The Ukraine invasion democracy and energy transitions

[Schreurs, Miranda]

Dear GEP-EDers

I am totally distracted and disgusted by what is going on in the Ukraine. Putin’s march into the Ukraine is frightening. It reminds me of what happened in Poland, Czechoslovakia, central and Eastern Europe. I grew up in a neighbourhood of Europeans who fled the Soviet Union’s invasions of the past (Prague Spring). The potential for a break out of a larger war is real and a Cold War is certainly back. Putin has taken Europe and to some extent the US on a ride — and the west fell into his net. He pursued the game of economic cooperation and interdependence, with major European and especially German companies become heavily dependent on Russian resources. Germany is about 50 percent dependent on Russia for its gas supplies and is also highly dependent on its oil and coal.

Europe did not imagine what is now unfolding. Over the years, NATO forces have been weakened. And despite what happened with the annexation of Crimea (in the Ukraine) and parts of Georgia, the West did little to deter what is now coming to light as a long planned strategy on Putin’s part to rebuild at least parts of the Soviet empire. NATO is now scrambling to strengthen border defences and alliances. Hopefully the sanctions which have been introduced will have some impact. I understand that more are in planning. For the Ukraine, we have to hope that the aid and the sanctions are not much too little, much too late.

On top of the populists and authoritarian leaders who have sprung up in so many countries, this invasion really calls for us all to do more to speak up for freedom and democracy. It is also a call to speed up our energy transitions. We need greater energy efficiency, energy savings and renewable energies to break the dependency on authoritarian regimes. Especially Europe but also the US, Japan, and S Korea have paid into the coffers of Russia (and other dictatorial regimes) with our large appetites for fossil fuels.

So, in response, I turned down my heat even further (it was already off in most rooms), wrote an article, and have participated in panels talking about what is going on with Russia and why democracy is in serious danger if we are not prepared to ourselves pay a price to protect it. One way of doing this in the medium- to long-term is an energy transition. This will be important for climate change but also for the fight against authoritarianism.

This is obviously an over simplification of a very complex situation, and I know that you all know this, but I somehow felt the need to say something….

Wishing for the best for the Ukraine….

Miranda Schreurs
Professor for Environment and Climate Policy
Technical University of Munich

[Aseem Prakash]

Hi Miranda (and GEP community): 

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the Ukraine crisis. Here is a commentary that Nives and I published in Forbes.com: "Ukraine Crisis is Terrible News for Climate Policy."

Abstract:

Effective decarbonization cannot be separated from energy security. Rising gas prices mean that fracked shale gas is back. About two dozen U.S. gas tankers are headed to Europe and an additional 33 might follow. Moreover, renewable energy will not create energy self-sufficiency as long as China controls the renewable energy supply chain, especially the critical minerals. Western democracies should invest in domestic mining while taking into account the concerns of local communities. The climate movement needs to reconsider its opposition to nuclear energy and carbon capture because the Ukraine crisis may have revied the fortunes of the fossil fuel industry, at least in the short term.

Here is the commentary:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2022/02/23/ukraine-crisis-is-terrible-news-for-climate-policy/?sh=2fa73d7d5041

​If you cannot access it, please email me and I will send you a PDF.

Best,

Aseem

____________________________________________________________

ASEEM PRAKASH
Professor, Department of Political Science
Walker Family Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences
Founding Director, UW Center for Environmental Politics
University of Washington, Seattle
aseemprakash.net

---

From: gep...@googlegroups.com <gep...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Schreurs, Miranda <miranda....@hfp.tum.de>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 10:44 AM
To: gep...@googlegroups.com <gep...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [gep-ed] The Ukraine invasion democracy and energy transitions

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gep-ed+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/8D355445-F221-4F57-9DB5-EC0436B3DE67%40hfp.tum.de.

[Rafael Friedmann]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Miranda.

 

In my view it is the confluence of huge fossil fuel companies, their political influence to keep BAU reliance of fossil fuels into the far future, and the weakened role of governments everywhere, that maintains this pernicious and deleterious over-dependence on these fuels and stymies full-out decarbonization efforts. Worse, as leaders leadership starts to be questioned (usually because they’ve overstayed their welcome and Putin is the latest example), they tend to resort to conflicts to distract and divide opponents to their regimes. Putin and many others (in government and private sector) who pay lip service to mitigating climate change need to hear and heed the calls for action on climate change or get out or be thrown out. How long will we suffer these fools who put all of life on Earth at risk? How long will we support the insistence on having thousands of nuclear weapons? These too have to go and the $$$ and other resources they take-up can be put to work on much more positive and life-saving efforts.

 

Rafael

 

From: Schreurs, Miranda
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 10:44 AM
To: gep...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [gep-ed] The Ukraine invasion democracy and energy transitions

 

Dear GEP-EDers

--

[Schreurs, Miranda]

Hi Aseem, Hello al,

Thanks for your commentary. It is informative. But I don’t agree with all of your assessments. Working as co-chair of a committee dealing with high level radioactive waste management, I can not agree with you that nuclear energy is the path forward. It also takes much too long to build. European experience shows that countries that heavily invest in nuclear, are slow to build out renewables. They are also at risk of big supply problems if they become too heavily dependent on nuclear. 

Germany will most certainly be expanding its renewable energy push. It is currently getting about 50% of its electricity from renewables (up from 6% in 2000: actually in the first two months of 2022 it has been getting well over 50%). With the Ukraine crisis, the expansion of renewables will be putting into fast speed. There are still many ways to enhance energy efficiency and energy savings. Plans are to be climate neutral by 2045 with 65% renewables by 2030.  I think we might now get there as early as 2025 or 2027.

In response to a request from Peace Boat in Japan, I wrote the attached memo this morning. It is in response to the following statement from five former Japanese prime ministers criticising the EU’s sustainability taxonomy which lists both natural gas and nuclear as sustainable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXNi2gLjxm). I agree with their critique.

My response is attached.

Best, Miranda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/CO1PR08MB7644817CFC79502AE3D6D4C2DD3F9%40CO1PR08MB7644.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.

[Harrison, Kathryn]

Hi all,

 

Here’s the latest from the Premier of Alberta: “Alberta oil is better than dictator oil,” revising the “ethical oil” defense of Canada’s heavy oil exports.

 

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1496937435049168897

 

Sigh,

Kathryn Harrison

 

From: <gep...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Aseem Prakash <as...@uw.edu>

Reply-To: "as...@u.washington.edu" <as...@u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:04 AM
To: "gep...@googlegroups.com" <gep...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [gep-ed] Re: The Ukraine invasion democracy and energy transitions

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

[Aseem Prakash]

Hi Miranda and GEP colleagues:

This is a great debate. I suspect it is a bit late to have a panel at the ISA on this subject.

But I am happy to organize an online panel. 

If folks are interested in participating, please email directly (not to the GEP list).

thanks,

Aseem

____________________________________________________________

ASEEM PRAKASH
Professor, Department of Political Science
Walker Family Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences
Founding Director, UW Center for Environmental Politics
University of Washington, Seattle
aseemprakash.net

---

From: Schreurs, Miranda <miranda....@hfp.tum.de>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Aseem Prakash <as...@uw.edu>
Cc: gep...@googlegroups.com <gep...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [gep-ed] The Ukraine invasion democracy and energy transitions

 

[Schreurs, Miranda]

Hi all,

I just saw I sent the wrong link on the Japanese PMs critique.  Sorry about that. The right one is here. http://genjiren.com/2022/01/27/jointstatement/

Now I will stop bombarding the list….  

Best, miranda

Am 26.02.2022 um 20:20 schrieb Schreurs, Miranda <miranda....@hfp.tum.de>:

Hi Aseem, Hello al,

Thanks for your commentary. It is informative. But I don’t agree with all of your assessments. Working as co-chair of a committee dealing with high level radioactive waste management, I can not agree with you that nuclear energy is the path forward. It also takes much too long to build. European experience shows that countries that heavily invest in nuclear, are slow to build out renewables. They are also at risk of big supply problems if they become too heavily dependent on nuclear. 

Germany will most certainly be expanding its renewable energy push. It is currently getting about 50% of its electricity from renewables (up from 6% in 2000: actually in the first two months of 2022 it has been getting well over 50%). With the Ukraine crisis, the expansion of renewables will be putting into fast speed. There are still many ways to enhance energy efficiency and energy savings. Plans are to be climate neutral by 2045 with 65% renewables by 2030.  I think we might now get there as early as 2025 or 2027.

In response to a request from Peace Boat in Japan, I wrote the attached memo this morning. It is in response to the following statement from five former Japanese prime ministers criticising the EU’s sustainability taxonomy which lists both natural gas and nuclear as sustainable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXNi2gLjxm). I agree with their critique.

My response is attached.

Best, Miranda

<Five PMs critique of taxonomy.pdf>

[Reuben Kline]

Miranda, you are exactly right. This situation makes it even more obvious that one of the most important tools to fight both the problems Miranda raises— authoritarianism and climate change— is to increase nuclear capacity globally and especially in those polities that are so dependent on authoritarian fossil fuels. Sadly, most of the world, including Germany is pursuing the polar opposite course.

Perhaps it could offer some measure of hope in these trying times. 

Best regards,

Reuben 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gep-ed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/8D355445-F221-4F57-9DB5-EC0436B3DE67%40hfp.tum.de.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gep-ed+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/44C63967-E4E3-4E6C-8B91-809CCC597307%40hxcore.ol.

--

Reuben Kline, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science

Director, Center for Behavioral Political Economy

Stony Brook University

https://sites.google.com/site/reubenckline/home

[harr...@sd-institute.org]

Hi, all,

 

We keep returning to the constant connections between energy and power.

 

John Mikler and I wrote our recently published book Capitalism for All: Realizing its Liberal Promise long before Ukraine became a major international problem. In that book we argued that massive transnational corporations (“MegaCorps”) have been granted power over policy by many governments, not least by the US. The guiding ideology of “CorpoCapitalism” (commonly mistaken for neoliberalism) assumes that supporting MegaCorps enhances economic growth that, in turn, automatically raises social welfare. Recent political ructions (e.g. Trump) are evidence (in addition to technical measures) that this ideology has led to growing inequality, environmental destruction, and social unrest. With this power MegaCorps are able to block the technological innovation that is needed for a rapid transition of energy systems away from fossil fuels (“climate innovation”). Unless there is no foreseeable profit, there is no ‘business case’ for them to do the necessary research.

 

We argue that governments need to take back the power they have ceded and govern for all the people.  We call this “Liberal Capitalism”, that frees the people as capitalism was initially intended to do. All rich country governments support technological innovation both directly through government labs and grants (e.g. to Universities) and indirectly through tax expenditures. If governments governed for all the people—not just for MegaCorps, their executives and investors—they would redirect all their support for innovation to developing the basic and applied science of the new energy production and consumption systems required to mitigate GHG emissions. Every possible pathway to increased efficiency of renewable energy production, energy storage, and energy consumption should be explored. I understand Miranda’s (and Japan’s) rejection of nuclear energy. However, there is probably a role for innovation into nuclear energy production, safety, and waste recycling or treatment.

If Europe and the West can wean itself off fossil fuels, it can protect itself from Russia and the Earth from climate change.

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

 

Neil E. Harrison, Ph.D.
Executive Director
The Sustainable Development Institute (www.sd-institute.org)

 

Publications

Co-Author (with Robert Geyer), Governing Complexity in the 21st Century. (Abingdon: Routledge 2022). https://www.routledge.com/Governing-Complexity-in-the-21st-Century/Harrison-Geyer/p/book/9780367276270.

 

Co-Author (with John Mikler), Capitalism for All: Realizing its Liberal Promise (SUNY Press 2022). https://www.sunypress.edu/p-7234-capitalism-for-all.aspx.

 

Author, Sustainable Capitalism and the Pursuit of Well-Being (Abingdon: Routledge 2014) -  www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415662819

 

Co-Editor (with John Mikler), Climate Innovation: Liberal Capitalism and Climate Change (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2014) - http://us.macmillan.com/climateinnovation/NeilEHarrison.

 

Editor, Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2006). https://www.sunypress.edu/p-4294-complexity-in-world-politics.aspx.

 

Co-editor with Gary Bryner, Science and Politics in the International Environment (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10071

 

Author, Constructing Sustainable Development (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2000). See https://sunypress.edu/Books/C/Constructing-Sustainable-Development

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/F0A39039-2513-4EB1-94FF-E99E7114F8B3%40hfp.tum.de.

[Aysem Mert]

Dear Miranda, dear all,

Apologies for the length of this email. I find the subject important.

The way nuclear energy is being introduced as a solution to climate change is painful to see for me. As a Chernobyl child, and as someone who has seen the effects of nuclear disasters in Japan (where I met Miranda for the first time 😀 ) and in other parts of the world, my interest in green politics has started with anti-nuclear activism in Turkey, where I am from. Nuclear energy has been proposed in Turkey as a solution to many concerns in the past, ranging from oil dependency to assumptions of ever-increasing demand. We have managed to debunk many of these arguments in the past. Only recently, and with explicit support from China and Russia, Erdogan has started the building of three nuclear reactors in Akkuyu, Mersin. (Financing is provided by Russian investors, with 93% from a Rosatom subsidiary, which will keep 51% of shares at all times.) Neither the site (earthquake zone), nor the choice of technology (GEN III+PWR) is sound. Critically, the uranium enrichment process will be super costly, Turkey has no uranium, and there is no waste management plan in place. It is not impossible to imagine that there are dreams of becoming a nuclear power in the back of some military minds. But speculation aside, nuclear energy is one of the most anti-democratic, centralised, expensive, top-down, and technocratic ways of producing energy. 

Despite all evidence, some might still find it agreeable to use nuclear energy to transition into a fossil-free economy in other countries, of course. It may be imagined that in other countries nuclear energy production involves less risks, or costs. But even then, a pro-nuclear stance necessarily means taking some environmental AND security risks, and opting for one of the less diffused, less citizen empowering, more resource and technology dependent energy transition models. 

I am not writing this email to change the minds of those who think this way... But I am concerned with the amount of money and "volunteers" the nuclear lobby  brought to the business side of COP26. There were a number of selective statistics and problematic assumptions in their glossy brochures. When you were passing by, the volunteers would approach you and ask of you wanted to take a selfie with their cute teddy bear mascot as they repeated these statistics. Nowadays I also see more pro-nuclear arguments on climate news. Conservative parties in Sweden are rejoicing with the possibility of building more reactors. 

Whether one is pro or against or undecided, this is a political and ethical decision, which we each base on our life experience and ideology. It is a hegemonic struggle between those who find the risks associated with nuclear energy acceptable and those who do not. What matters is that we can discuss it, we can keep the deliberative public space open, accessible to all citizens, especially those who are exposed to various risks involved, including but not only the experts.

When I read Miranda's email, and the following thread, I was  worried that we might be losing this deliberative space: obviously, it was just a misunderstanding and nobody was intentionally trying to misrepresent her.  But her concerns were somehow equated to a pro-nuclear position at some point in that thread. (She has already clarified her position, and certainly does not need my help with that.) My goal is only to highlight that nuclear energy is a highly contentious issue. Please do not assume that because someone is concerned about climate change and argue for energy transitions they are also pro-nuclear. For me and some other colleagues, it is a red line and we find nuclear energy production unjustifiable from an ecological, democratic, or ethical viewpoint. But it is OK to disagree on this issue and keep discussing it. That discursive space is very important and valuable. Universalising a pro-nuclear position for climate activists or scholars would be hegemonising this deliberative space that we need for democracy.

Best wishes,

Ayşem


----------------------
Ayşem Mert

(she/her/hers, Dr./Mx. – why do pronouns matter?)


Associate Professor of Environmental Politics
Department of Political Science, Stockholm University
Universitetsvägen 10 F, 114 18, Stockholm, Sweden
www.statsvet.su.se/mert

@ayshemm

 

Latest Publications

 

Mert A. and D. Hine (2021) On Being the Right Size: Scale, Democracy and the Anthropocene in G. Dürbeck and P. Hüpkes (eds) Narratives of Scale in the Anthropocene: Imagining Human Responsibility in an Age of Scalar Complexity, Routledge, pp. 161-176.

Mert A. (2021) Challenges to Democracy in the Anthropocene in D. Chandler, F. Müller and D. Rothe (eds) International Relations in the Anthropocene: New Agendas, New Agencies and New Approaches, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham., pp. 291-309

Chan, S., et al. (2021) Climate Ambition and Sustainable Development for a New Decade: A Catalytic Framework. Global Policy, 12(3): 245-259.

Behagel, J.H. and Mert, A., (2021) ”The political nature of fantasy and political fantasies of nature,” Journal of Language and Politics, 20(1):79-94.

-------- Original message --------

From: "Schreurs, Miranda" <miranda....@hfp.tum.de>

Date: 26/02/2022 20:21 (GMT+01:00)

To: as...@u.washington.edu

Cc: gep...@googlegroups.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gep-ed/92893269-F0D8-41B2-878A-C01CC1DDE276%40hfp.tum.de.

[Schreurs, Miranda]

Dear Aysem

Thanks so much for this intervention. It is very helpful and very informative!

Anyone who knows my work knows that I stand hard and fast by the cross-party German decision to phase out nuclear energy and do not see nuclear as a sustainable option.That others used my intervention to interject their own views on nuclear is, of course, fine. But I strongly disagree with their opinions and arguments.

The only party against the decision to phase out nuclear in Germany's parliament is the far right AFD that is shunned by all of the other parties. And while Germany remains far too dependent on fossil fuels, Germany has done so much more than so many other countries to begin the process of shifting away from both nuclear and fossil fuels. Germany aims for climate neutrality by 2045 and the new coalition government (Social Democrats, Greens, and Free Democrats) has moved up the phase-out date for coal to 2030. Germany has achieved about 50% renewables in its electricity system (up from just 6% in 2000)  Now and especially after the events in the Ukraine, the will to push through on the energy transition is stronger than ever before.

Today there was an extraordinary parliamentary session because of the Ukraine crisis. One important aspect of the discussion was renewable energy. Germany has a cross-party consensus (except the AFD) on the need to phase out nuclear and speed up the transition to renewable energies. Today Germany announced it will move quickly on building two LNG terminals to diversify its gas imports. The switch to LNG fis to be temporary and will also be green hydrogen fuel ready. Contrary to what Aseem wrote in his Forbes commentary, Putin’s aggression is strengthening German and European resolve for a shift away from reliance on fossil fuels from Putin’s Russia and a rapid energy transition. Even the companies which own the nuclear power plants (there are only three left in operation) are uninterested in changing the phase out plan. It would be too conflictual and they have already made alternative investment plans. The plan to have 15 million electric cars on the road by 2030 and to speed up energy efficiency improvements in the building sector as well as in industrial sectors are other import aspects of the climate neutrality plan.  All signs are that climate action in Germany and Europe will remain a top political priority and one which will be used to drive for technological innovation, modernisation, and social well-being.  The speaker of the Free Democratic Party (a party that favours economic liberalism), Christian Lindner, to my surprise even called renewable energy the energy of peace today. 

Not only was there a cross-party condemnation of Putin’s invasion, a major switch in German defense policy was announced, and parties that had in the past opposed weapons exports to countries at war (the Greens, a wing of the Social Democrats) agreed that when a war is unjustified and is a war which aims to attack principle European values of freedom and democracy, weapons exports will be permitted. Germany is also planning to beef up its defense forces recognising that if it does not, it will not be able to defend itself or its NATO allies against invasion or attack. The Left made an amazing announcement in the parliamentary session that they had been wrong on Putin.

On the scary side is that Putin has put his nuclear forces onto high alert and apparently a radioactive waste management site was hit although the last I read on this, there was no radioactive leakage. Radioactivity levels do appear to be higher around the Chernobyl nuclear site. The Russian war on the Ukraine  strengthens the argument that nuclear energy comes with many security, environmental, and health concerns that are not given sufficient attention by nuclear supporters. In my eyes, it further supports the German decision to phase out nuclear (the last three plants will close at the end of 2022).  

On the hopeful side  Ukrainian forces despite being totally out numbered by Russia are still holding on and defending their cities. There is growing support for them from free countries around the world. A major player is the very strong civil society which has developed there. They are brave souls. 

Best, Miranda