Berlin Ottmar Edenhofer, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), calls on Germany and Europe to forego gas from Russia. “Europe should no longer be supplied with Russian gas,” said the climate economist in an interview with the Handelsblatt. “It’s unfortunate, but Putin relies on confrontation and energy as a weapon.”
Edenhofer advises, on the one hand, to significantly increase imports of liquid gas from other countries and, on the other hand, to use more coal-fired power plants, primarily lignite-fired power plants in Germany.
“We will have to use coal-fired power plants, also in the electricity sector, especially if we also want to reduce hard coal imports from Russia,” he said. “It is an emergency situation in which we now have to act in a very coordinated manner.”
In the medium term, efficiency reserves would have to be raised and, above all, renewable energies would have to be expanded, said Edenhofer. “How important they are has become even clearer than before in the current crisis.”
He did not rule out rationing. “The heaters in private households will remain in operation,” said Edenhofer. “On the other hand, users in industry will have to accept limitations.”
Read the full interview here:
Mr. Edenhofer, the Russian war of aggression is triggering hardly foreseeable global upheavals. Do you see the danger that international climate protection efforts will become marginal?
It would be very stupid to slack off on climate protection.
What is priority now?
We need to become more flexible and diversify our gas supply sources. In Europe, we will have to deal with almost completely replacing gas imports from Russia, otherwise the sanctions would make little sense.
How does that work?
There are two ways to avoid supply shortages, both of which require maximum European solidarity. On the one hand, we have to significantly increase imports of LNG, i.e. liquid gas. But that alone will not be enough. On the other hand, we must therefore also reduce demand. With the combination of both measures we should be able to reach our goal.
Does the existing infrastructure provide that?
Of course there are limits. Spain, for example, has large import capacities for LNG. However, the necessary infrastructure to transport the gas to all parts of Europe is lacking. We’ll get over this winter just fine. But from the coming winter and in the years that follow, the situation will be difficult, I have little doubt about that. That’s why we have to plan now for the coming winter.
In the medium term, renewable energies would have to be expanded, says climate economist Ottmar Edenhofer.
(Photo: imago images/Political Moments)
Shouldn’t we import as much Russian gas as possible, or should the Europeans refrain from supplying them themselves?
Europe should no longer be supplied with Russian gas. That’s unfortunate, but Putin is banking on confrontation and using energy as a weapon. If we continue to rely on Putin as the gas supplier, I see the danger of a strategic game in which he has the upper hand. Let’s assume that the gas importers would now fill the gas storage facilities for relatively expensive money. When the gas storage facilities are full, Gazprom could very quickly flood the market with cheap gas and significantly weaken the European gas importers, who are sitting on the expensive gas they have bought. The other variant would be just as unsatisfactory for the Europeans: the gas importers do not fill the storage facilities for fear of losses, and Gazprom could then reduce supply and drive up the price. In either case, the Europeans would help finance Putin’s war against Ukraine. That is not justifiable. If we are really serious about sanctions against Russia, then we must cut gas imports from Russia ourselves.
When is that supposed to happen?
Of course it has to be quick. The biggest challenge is next winter. It’s now about filling the gas storage tanks. This has to happen now, no matter what Putin does.
They recommend reducing gas consumption. Who should give up first?
In the short term, we must reduce demand for gas by using more coal-fired power stations, primarily lignite-fired power stations, but also partly hard coal-fired power stations, provided we don’t import the hard coal from Russia, and power stations that run on oil. In the medium term, efficiency reserves must be raised and, above all, renewable energies expanded – the current crisis has made it even clearer than before how important they are.
So no one will be sitting in a cold apartment?
When push comes to shove, rationing may be unavoidable. But the heaters in private households will remain in operation. On the other hand, users in industry will have to accept limitations. I’m not saying it’s an easy thing. However, I am convinced that the bottleneck situation can be mastered with a combination of the measures described and that the whole thing is feasible without major economic upheaval.
Why are nuclear power plants missing from your list of alternative options?
In my view, extending the lifetime of nuclear power plants is not a realistic option. The dismantling is already too far advanced. I am not categorically against it. I’m just skeptical and I don’t think it’s actually necessary.
Wouldn’t resorting to lignite-fired power plants nullify all climate protection efforts?
We have an upper limit for emissions in the European emissions trading system for the electricity and industrial sectors, and this must not be relaxed under any circumstances. Rather, it should now be set in such a way that the goals of the EU Green Deal can be achieved – i.e. less and less greenhouse gases must be emitted. Recently, the prices in emissions trading have fallen significantly. I interpret this to mean that retailers assume that the EU Commission will back away from the goals of the Green Deal in view of the global turmoil. That would be fatal.
How should the EU Commission behave?
The EU Commission should make it clear as soon as possible that it stands by the goals of the Green Deal. We have a functioning emissions trading system. We shouldn’t give that up lightly. It now enables us to temporarily increase the use of coal-fired power plants without jeopardizing overall emission reduction targets. The aim of the Green Deal is to make an important contribution to reducing climate risks for our economy and for people. That is still absolutely true.
Gas from the US is largely fracking gas, a technique rejected in Germany. Wouldn’t it be better to let more domestic coal-fired power plants run?
Fracking gas causes lower emissions than lignite. We will need gas for households and industry because we only have very limited substitution options here in the short term. And in the long term, the most emission-intensive energy source will be pushed out of the market by the price of CO2. But one thing is clear: we have to expand renewable energies so that gas is mainly used in sectors where electricity does not work.
Is the planned early phase-out of coal in 2030 sustainable?
Let’s not argue about exit dates, but let emissions trading work, that’s the appropriate way. We will have to use coal-fired power plants, also in the electricity sector, especially if we also want to reduce hard coal imports from Russia. It is an emergency situation in which we now have to act in a very coordinated manner. I’m not that pessimistic that it won’t work.
>> Read also: The big breakup? A complete departure from Russia as an economic partner would have these consequences
How should the Europeans strengthen their buying power on the energy market?
This only works if they are coordinated under the leadership of the EU Commission. A clear strategy is needed to ensure that European countries do not outdo each other in the gas market. Europe must act as a strong customer on the world market. From my point of view, this is the most important point. We also have to coordinate the distribution internally.
What do you think of calls to ramp up domestic gas production?
You can take that into account. But I don’t think that’s a really relevant factor in the short term. Above all, we will have to import liquid gas.
Isn’t the confrontation between Russia and the West a bad omen for international climate diplomacy? Russia is likely to be absent as a partner for decades. What about China?
There are big differences between Russia and China. Russia is essentially dependent on the export of raw materials and has failed to diversify its economy in the last 30 years. The Green Deal is therefore a challenge for Russia because Europe will drastically reduce its imports of fossil resources by 2050. Russia can only counter this by redirecting its imports. It’s different in China. China is not a resource-exporting nation, but mainly exports industrial goods with a high value-added content. It is difficult for China to do without coal, but it is feasible in terms of industrial and growth policy. There is still the possibility of entering into new talks with China.
But the Chinese are alarmingly ambivalent. One cannot see that they are now turning back to the West, quite the opposite.
That is precisely why it is important to talk to China, and not just for climate policy reasons. The talks are important, if only to avoid Russia and China getting too close.
Is the idea of the climate club dead?
I’m not that pessimistic about that. Of course, Russian politicians could be tempted to flood Asia with cheap gas. First of all, this is still a long way off. Secondly, this would at least mean that the cheaper gas price would be an incentive to phase out coal. I know it’s difficult, but we still have to talk to China. And at the same time learn that we are in a system competition. It is about the liberal democracies on the one hand and the autocracies on the other. What is particularly tragic is that all of Russia has become a personalized autocracy.
What exactly follows from this?
That we should show strength and at the same time be willing to cooperate. I think we have to continue on the path we have started. We should not underestimate the radiance of liberal democracies.
More: Imminent gas gap: Germany will be dependent on Russia again in the coming winter.