How Ukraine war disoriented global climate policies and commitments

war

Effects of shelling in Chasiv Yar, near Bakhmut, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine on March 21, 2023. 

Photo credit: File | AFP

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, various countries and climate players took paths different from the consensus adopted a few months earlier at COP26 in Glasgow.

After the invasion, the world faced energy supply chain disruptions, rising energy prices, high inflation, and high interest rates. Henceforth, the West prioritised energy security and political stability over climate goals, and this strategy persists to this day. Indeed, John Kelly, the US climate envoy, strategically assumed a low profile in climate dialogues.

With government climate policies wavering, oil companies and producers gained significant influence over COP conversations with self-serving climate strategies—the main one being an orderly and sustainable energy transition, albeit without definitive deadlines. The oil lobby immediately increased investments in profitable oil and gas portfolios, as they reduced their involvement in renewable energy.

Unapologetically, the US stepped up domestic oil and gas production to become the largest global oil producer and a major exporter, especially to Europe. China took advantage of the West’s preoccupation with the Ukraine crisis, and heavily invested in renewable energy supply chains, making it the dominant global energy transition player, especially in electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investors and financiers who had previously pushed for quick abandonment of fossil fuels, slowly changed their tone and re-directed investments into oil and gas production, where profits were rising. With reduced funding from governments and donors and weakened climate momentum, climate lobby groups reduced their presence and activities.

Even Greta Thunberg, the young Swedish environmental activist, took a break and returned to school.

Going forward, it is unlikely that climate attention will revert to a previous unified global focus.

Ongoing regional wars and the emergence of Cold War geopolitics deny the world an atmosphere to forge a unified climate action. A Trump presidency in the US would make it even harder, having promised “drill and drill” in his campaign. In Paris this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping remarked that the world has entered a new period of turbulence and change.

Lost in the emerging climate game are the developing countries of the Global South, which include Kenya.

To sustain climate credibility, the West has invented “climate finance” to fund all manner of green initiatives in the global south, but due to limited funding, these initiatives are unlikely to provide measurable relief from negative climate and economic impacts. This is why Kenya should be wary of straitjacket climate grandstanding and adopt economic pragmatism like the rest of the world, and this includes the commercialisation of its oil and coal energy resources.

George Wachira, petroleum consultant, [email protected]

PAYE Tax Calculator

Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.