words — that his support had limits:

“There must be no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade, and no reduction in territory. And after this war is over, the voices of Palestinian people and their aspirations must be at the center of post-crisis governance in Gaza.

As we strive for peace, Gaza and the West Bank should be reunited under a single governance structure, ultimately under a revitalized Palestinian Authority, as we all work toward a two-state solution. I have been emphatic with Israel’s leaders that extremist violence against Palestinians in the West Bank must stop and that those committing the violence must be held accountable. The United States is prepared to take our own steps, including issuing visa bans against extremists attacking civilians in the West Bank.”

If Ukraine and Israel were the conference’s main themes, another repeated refrain was that bad things often come in threes, and war in Europe and the Middle East could become even grimmer if they were joined by conflict in the Asia-Pacific. Several speakers referred to China as the West’s “pacing threat,” which essentially means only China has the means and desire to compete with the West in shaping the world.

It was in this context — of a world growing constantly more dangerous in constantly more complex ways — that so many hallway conversations in Halifax featured variations of the observation that Canada is increasingly close to being a failed state. It sure would be great if Canada could contribute reliably to dissuading Chinese ambitions in the Asia-Pacific, but that would require a working navy, and Wayne Eyre told the conference we’re fresh out. Bill Blair, Justin Trudeau’s latest defence minister, met the large U.S. congressional delegation that always flies up to Halifax from Washington, and I’m told most of the questions had to do with his department’s annual Performance Report, which says that over the past year, “the growing demands for CAF responses challenged the already unstable foundation of operational readiness given personnel shortfalls, equipment deficiencies, and insufficient sustainment including critical stores of ammunition.”

Blair said at the conference that Canada needs to make “significant new investments” in defence; he was also heard to say, in private meetings, that in delivering this message within the government he faces “headwinds from the centre.” The headwinds will be portrayed on Tuesday, in a closely-watched speech, by Chrystia Freeland, who was said to be so displeased with Anita Anand’s constant push for more defence spending that soon both Anand and Blair had new jobs. Nearly every ambassador in Ottawa begins nearly every conversation by asking whether the Trudeau government or any potential successor will take the burdens of a troubled world more seriously anytime soon. Of course, Canada being a sovereign country, these decisions are not made by ambassadors. But they get to ask, and notice.

I suspect Freeland’s delivery of her economic and fiscal update will be one of the most important political moments of the last five years. Nobody really has any idea what the minister’s statement will say. She is the champion of activist government on odd-numbered days and of mighty fiscal restraint on even. She will be sure of some new direction on Tuesday, and I suppose it’s a toss-up whether she will even remember by Friday what that direction was supposed to be. The good news, as we were reminded in Halifax, is that Canada is close to being the least of the world’s problems. The bad news is that it also seems determined to become the least of the world’s remedies.

Paul Wells has written for the Toronto Star, the National Post, and the Montreal Gazette. Perhaps most Canadians know him best for the 19 years he spend writing long form journalism with Maclean’s magazine and for his regular appearances on CBC’s The National.

Continue Reading


Trudeau should know that Hamas is to blame

Published on

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Johanna Blom

Israelis know the ‘world is watching’ and they too want Palestinian children to live in peace

On Thursday, November 9, an aging Right Honourable Brian Mulroney stood before the World Jewish Congress in New York to accept the organization’s highest honour, the Theodor Herzl Award, in recognition of his efforts to combat antisemitism and his unwavering support for Israel and the Jewish people. A shadow of his former prime ministerial self, he spoke with humility and wisdom but also the conviction of experience when he said, “The prime minister sets both the agenda and the tone in Ottawa.”

Five days later his current successor stood behind a microphone in Vancouver and, scarcely capable of concealing his contempt, lectured the Israeli government on its conduct in the current war in Gaza. Which of course is the same war in Gaza that has simmered on and off for the last sixteen (or really thirty-five) years whenever Hamas decided they were strong enough to violate the latest ceasefire and continue their relentless effort to push the Jews into the sea.

“Even wars have rules,” the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau patronized, emphasizing every word. “I urge the government of Israel to exercise maximum restraint. Because the world is watching… The world is witnessing this. Killing of women, children, of babies. This has to stop.”

Two years ago, I came to Israel to fulfill a childhood dream. I had always wanted to study here – in the land where the desert blooms and King David and Jesus walked and every event ends with singing Hevenu shalom aleichem (“We bring peace to you”). Yet the time never seemed quite right, I didn’t have a good study-plan, and I didn’t have Hebrew. So instead of studying in Israel I obtained a law degree and wound up advocating for the rights of religious minorities around the world, doing a stint in counter-terrorism and human rights after 9/11, visiting Israel several times and never fully losing sight of my dream to study there. Then Covid happened. I realized it was now or never and so I enrolled in an M.A. in counter-terrorism, focusing on human rights, in Israel.

My first visit to Israel had been at the height of the Second Intifadah in 2002 and I didn’t realize how significantly that experience coloured my perspective until I was acquainted with the statistics in my classes. Over the years I was baffled by complaints about how difficult life was in Israel. After all, my introduction to Israel had been two-and-a-half weeks of dodging bus-bombs and the relative calm since then seemed downright peaceful. Now I know that the number of “successful” suicide bombings the month I had been here was more than double the next highest month at any point before or after.

As Prime Minister Mulroney said on accepting his award, “The most sacred duty of any government is to provide for the security of its citizens.” Israel did that in the spring of 2002 and what I had failed to realize was that the attacks slowed by more than half the week after I left. That did not mean the terrorists had stopped trying. It just meant Israel had become more successful at foiling their attempts.

On October 7, I was outside of Israel visiting an ill family member. Observing the signs, I had been expecting something to happen and when it did I knew I needed to return as planned. On arrival, I found a country and a people shell-shocked but filled with resolve. I also saw a unity of purpose that would have seemed impossible when I left the country amid protests over the government’s judicial reform policy only four weeks earlier.

Over the years I’ve learned that not every event in Israel ends with Hevenu shalom aleichem, but the sentiment is still there. I’ve learned it’s not all desert flowers and that most people here don’t really care so much about King David or Jesus. Is Israel perfect? No. Is there discrimination, even racism, and other problems? Yes. Is it an apartheid state? No. Does it, as Trudeau’s comments seem to imply, intentionally target Palestinian ‘women, children, and babies’? Most certainly not.

That is why Prime Minister Trudeau’s words are so dangerous. Israel wants nothing more than to live in peace. Israelis, whether Jewish or Arab, Muslim or Christian, also want Palestinian children to live in peace and thrive.

Canada needs to understand that Israel is incredibly conscious of abiding by international law. It knows that ‘the world is watching’. In fact, it counts in days, if not hours, the window it has in which to operate before the world’s confused moral outrage once again forces it to leave the job undone, frozen until the next time Israelis lose their lives. It follows international law because it cares about innocent Palestinians, apparently more than their own leaders do.

As human rights lawyers Sarah Teich and David Matas wrote recently, “There are two groups that Hamas has victimized: Jews and Palestinians.” If we as Canadians care about Palestinians, then we must allow Israel to do what it needs to do to finally root out Hamas. Yes, innocent Palestinian lives will be lost, but more will be lost if Israel is forced to stop before completing the job. Because it is not Israel who is responsible but Hamas. It is Hamas who puts Palestinians in harm’s way and prevents them from leaving.

Hamas is to blame. We must state this clearly and unflinchingly. As long as the Prime Minister makes misleading comments that make it seem like Israel is intentionally killing innocent civilians, rather than doing everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties, Canadians will continue to misunderstand the fundamental nature of this conflict. For as long as the West misunderstands this conflict, it will encourage Hamas to put Palestinian lives at risk and embolden antisemitic attacks at home in Canada.

Johanna Blom is a Toronto-based lawyer and human rights advocate. She has recently obtained an M.A. (summa cum laude) in Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security from Reichman University in Israel where she is pursuing research on the intersection of counter-terrorism and human rights.

Continue Reading