Three myths about the global energy crisis
Photo: Shutterstock

Three myths about the global energy crisis

This article was first published by the Financial Times.

As the global energy crisis continues to hurt households, businesses and entire economies worldwide, it’s important to separate fact from fiction. There are three narratives in particular that I hear about the current situation that I think are wrong — in some cases dangerously so.

The first is that Moscow is winning the energy battle. Russia is undoubtedly a huge energy supplier and the increases in oil and gas prices triggered by its invasion of Ukraine have resulted in an uptick in its energy income for now. But its short-term revenue gain is more than offset by the loss of both trust and markets that it faces for many years to come. Moscow is doing itself long-term harm by alienating the EU, its biggest customer by far and a strategic partner. Russia’s place in the international energy system is changing fundamentally, and not to its advantage.

This narrative also ignores the significant medium-term impacts of the tougher international sanctions on Russia’s oil and gas sector. This particularly concerns its ability to produce oil and transport gas.

A growing share of Russian oil production had been set to come from more complex oilfields, including offshore, Arctic or otherwise hard-to-recover resources. The absence of western companies, technologies and service providers as a result of sanctions presents substantial risks for the country’s capacity to exploit those resources.

Russia was banking on liquefied natural gas as the main way to diversify its exports away from a heavy reliance on Europe. Before its invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s stated aim was to export 120mn-140mn tonnes of LNG a year by 2035, at least quadruple its current level. This appears a distant prospect without international partners and technologies. A homegrown liquefaction technology has been beset by difficulties and delays. Russia’s LNG expansion plans are now back on the drawing board.

The second fallacy is that today’s global energy crisis is a clean energy crisis. This is an absurd claim. I talk to energy policymakers all the time and none of them complains of relying too much on clean energy. On the contrary, they wish they had more. They regret not moving faster to build solar and wind plants, to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles or to extend the lifetime of nuclear plants. More low-carbon energy would have helped ease the crisis — and a faster transition from fossil fuels towards clean energy represents the best way out of it.

When people misleadingly blame clean energy and climate policies for today’s energy crisis they are, intentionally or not, moving the spotlight away from the real culprits — the gas supply crunch and Russia.

The third mistaken idea is that today’s energy crisis is a huge setback that will hinder us from tackling climate change. I don’t see it that way. This crisis is a stark reminder of the unsustainability of the current energy system, which is dominated by fossil fuels. We have the chance to make this a historic turning point towards a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system. And this is already happening.

The EU is raising its renewables and energy efficiency targets and putting significant resources behind achieving them, with its REPowerEU plan. The US government just put into law the Inflation Reduction Act, giving a boost to a huge array of clean energy technologies, from solar, wind and electric vehicles to carbon capture and hydrogen. The act provides for $370bn in energy security and climate change investments, with the potential to mobilise far larger sums from the private sector.

The Japanese government is seeking to restart and build more nuclear plants and expand other vital low emissions technologies with its GX green transformation plan. China continues to break records in the amounts of renewables and electric vehicles it is adding each year. And India just took a key step towards establishing a carbon market and boosting the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances.

The world’s biggest economies are pushing hard on clean energy. And with all the readily available, highly competitive clean energy technologies there are good reasons for optimism that others will follow.

So don’t believe all the negative narratives about the energy crisis. Yes, there are some tough challenges ahead, especially this winter. But that doesn’t mean Russia is winning or that efforts to tackle climate change are doomed.

And after winter comes spring. The oil shocks of the 1970s resulted in major progress in energy efficiency, nuclear power, solar and wind. Today’s crisis can have a similar impact and help speed up the shift to a cleaner and more secure energy future.

Vytautas (Vytas) Butrimas

Industrial cybersecurity Consultant, Performed Cyber Risk Study of the ICS used in the NATO CEPS.

1y

This is a very good #iea article that debunks 3 myths and offers some optimism. However there is a possible 4th myth that is not mentioned here. Namely the assumption that #renewables will reduce #carbon accumulating in the atmosphere. Seldom mentioned in the sales brochures is a record of the amount of carbon that has already been released in the mining, smelting (need a lot of gigawatts), manufacturing and transportation of renewable systems based on solar and wind. The real question is about the possibility for people to change their lifestyles of consumption. Energy consumption is steadily increasing and we can be sure as the developing nations continue to industrialize that energy demands will further increase. A reality check is useful. Every second about 2.5 mln tons of carbon is released in the atmosphere per second. Even if we stop emitting right now 90% of that amount will still be present after 100 years. Sorry to be pessimistic. FYI here is an article about the hidden costs of making just one of the renewables https://enseccoe.org/data/public/uploads/2021/04/nato-ensec-coe-the-hidden-costs-of-solar-photovoltaic-power-thomas-a.troszak.pdf

Suzanne Maia

Independent Energy and Gender in Energy Consultant & President, Associates for International Development and Energy

1y

I agree with most everything here, though it may be a bit more optimistic than my view, except the idea that there are no other alternative (even potential) suppliers that wouldn't see a great opportunity to provide for or develop the needed LNG technologies/infrastructure with Russia (money talks).

Teresa Ponce de Leao

President at Laboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia

1y

Very good @Fatih Birol

... "it’s important to separate fact from fiction"...said Mr. Birol, but this article could be fiction...

This crisis has uncovered the new dimension of geopolitical risks. Energy security must be reconsidered based on the limits of globalization and the emergence of new regionalisms. Will climate change negotiations be able to continue at the next Conference of the Parties, or will it be necessary to resort to a (hopefully short) moratorium? IPCC scientists must now rethink and consider new scenarios. In any case, in the Post-Ukraine scenarios, humanity will have to multiply the effort to stop global warming.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics