Reluctant Decarbonization and Militant Petrostates Workshop: Part III - Case study
The final panel of the OHPA’s inaugural “Reluctant Decarbonization and Militant Petrostates” Workshop focused on case studies from around the globe. Henri Kaup’s lecture entitled “Recarbonizing Kaliningrad: Geopolitics and the Role of Liquefied Natural Gas” lead off the panel. Kaup discussed the nature of Kaliningrad, the territory Russia has held since the end of the Second World War, which is Russia’s only Western port which is not blocked by the Arctic. Kaup elucidated a brief history of Kaliningrad, which has been one of the most colonized places in Europe, existing under Prussian, Polish, German and Russian rule throughout its history. Kaliningrad’s status as Russia’s only year-round accessible Western port makes its strategic value difficult to understate; thus it is one of the most heavily militarized territories in the world, boasting more than twenty-thousand soldiers (albeit this may have changed since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine). Kaup explored the history of energy production in the region, elucidating how under German occupation the region build coal and thermal energy stations, reliant largely on coal imported from Poland. In the modern post-soviet period, initially renewable capacity particularly Thermal plants were expanded, however after Putin’s invasion of Crimea in 2014 the territory experienced a “Recarbonization,” effectively a resurgence of investment in LNG facilities. The issue with such is the main pipeline which supplies these terminals runs through Lithuania, creating an issue for Russia’s export aspirations, not dissimilar to the pipelines which run through Ukraine. Thus Kaup posited that this recarbonization reinvestment, specifically by way of Russia building a new floating LNG terminal, correlates with Russian aggression against its neighbors. In spite of this investment, Kaliningrad remains both a vital territory for the Kremlin to maintain as well as a geopolitical liability due to its unique geographic circumstances.
The second lecture was delivered by Dr. Bohdan Shumylovych and Dr. Artem Kharchenko entitled “A tale of two cities: Lviv and Kharkiv at War.” The talk focused on the comparative experiences of Lviv and Kharkiv, and how both cities have been uniquely affected by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Kharkiv is located in the northeast corner of Ukraine, and therefore has been in the crosshairs of the invasion since its outset, experiencing what Dr. Kharchenko described as “Urbicide,” or the destruction of civilian infrastructure for the purpose of militaristic advancement. In direct contrast Lviv sits in the west of Ukraine, and its population has swelled with over a million refugees since the beginning of the war, and has undergone a transformation in order to accommodate the displaced population.
Dr. Shumylovych and Dr. Kharchenko described the history of their respective cities in four distinct phases. Phase one encompasses the beginning of the invasion. Lviv shifted its focus from pre-war tourism to medical services (due to demand from the war), as it was one of the only places in Ukraine which represented little strategic importance and thus subject to less targeting by Russian aggression. Kharkiv instead lost substantial facets of its economy: as the city was already an industrial hub largely controlled by oligarchs, losing its infrastructure due to relentless bombing campaigns reduced the city’s economy drastically. In the second phase, Lviv managed to grow its economy due to refugees participating in its economy, which Dr. Shumylovych labelled as “wardevelopment.” In contrasts, Kharkiv’s continued to shrink as civilians continued to flee the region. The later phases represent the developments which have come to fruition as the war has progressed. Kharkiv’s infrastructure has been decimated by Russian bombardments and heavy fighting, thus the civilians which are still there have resorted to alternative measures in order to survive. This is most emblematic in the mass purchasing of generators from the rest of Europe and China in order to substitute for Kharkiv’s energy infrastructure, which has been pummeled by Russian artillery and constitutes a litany of warcrimes. The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure for militaristic gain is known as “Urbicide,” and unfortunately Kharkiv is not unique regarding this practice since Russia’s invasion. Dr. Kharchenko elucidated that in spite of this horror, there was an ecological silver lining. As most of the infrastructure destroyed by Russia was antiquated Soviet technology, it has reduced the number of power plants reliant on fossil fuel consumption.
The destroyed infrastructure has plunged the inhabitants of Kharkiv into frequent blackouts, even in spite of the generators. This represents what Dr. Shumylovych and Dr. Kharchenko label “centers of unbrokenness,” representative of the resolve the besieged citizens of Kharkiv have displayed since the onset of the invasion. The fortitude that the city of Kharkiv has shown in spite of the deliberate Urbicide enacted by Russia contributes to the myth of Kharkiv as a “fortress city” or a “city of steel” due to its industrial nature. Dr Shumylovych and Dr. Kharchenko concluded by observing that while lessons from the war have been learned, there have been seldom observations of how Lviv has completely changed its development trajectory correlating with the destruction experienced in Kharkiv.
The third lecture was given by OHPA Post-Doctoral researcher Dr. Ayansina Ayanladе entitled “Nigeria's Petrostate Dilemma: Challenges and Opportunities.” Dr. Ayanlade began by detailing a brief history of Nigeria and extractive industries which began under colonialism. Nigeria first began drilling in 1906, which began the process which has made the nation the largest Petrostate in West Africa. This was continued by Shell in the first half of the twentieth century, as it was able to exploit Nigeria’s colonial status. Dr. Ayanladе described the complicated relationship Nigeria has with extractive industries - they represent a duality between both transformative economic development and ecological destruction. The majority of the oil fields in Nigeria lie in the Niger delta, which is vital to the overall ecosystem of the nation as well as the people who call this region home. Thus extraction itself, not just the emissions the oil will later create, represents a threat to the ecological health of the area. Dr. Ayanladе also elucidated a characteristic of economic development in Nigeria which is similar to other petrostates, particularly those in the middle east such as Qatar and Bahrain. Nigeria has suffered economically as oil exports have eclipsed all other exported goods due to the value energy exportation represents. However this results in a homogenous exportation industry, which is particularly vulnerable in the face of a decarbonizing world. Dr. Ayanladе concluded by discussing the extensive damage oil spills caused by extraction have wreaked upon the environment, and how the economic prosperity represented by Petro-exports comes at both an ecological and human cost.
The final lecture of the workshop was given by Dr. Dirk Moses, and instead of delivering a talk on his initial topic “Military vs. genocidal violence as a problematic distinction,” he modified his talk to instead reflect on how the other lectures given during the workshop related to his research. Dr. Moses, an expert in genocide and international law, discussed how genocide is not dissimilar to ecocide: while genocide is the orchestrated destruction of a people, ecocide instead is the destruction of an ecosystem. Dr. Moses discussed this in relation to the REN Statute, which was a protectionist Decree-Law created in the 1980s in order to conserve coastal zones under threat of pollution. Dr. Moses elucidated that envronemtal protection in both international law as well as the public conscious did not exist in the 19th century when most extractive practices exploded due to the Industrial Revolution, thus ecocide was never illegal during this period. However this changed in the 20th century as laws protecting the natural world, and all of the vital resources it possesses, became necessary as ecosystems collapsed and mass-extinctions directly cause by humans came to fruition. Dr. Moses posited that using international law to prosecute ecocide is difficult, as while most states recognize the U.N. charter and represent “liberal internal politics,” an uncooperative contingent of states IE the “illiberal outside” (such as petrostates) embody a coalition which has little to no concern how extractive industries and emissions affect the natural world. However Dr. Moses elucidated that it may be possible to litigate against polluters and extractive industries if it is provable that most of these organizations knowingly committed ecocide. Thus Dr. Moses concluded that we are entering a new era of international law which must be poised and able to litigate against bad actors which have chosen to destroy ecosystems for their own gain.