This piece first appeared in Down to Earth, the Guardian’s climate crisis newsletter. Sign up here to read more exclusive pieces like this and for a digest of the week’s biggest environment stories every Thursday
Turning down the thermostat by 1C might not sound like much of a gesture when thousands of people are being killed in Vladimir Putin’s brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, but it may be one of the few ways by which ordinary people in Europe, and around the world, can make an impact on the horrific events.
Europe is highly dependent on Russian gas, which makes up 45% of EU gas imports. And with prices sky-high – partly because of Putin’s actions – an estimated $500m a day is pouring into Russian coffers to fight the Kremlin’s war. If Europe wants to stop Putin, sanctions are needed, but so too are alternative sources of energy. The Ukraine war has starkly revealed a truth that governments failed to learn from throughout the climate crisis: that energy is a matter of national security, and getting off fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable power is a source of strength.
Putin tightened the flow of Russian gas to Europe by about a quarter in the months leading up to his invasion, and prices have soared in response. He has used Russia’s dominance of Europe’s gas market as an “economic and political weapon”, the chief of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, said last week. The global energy watchdog laid out a 10-point proposal showing how Europe could reduce its consumption of Russian gas by about a third, including advice to consumers to turn down their thermostats by only 1C, from an average of 22C to an average of 21C – a level that maintains comfort and that most people will barely notice, but which will save about 10bn cubic metres out of the 155bn imported annually from Russia.
Other measures could save more: ramping up renewable energy; insulating homes; a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies that have enjoyed a bonanza amid high energy prices, with the proceeds used to reduce bills for hard-pressed consumers; and delaying the planned closure of several nuclear power stations.
All these are likely to be needed, and more. There is a serious danger, too, that governments will seek return to the coal-fired power stations they were phasing out – though they should note that about half of the coal used in the EU is imported from Russia.
European countries are now re-evaluating their energy systems as a matter of urgency, and the results will help determine how the bloc tackles the climate crisis.
Ironically, amid all this: Russia, if it wanted, could make a massive difference to the climate crisis, and at no cost. The IEA also found, in a separate report, that Russia is one of the biggest emitters of methane, the main component of natural gas, through its ageing and poorly constructed fossil fuel production infrastructure. Simply plugging those leaks – which would be profitable, because more gas could then be sold – could go a long way to help reduce temperature rises by 0.2C in the 2040s. But a country willing to slaughter today’s children with bombs and bullets is unlikely to balk at killing tomorrow’s through climate breakdown.
