#2 The Green Narrative

Ideas for coffee-break conversations

The energy transition evolved over the years into a green transition, driven by a strong narrative, one with a more limited scope, with a marked technological bias, and a strong political and ideological slant. While still in the early stages of the push toward greater electrification, energy efficiency, and local renewable energy production, the green narrative led to the premature phasing out of alternative energy sources, increasing dependence on fewer technologies and suppliers.

The question of global warming and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction had been on the international agenda for quite some time. The signature of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 became the first treaty that legally bind industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions.

In the EU, the Directive 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport adopted in May 2003 by the EC stated in its Recitals that, in addition to reducing emissions, increased use of biofuels for transport, without ruling out other possible alternative fuels, including automotive LPG and CNG, is one of the tools by which the Community can reduce its dependence on imported energy and influence the fuel market for transport and hence the security of energy supply in the medium and long term. Europe quickly introduced the reduction of GHG emissions as a key component of its energy strategy, yet the top priority remained security of supply and the reduction of Europe’s dependence on external energy was the utmost priority.

The Green Transition gained more traction with the Green Renewable Energy Directive (RED I or Directive 2009/28/EC), adopted in April 2009. RED I not only established a common framework for the promotion of energy from renewable sources but most importantly set the first binding national targets and required each member country to submit a National Renewable Energy Plan detailing how they would achieve their specific targets. Promoting renewable energies certainly was a good strategy, good for the environment and good for the energy mix, the only way increase EU-generated energy. Technology was not as mature and competitive as it is today, but there was a compelling case to foster the development of renewable energies and technologies in Europe.

As the global warming narrative was gaining momentum and getting a lot of traction at the political level around the globe, another major turning point occurred in 2015 when 194 nations and the EU adopted, at the COP 21, the Paris Agreement where they agreed to hold warming "well below 2°C" while "pursuing efforts" to limit it to 1.5°C. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) officially established the scientific parameters that set the 1.5ºC threshold.

Europe quickly emerged as a champion of the green transition. The European Green Deal, launched in 2019, consisted of a package of policy initiatives designed to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. The Green Deal probably was the most ambitious policy driven effort deployed by the EC to date. Some of the key documents that made up the Green Deal were the European Climate Law (2021) where political commitments towards the reduction of the net greenhouse gas emissions became binding obligations, “Fit-for-55”, a comprehensive package of legislative proposals designed to reduce the EU's net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels) and which included, among others, a revision of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), a Carbon Adjusted Mechanism (CBAM), transport regulations, and sectorial strategies (“Farm to fork”, Circular Economy Action Plan, Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, New Forest Strategy), as well as support and financing mechanisms, and a Taxonomy Regulation.

European leaders adopted with such enthusiasm a green transition narrative with a deep focus on global warming that it seemed they had forgotten about the other priorities of energy strategy: security of supply and availability, affordability, and competitiveness. Yes, those other priorities were somehow supposed to be embedded in the sustainability objective, but the whole strategy appeared to derail from its original scope when the focus shifted from the “what” -decarbonize-, to the “how” -renewable energies-, and forgetting the “why” - a wholistic energy strategy. Intentions were undoubtedly good, but politicians and heads of the European institutions forgot that the energy transition – if only a transition towards a more sustainable energy mix- was just one pillar of the energy strategy.

As we saw in previous Napkin Notes, in 2010 the EC warned us: The well-being of our people, industry and economy depends on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy. Despite the sense of urgency the EC conveyed to the European Parliament, Europe moved from an energy transition into a “green narrative” more limited scope, with a marked technological bias, and a strong political and ideological slant.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions was, and still is, a critical effort that needs to be tackled globally but even when it comes to environmental sustainability, the "green narrative" fell short to capture the greatest sustainability challenges humanity currently faces. I like to think of the nine planetary boundaries published in 2009 by the Stockholm Resilience Centre as a good indicator of the pressure humanity is placing on planet Earth. Fortunately, we have now begun to see some important initiatives being launched to mitigate or address not only GHG emissions, but many of those boundaries (plastics, water, deforestation...). That is a whole different story related to sustainability, and I am here to write about energy.

Sustainability has been a key pillar of energy strategy for decades, together with security of supply, affordability and competitiveness yet, European leaders chose to close coal and nuclear plants, delay European energy market interconnections and rely on a limited number of third party countries and technologies. Whether it's Russian gas or nuclear energy, overreliance on limited sources of supply (country or technology) is known to generate critical vulnerabilities.

Coffee-break conversations

With all the "intelligence" that goes into national energy strategies and planning, how is it possible that leaders of the greatest European countries did not see they were creating a critical vulnerability to the energy system? Diversification of energy sources and technologies as well as market integration are key concepts that finally seem to get political traction. Is it because major European countries have come to accept their vulnerability and now need a shift to European polcies?

Nakin Notes is a compilation of short notes and reflections on how we got to where we are now, and what needs to change to "Make Europe Great Again".

By Miguel Benavides de la Vega

The thoughts shared here are my personal views and do not reflect the views of my employers or partners