For months, the energy supply in Europe has been a difficult matter – partly because of the Ukraine war and because electricity and gas have become significantly more expensive. To ensure the supply, the European governments resort to fossil fuels. At the same time, however, they want to stick to the climate goals to which they have committed themselves. That is a dilemma, observers say. Sustainability researcher Rainer Quitzow takes a more differentiated view.
SRF News: How should European politics deal with this dilemma?
Rainer Quitzow: You have to be more precise. The energy crisis is above all a gas crisis and therefore not a fundamental dilemma. Because if you consume less gas, but use more renewable energies, then you can protect the climate better and overcome this gas crisis.
In the short term, greater reliance will be placed on fossil fuels.
The problem is that the short-term expansion of renewables cannot progress so quickly that the current bottlenecks can be compensated for. For this reason, other fossil fuels and the development of new gas resources are being used in some cases. That is actually a dilemma.
We are already in this transition phase. What concrete effects of the energy crisis can you already identify? What are you observing in relation to the climate targets?
The expansion of renewable energies is being accelerated. Stronger measures have also been taken to promote energy saving. That’s the positive. The negative thing is that, on the one hand, there is greater reliance on fossil fuels in the short term, i.e. primarily on coal, in order to overcome the gas supply bottleneck in the electricity sector.
At the European level, it has been made clear that the expansion of renewables is to be accelerated in order to overcome this crisis.
On the other hand – and this is perhaps more serious – investments are also being promoted more strongly in order to develop new gas deposits. In Great Britain, for example, the exploitation of shale gas has recently been made possible again. LNG terminals for liquid gas transport are being built in Germany. These are long-term investments that will also have a long-term impact.
On the one hand, we have a certain threat to climate goals from the efforts of European governments. On the other hand, there is momentum in the expansion of renewables. What predominates? How dramatic are the consequences of the energy crisis for the climate goals?
It is very difficult to quantify what is predominant now. It is clear that at the level of the climate goals, the additional effort outweighs. The targets at European level and also in some EU countries have been raised significantly. This made it clear that they want to accelerate the expansion of renewables in order to overcome this crisis.
I am relatively confident that the goals will continue to be maintained.
But there are also other effects that are of a more short-term nature and are difficult to assess: What damage will investments in the gas sector cause in the longer term? Will this undermine the climate goals? Can this be avoided? This is where the greatest uncertainty is – not only in Europe but also internationally. However, I am relatively confident that the goals will continue to be maintained. But if these short-term signals are sent to other countries and they therefore act differently, then this can also have very negative consequences.
The conversation was conducted by Nicolas Malzacher.