Why the Climate Fight is Critical to Europe’s Security – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

Last Updated on: 4th March 2025, 10:55 pm

If we want peace, we need to end our reliance on oil, writes T&E’s William Todts

Europe could be at war with Russia within 5 years. Anyone who has watched last week’s ambush of Ukraine’s Zelensky in the White House knows Europe can’t count on the US anymore. It is time for a European defence union, not just a coalition of the willing.

The environment movement is a peace movement. And it must remain committed to peaceful international collaboration. Indeed, it is the only chance humans have to limit dangerous climate change and adapt to its impacts.

And yet, as the saying goes: si vis pace, para bellum (“If you want peace, prepare for war”). European liberal democracies now face far right, tyrannical, oil and gas fueled opponents. A further rise of Russia and their far right allies in Europe (and the US) will lead to the destruction of the green movement, civil society and ultimately freedom and democracy. This is our fight too.

So must we abandon the Green Deal? No. But we must be ready to explain why our proposals are still a priority.

Fundamentally, security is about much more than air defense, munitions factories and well trained soldiers. Energy security, manufacturing capability and logistics are all equally vital.

In The Prize, Daniel Yergin explains how access to energy (and oil in particular) explains some of the most important military decisions of the last century. More recently, China’s obsessions with its dependence on oil imports coming through the Malakka Straits help explain why battery electric cars and trucks loom so large in the country’s energy strategy.

Europe is not so different. The EU consumes roughly 10 million barrels per day. Most oil comes from the US (17%), Norway (13%) and Kazakhstan (11%). In case of conflict, Russian pressure on chokepoints in the Black Sea, Mediterranean and Baltic Sea, as well as pipelines (e.g. Druzhba now carrying Kazakh oil) crossing its territory, could severely disrupt supplies. Even a reduction of 20-30% would spark a huge energy crisis, bringing tens of millions of combustion engine cars and trucks to a halt. In WWII Britain, petrol was rationed.

As China discovered a decade ago, electric vehicles are the obvious solution. Batteries don’t just matter for cars and trucks. They are also essential building blocks of drones or unmanned underwater vessels, or simply to keep the lights on as we see in Ukraine today. A similar logic applies to synthetic fuels for planes and ships.

Oil makes Europe’s enemies rich and makes it vulnerable, so why don’t we tax it more? We have tried for decades to adapt the energy tax directive but failed. It is time to get more creative. A WTO compliant 1.7% tariff on oil imports – yes, like Trump said he would put on Canada – would raise €3 billion a year. Given the security risks a much higher general tariff, combined with a punitive tariff on all Russia-related fossil fuels, would be justified. Similarly, putting a small extra price on transport and heating fuels (ETS2) can now be justified as a security policy. The revenues from the ETS, will give governments the resources to help citizens make the switch.

The Ukraine war shows energy infrastructure is a prime military target. So building a decentralised, flexible and cyber safe electricity system is essential. Given wind and solar will be the backbone of our future energy mix, flexibility is key. Vehicles can help by sharing energy back to the grid, or our homes. After years of talk about the potential of vehicle-to-grid technology (V2G) it’s time for the EU to make it a reality.

If Europe cares about its security, a shift from oil to batteries is already a huge win. Unlike oil we won’t burn batteries which easily last 15 years. And yet, given the importance of batteries for drones, and the need to accelerate EV uptake, also/especially in case of conflict, the EU must reduce its dependence on battery imports. A domestic battery supply chain, from mine to cell factory is now a security imperative.

A final consideration is logistics. The Guardian journalist Luke Harding wrote, “two institutions have played a crucial role in thwarting Russia’s plan to conquer Ukraine. One is the Ukrainian army. The second – surprisingly, perhaps – is Ukraine’s railway.” Brussels is buzzing with talk about military mobility. Rail clearly has a key role to play, although high speed rail is probably not what we’ll need most in case of conflict.

None of this makes for happy reading. But it does underscore that the climate movement is critical to the continent’s security. If you want peace, prepare to end our reliance on oil.

Originally published on T&E website. By William Todts, Executive Director