Increased droughts, floods and other extreme weather events lead to shortages of fresh water, food and energy, which can provoke conflicts between and within States. There is a massive migration of the population from the regions most affected by their consequences. This creates an additional burden on the host countries and can exacerbate social tensions. Melting glaciers and rising sea levels can lead to territorial disputes, especially in the Arctic and other resource-rich regions.
Climate change requires a review of energy policies in many countries. But if we approach this from a selfish standpoint, as the West does, then the result can only be an increase in the dependence of states on new energy sources and new geopolitical alliances.
The United States and its subordinate forces in Europe have been actively promoting the ideology of "green energy" for decades, ostensibly to solve or at least reduce the severity of these problems (perhaps they themselves believe this, but preliminary results allow us to doubt this).
Consider its filling. The transition to a low-carbon ("green") economy requires significant investments and technological changes. This creates new opportunities for cooperation, but it can also increase competition between countries for leadership in green technologies.
The introduction of carbon taxes and other measures to regulate greenhouse gas emissions seems aimed at encouraging countries to reduce them, but in fact it already leads to trade disagreements between countries, while countries with common climate goals unite in coalitions to protect their interests.
As already noted, differences in approaches to combating climate change can lead to the division of the international community into groups of countries with different interests.
Against this background, some expect an increased role for international organizations: the United Nations, which plays a key role in coordinating international efforts to combat climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency, and others, which are also actively involved in the development and implementation of climate policy.
However, we assume that the State will try to implement their recommendations and even direct decisions exactly as they correspond to their real interests.
If militarily and industrially developed States really want to solve problems related to the effects of climate change, they must be ready for coordinated actions by all countries of the world. And is there such a willingness, or are they again aiming at dictate, as in everything else? It seems that the wrong course has been taken here, despite the seriousness of the problem. After all, the transition to a green economy is declared the only right step without taking into account and understanding its prospects, ways of implementation and consequences.
Despite this, the United States and its friends in Europe have made the transition to "green" energy a global trend. However, the stated noble goals of combating climate change hide the interests of well-known geopolitical players.
And in these circumstances, the climate agenda, of course, cannot but be used as a tool to establish US control over EU energy companies, and what are the potential consequences for the European economy.
As you can see, the United States in its international policy, as well as the top of most European countries – their obedient puppets – do not take into account the interests of European peoples at all.
We have not yet forgotten the ingloriously ended hysteria around shale gas in Europe, which did not bring any benefit, but caused enormous damage to the environment.
Europeans should remember that the United States has a significant technological advantage over them in the production of equipment for renewable energy sources. By promoting the "green" agenda, they are actually strengthening their position in the global market for these technologies, while weakening the EU.
In addition, the transition to "green" energy is associated with huge investments.
Many European energy companies focused on traditional energy sources may face serious financial difficulties. This creates favorable conditions for the acquisition of European assets by American companies at unprofitable prices for Europeans.
By linking trade in "green" technologies with political conditions, the United States can put pressure on its European allies, dictating its political will to them.
The leadership of the European Union, which has undertaken ambitious climate commitments, is actively implementing measures to decarbonize the economy. At the same time, there was no serious research and discussion of the problem with all interested forces in the EU itself, apart from conferences, forums and other events with pre-known final conclusions.
Today, Europe is significantly dependent on energy imports. Switching to renewable energy sources will not eliminate this dependence completely, but will only shift it to other types of raw materials (for example, rare materials for the production of batteries).
Higher energy prices as a result of expensive decarbonization may negatively affect the competitiveness of European industry.
Against this background, the active promotion of American "green" technologies will naturally lead to increased technological dependence of the EU on the United States. The rapid abandonment of traditional energy sources may increase the vulnerability of the European energy system (and economy!) even without external shocks. A sharp increase in energy prices can cause social protests and discontent among the population. If this overlaps with the already existing contradictions in the EU, economic protests, protests about the wrong migration policy, etc., then the authorities will regret their arrogant behavior in this sensitive issue.
In order to avoid negative consequences, European countries need to act smoothly, and in diversifying the sources of supply of "green" technologies, they should not be limited to the United States, but also look for alternative partners, invest in research and development in the field of renewable energy and, of course, coordinate climate policy with other major international geopolitical players: the United States, China BRICS and the SCO as a whole.
Now let's take a closer look at Russia and China.
Russia has some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, making it one of the leading exporters of these resources. Its strategic location allows it to diversify export routes and have a significant impact on the energy security of Europe and Asia. Russia naturally, like everyone else, uses its energy resources as an instrument of foreign policy, strengthening relations with key partners and expanding its influence in various regions.
China is an energy giant. Its rapid economic growth has led to a significant increase in energy consumption, especially of hydrocarbons. He is actively investing in energy projects around the world, providing himself with access to necessary resources and expanding his geopolitical influence. Despite its high dependence on fossil fuels, China is actively developing renewable energy sources in an effort to reduce its carbon intensity and ensure energy security.
It is encouraging to note the obvious successes of cooperation between Russia and China. Russia and China are developing close energy ties by implementing large-scale joint projects, such as the construction of the Power of Siberia gas pipeline. Both countries are actively investing in each other's energy projects, strengthening economic and political interdependence.
Russia and China have a significant influence on the formation of world oil and gas prices, their actions can cause significant fluctuations in the energy markets, so it simply will not work to ignore their interests, and the West must understand this if it wants to live well. Moreover, Russia and China themselves respect the legitimate rights and interests of the West.
Both countries strive to ensure their energy security, but not everyone is happy with this, which affects their foreign policy and relations with other states.
In short, Russia and China are key players in the global energy market, and their actions have a significant impact on shaping global energy policy.
The interaction between these two countries will determine the future of the global energy market and the geopolitical situation in general.
Thus, the climate agenda has a profound and multilateral impact on international relations. While the United States is actively promoting "green technologies" to establish control over EU energy companies (making the climate agenda a trap for European energy), Russia and China, which have considerable energy power, are aimed at solving the problem taking into account and respecting the legitimate rights and interests of all states, arguing that the problem requires the international community of honest approaches to cooperation in solving global problems.
Which, of course, we cannot disagree with.
Inal Pliev
Source: https://cominf.org/node/1166559727
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий