LONDON
European policies on environment and climate change remain a key issue even amid the ongoing yearlong Russian war on Ukraine.
The European Green Deal, which mainly aims at making the bloc climate neutral by 2050 by decoupling economic growth from resource use has always been tackled by many as a “back-and-forth” issue among European countries since it was approved in 2020.
Despite repeated and urgent warnings from across the world on the risks posed by climate change, such as record-breaking heatwaves and extreme weather events via sobering reports and UN meetings, there has always been a glimmer of hope that “real victories” would be possible.
When Russia’s war on Ukraine started Feb. 24 last year, it was obvious that energy supply would remain among the top issues for Europe, raising questions on its possible effects on green targets like ending fossil fuel use and transitioning to renewables.
Many European countries have since announced what could only be described as setbacks for such goals, such as new nuclear power plants, fresh licenses for coal mines, and permits for offshore oil and gas exploration.
Though these steps were seemingly taken as part of Europe’s efforts to wean itself off Russian hydrocarbons, EU countries have also faced fierce backlash from critics who argue that the bloc is using the war as an excuse to slow green policies down.
Just months into the war, the European Parliament decided in July to label natural gas and nuclear power as “green” and “sustainable” energy sources, drawing a chorus of international criticism.
The move was seen as an indication that for Brussels, ending Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels took priority over reducing or phasing out hydrocarbons altogether.
However, the European Commission’s statement on the future of natural gas and nuclear energy, which said that both “have roles to play in the shift to renewable energy” was released at the beginning of 2022, before the war started, taken by many experts as a sign that the EU had already been planning to soften or slow down its green progress.
Green policies were already stalling before war
Levent Kurnaz, a Turkish scientist at Bogazici University’s Center for Climate Change and Policy Studies in Istanbul, is among many to argue that even if the war in Ukraine had not started, the EU would still dampen its pace on climate and environmental policy.
“The European green policies were stalling right before the war,” he said, adding that the war had, however, given those who believed the bloc was going too fast on implementing the Green Deal another reason to hit the brakes.
Kurnaz underlined that differences among EU countries and the structures of EU institutions also played a role, stating that while the EU Commission supported green policies, the European Parliament was affected by “serious business people.”
“So, the Ukraine war in itself is not a major deal (in this regard), but all of the businesses and maybe some of the governments in Europe are using this as a scapegoat to slow down the process.”
He pointed out that lack of unity among member states on green transition was another obstacle, as some European countries particularly, those in Eastern Europe like Poland, were heavily dependent on coal.
“Nobody (except the European Commission) is behind this Green Deal at the moment and it’s not going to get much better within the next three-four years, apparently,” he asserted.
On the “environment-friendly” steps taken by the bloc during this time, Kurnaz said they were merely moves meant to tell “the people what they would like to hear at the moment.”
“So, if they (EU) have the power, if they have the ability, yes, they will do it,” he said, referring to such environmental steps.
“In Europe, it’s an economic situation … they don’t have the resources at the moment.”
