Reluctant Decarbonization and Militant Petrostates Workshop: Part II - Europe
The OHPA hosted its first workshop entitled “Reluctant Decarbonization and Militant Petrostates” on May 27, 2024. The workshop was divided into three thematic panels: ‘Global’, which you can read here, European and the upcoming Case study panel.
Panel II “European” was chaired by OHPA Postdoctoral Researcher Dr Ayanasina Ayanlade and consisted of Dr Per Högselius (Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm), Sergii Glebov (Odesa National I.I. Mechnykov University) and Anastasia Pavlenko (Central European University).
Dr Per Högselius of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm presented on the topic "The Future of Russia-EU Energy Relations". He argued that future developments in energy relations between Russia and Europe will be strongly influenced by geopolitical events. Historically, Russia and Europe have been linked through trade and resources, including the medieval fur trade, wheat exports, oil and gas, and even nuclear industry. This long-standing relationship leads to the question: after 800 years of prosperity, is the East-West energy and resource relationship coming to a definitive end? If so, it would be a huge and radical change.
According to Dr. Högselius, two main factors could prevent this scenario. First, the prevailing techno-economic logic dictates that resource-rich countries naturally trade with economically wealthy ones. Conversely, geopolitical logic suggests that adversaries should avoid energy trade. As he shows, historically, the techno-economic logic has been dominant, though geopolitical considerations can temporarily take precedence, altering energy relations. Currently, there is a cooling period in energy relations, with many joint projects on hold but potentially revivable. This applies to all resources. Dr. Högselius says that if geopolitical tensions ease, normal trade could resume, but this is uncertain. Additionally, if the EU rapidly decarbonizes, energy dynamics will shift significantly.
Dr Högselius also focused on the Swedish example how Europe could decarbonise and influence future energy relations. Natural gas and hydrogen remain a unique factor that could play a role in future EU-Russia relations, as a resumption of cooperation could be tempting. Overall, the main question is whether Europe can decarbonise and, if so, when and how long this process will take.
The second speech – “Oil-for-(in)security the Kremlin’s energy weapon as a peacebreaker in times of hybrid warfare” by Sergii Glebov – pinpointed that energy has, unfortunately, become a weapon that kills rather than a source of development and prosperity. Dr Glebov started with the concept of energy security as a complex defensive domain of states and an integral part of the national resilience strategy.
Energy has become a foreign policy tool for some countries, serving multiple purposes: complementing sanctions and ensuring demilitarization, as seen with the UN's Oil-for-Food Programme, which led to corruption and misuse of funds; strengthening inter-state partnerships, such as Russia and Turkey's, ensuring Ankara's de facto neutrality; and deterring aggression, resulting in the EU and NATO's inadequate response to Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Dependence on natural resources and the pursuit of economic advantage led to strategic myopia, transforming "energy for security" into "energy for insecurity" by 2022.
Dr. Glebov argues that political will has been crucial in turning energy from an economic instrument into a geopolitical tool, as demonstrated by Russia's hybrid warfare against its neighbors and the West. He concluded by discussing energy security and environmental issues in international relations, focusing on Russia and the Nord Stream case. He believes decarbonizing Russia will lead to its demilitarization but notes that environmental concerns remain a low priority. Overall, the balance between national interests, international security, and global energy strategies is subject to ongoing negotiations within the liberal market and international law.
Anastasia Pavlenko's final presentation, "European Energy Transition in Times of Crisis," examined whether security crises accelerate decarbonization. She highlighted that while decarbonization can enhance security for fossil fuel-importing countries by reducing trade and increasing energy diversity, energy security can also be achieved through cheaper, climate-neutral means. Focusing on the EU as a case study, Pavlenko noted the EU's dual role as a climate leader and its heavy reliance on Russian fossil fuels.
The war in Ukraine prompted the REPowerEU plan, aimed at swiftly reducing dependence on Russian fossil fuels by accelerating the clean energy transition and creating a resilient energy system and true Energy Union. However, Pavlenko identified ambiguities in the plan, leading to delayed coal phase-outs and new dependencies on US and Azerbaijani fossil fuels.
Pavlenko traced the evolution from the 'Fit for 55' package, focused on climate change, to REPowerEU, emphasizing energy security. This shift reflects the securitization of energy interdependence with Russia and the pursuit of renewables. She noted minor target changes for solar and onshore wind, but a significant doubling of the offshore wind target, crucial for global renewable growth.
Despite the EU's ambitious plans, Pavlenko argued that success depends on the political will of member countries. Many have lagged in transitioning to wind power, and there is a general lack of ambition to meet EU targets, partly due to land use issues and the potential violation of indigenous rights.
The full talk as well as the subsequent discussion is available to view on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/OafuMPSSfu4