In a world entrenched with political complexities and environmental perils, the link between climate change, energy politics, and war is becoming unmistakably clearer. The ongoing energy crisis, notably highlighted by the political and economic relations between Ukraine, European nations, Russia, and the United States, presents a moral conundrum to which few people seem to have a solution.
Europe militarily supports Ukraine. But it also buys vast amounts of Russian gas, which funds Moscow’s war in Ukraine. This paradoxical scenario is made all the more complicated by another Ukraine supporter, the United States, which has stepped up its natural gas production to fill the demand in Europe. Some believe that only keeps humanity on a path of fossil fuel reliance and global conflict.
Reckon spoke with Svitlana Romanko, who has spent the last 20 years as an environmental law professor and over a decade as a climate justice campaigner. While the unrelenting war in her native Ukraine continues, Romanko is attending New York Climate Week and has an urgent message. She believes the weaponization of fossil fuels is not just an environmental concern but a significant contributor to geopolitical instability.
She founded Razom We Stand, an organization aimed at disrupting the financial flows that enable Russia to wage war, driven in part by its status as a significant exporter of oil and gas. She also argues that fossil fuels are essentially “weapons of mass destruction,” funding conflicts globally while also harming our planet.
Svitlana Romanko has spent the last 20 years as an environmental law professor and over a decade as a climate justice campaigner. While the unrelenting war in her native Ukraine continues, Romanko is attending New York Climate Week and has an urgent message. She believes the weaponization of fossil fuels is not just an environmental concern but a significant contributor to geopolitical instability.
She founded Razom We Stand.
Reckon: You’ve come all the way to the United States. What do you hope to achieve by coming to New York Climate Week?
We are here to make our voice heard and talk to political leaders in charge of energy and the sanctions against Russia. We understand there is an energy crisis, but it cannot be solved by opening more liquid natural gas facilities in the United States or allowing European countries to continue buying Russian gas.
This only funds the war against Ukraine and increases our reliance on fossil fuels. By continuing our addiction to oil and gas, we are only enriching Russia’s ability to continue its wars, which is why we insist on a global transition to renewable energy. It’s high time we sever financial pipelines that have enabled dictators and further harmed our Earth.
Where have you had success so far?
We have escalated this transition to renewable energies, especially across Europe. It’s been quite successful because European nations understand the need to reduce their energy consumption and they are moving toward these targets.
But also, one of the main pillars of our work is rebuilding Ukraine as a post-war country completely powered by renewable energy. We are trying to influence governmental officials and civil society around this vision. It’s been supported by the International Energy Agency, but we are currently experiencing very low political ambition and willpower, which will not lead us to a world free from autocrats and energy wars.
What exactly do you want to happen?
We want G20 countries to listen carefully and look at the destruction being caused by the weaponization of fossil fuels. G20 promised to triple renewable energy, which is positive, but we want more. We want to increase clean energy deployment fivefold by 2030. We want those countries to stay within the Paris Climate Agreement goals.
And while we wait on this, Russia has amassed more than $445 billion in revenue from fossil fuels since the war began. G20 countries have contributed about $318 billion of that money. They who condemn Russia are paying for the war. It’s scary and frustrating to think of the war crimes paid for by G20 money. Thousands and thousands [of war crimes].
Stopping that is essential to liberating our nation. So we are mainly campaigning to end Russian fossil fuels immediately, to end the war in Ukraine, to win this war for the planet, but we are also active in advocacy towards other countries in the G2O, which are responsible for most of the emissions. We are trying to get them on the energy transition path using Ukrainian moral worth and leadership.
But some good things have happened recently. Last Thursday, a new set of sanctions was imposed on over 150 entities that have provided technological support for Russian fossil fuel infrastructure. This is a very encouraging development.
Many of our problems stem from conflict. However, the connection between climate change, war and the military-industrial complex is relatively new and may be unknown to some. Can you explain that?
Military weapons, for example, are hugely disruptive to the environment and climate. In Ukraine, emissions produced by those explosions, missile attacks, and other weapons amounted to over 100 million tons in the first year of the war. It exceeds the yearly amount of emissions for some countries.
The second type of weapon is fossil fuels, which are weapons of mass destruction. For at least 200 years since the mass use of fossil fuels, multiple conflicts and wars have been fought. African countries have experienced the worst, but no country is immune, and millions have died trying to gain fossil fuels or trying to defend them. And this connection, for many, is invisible. The climate crisis, military, and wars are hugely interconnected and have been for a long time.
Even though these connections have existed in all wars, the war in Ukraine is the beginning of the climate wars. I believe a world without fossil fuels is a peaceful place.
That starts with the European Union and other G20 countries stopping reliance on Russian gas.
Would you prefer the European Union buy its gas from the U.S.? Many communities in the U.S. have been destroyed by oil & gas production.
No, I don’t I have been to Houston (Texas) and Freeport (Texas). And I’ve seen those LNG (liquified-natural gas) facilities, which look like another civilization on a post-apocalyptic planet. I care about local communities, so I would never want a world where fossil fuels destroy more people’s lives. It’s an addiction, and we can’t find another place to get it because of Russia. We must find a new way to live.
What we demand from the European Union is they dramatically reduce their gas consumption for heating. There are heat pumps which are now available. Yes, it’s not that easy to produce them, but in a year or two, Europe can significantly increase the production and installation of heat pumps and also use different kinds of renewable energies. It’s all easily possible.
Research proves that Europe can completely abandon Russian gas without harming the economy by the end of 2024. But they don’t think it can be done until 2028, which is way too late for Ukraine, which continues to fight this unjust war. They should move faster. Europe’s economy can save and grow by ditching Russian gas and embracing technology like heat pumps and renewable energy. If they act now, they can save about $500 billion by 2028. This is based on Oxford University research released in April this year.
But the U.S. should not try to take Russia’s position as the largest producer of LNG in the world. This crisis is temporary, and the U.S. is trying to take advantage of that when it should be moving in a different direction. The U.S. is a long way behind with its climate and financial commitments. And they must be on track with that and not just sell more gas to Europe.
You mentioned you were in Houston and Freeport, so you’ve seen the horrific economic polarization caused by oil and gas in the United States. Can you describe what you saw there?
I was shocked to see how extensive oil and gas extraction has harmed local communities. People have been displaced, the houses were abandoned, it was so lonely. I’ve never seen such huge facilities like the LNG terminals. It scared me because it seemed like a very post-apocalyptic landscape with no place for people and no way to live a life or enjoy the environment.
There are clear parallels with the war.
As you know, the United States has the largest and most advanced military-industrial complex of any country. We now know that it creates vast emissions that are very bad for the environment. But at the same time, the United States provides weapons to Ukraine. Is that a necessary kind of evil?
It’s not easy to acknowledge, but I feel that our world could be more just in the future when we transition to include the green economy, which is not about wars and the production of weapons.
But we do live in a world with war. The Ukrainian army is killed daily by Russian aggressors as part of Putin’s dictatorship. Autocrats like him use their complete power to kill people, make money, and destroy our climate. Of course, we must fight them, but that is a debatable question for many people who want an end to the war, even if it means allowing Russia to keep stolen land.
We must sanction Russian fossil fuels today, but later on, we must say no to all fossil fuels because it does not matter where they have been produced. If produced in Russia, it will fund the war against Ukraine, but if produced within the U.S. or elsewhere, it supports the war against humanity and a safe climate.
