Dtheir wars face each other. One at our doorstep, the other in the sky. The war in Ukraine is, like all conflicts, a war of energy. Not only for the gasoline that we put in the tanks, or for the coal mines of the Donbass, but above all because its financial fuel is also energetic. Europe pays more than 1 billion euros every day to Russia in the purchase of gas and oil. The other war is that of the climate, and it seems to have started just as badly.
On Monday April 4, the intergovernmental group of experts on climate change, the IPCC, published the recommendations section of its report on global warming. Preceded as always by endless negotiations by shopkeepers, the summary, for decision-makers, was to remind that the efforts of governments are largely insufficient to keep global warming below 1.5°C, which will probably be reached as early as 2030. There is an urgent need to detoxify from the consumption of fossil fuels.
At first glance, these two wars send the same message, that of accelerating the energy transition in the name of the dual urgency of climate and sovereignty. But the imperative of strategic independence, even of economic development, can be contradictory with that of safeguarding our planet. In one maintenance to Financial Times, George Hershman, the boss of Solv Energy, the first American operator of solar farms, does not go hand in hand. He believes that Joe Biden’s policy on renewable energy is worse than that, however not very good, of his predecessor, Donald Trump.
A “dysfunctional” climate policy
The reason for his anger? The Department of Commerce has just opened an investigation into a possible evasion of customs duties imposing solar panels from China. Actors, such as Solv Energy, would massively buy Chinese components from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, of which they have only carried out the last design stage.
This concerns more than 75% of the panels sold in the country. If the investigation, carried out following the complaint of an American producer, comes to an end, these countries could in turn be taxed like their big neighbour. It’s what Mr. Hershman calls a climate policy “dysfunctional”. On the one hand, it is developing solar power through subsidies; on the other, it is blocking its deployment in the name of its industrial policy.
You have 20.98% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.