Finding fossil fuel alternative to Russian oil and gas makes short-term sense

theguardian.com:

Do you feel lucky? That was the subliminal message of Alexander Novak when Russia’s deputy prime minister channeled his inner Clint Eastwood to warn the west of the consequences of extending its sanctions to his country’s oil.

No question, there was a hint of both bravado and desperation as Novak said it was possible – although not likely – that the cost of crude could hit $300 (£227) a barrel. The measures imposed since the invasion of Ukraine are starting to bite.

Even so, just like the cop Eastwood plays in Dirty Harry, Novak knows what a lot of politicians across western Europe are thinking: abandoning Russia as a source of energy supply is far from costless.

Starting with the obvious, rising prices for oil and gas threaten to intensify cost of living crises across the west. It is a basic rule of economics that if the supply of something is reduced the price will go up until such point as the cost become prohibitive. At that point, there is a drop in demand that forces down prices, which is why each peak in oil prices has been followed by a slump.

It seems unlikely – given differing views among member states – that the EU is ready yet to broaden its sanctions to include oil and gas. But unless the war ends soon energy prices will remain high, eating deep into profits and consumer spending power.

A second problem is how to make up for the loss of Russian energy while at the same time meeting net zero commitments. In the medium and long term, the answer is obvious: western nations need to accelerate the transition out of fossil fuels and into renewables and the invasion of Ukraine will give added momentum to that trend. In the short term, though, governments keen to keep the lights on and to keep transport systems running