Fossil fuels are a geopolitical weapon

Photo: Aureliusz M. Pędziwol

We also have some of our staff members located in Brussels and Portugal. That is why we are now an international Ukrainian organization. As a Ukrainian organization, we also aim to rebuild Ukraine with the use of renewable energy sources. When we started the campaign, we succeeded in mobilizing over 850 organizations from 60 different countries. Together we formed a broad coalition. Its members then started reaching out to their respective governments, demanding a ban on Russian oil, natural gas and coal. So far, we have been successful in ensuring a ban on Russian coal, but demands for a price cap on Russian oil have proven less effective, unfortunately. Yet, we know that also in this regard better effects can be achieved. Currently we are working to ban Russian gas, especially LNG gas, from European premium markets and to actually deprive Russia of its financial profits. Evidently, Russia has been able to continue its sales of oil and gas to Europe and beyond.

In Ukraine we work to empower local communities to deploy renewable energy sources. We work with our local governments, but also with the state authorities to ensure that adequate and ambitious pro-climate and renewable energy provisions are included in national regulations and legislation. In this way, we want to set the foundation for a sustainable rebuilding of Ukraine, which won’t be powered by oil and gas resources from unfriendly, undemocratic countries, but our own renewable energy sources and community-generated energy that does not belong to the oligarchs or oppressive political regimes.

Another area where we have seen successes is our collaboration with the US government which is aimed at imposing sanctions on the large-scale Russian project called Arctic LNG 2. As a result, Russia was deprived of profits from this resource and investors have been pulling out of it, which is huge. As much as 11 billion euros have been pulled out from this investment so far. Just recently we have also developed an investment portfolio, which involves a catalogue including 26 Ukrainian cities. Our experts went to these cities and carried out a technical service survey, to help local authorities develop renewable energy projects that could attract investments and provide energy to local communities. This approach is driven by the current situation in Ukraine, where the destruction of our energy infrastructure is massive and lots of people are suffering as a result. Neither households nor industrial facilities have adequate levels of energy to meet their needs. We have been also working with international media to initiate investigations that would expose companies, mainly in the West, as well as some governments that delay activities aimed at helping Ukraine and banning Russian fossil fuels.

You have not mentioned nuclear energy. What is your attitude towards this type of energy resource?

I see that there is an increasing recognition of the importance of nuclear energy, which is more and more treated as a geopolitical weapon. Russia’s war in Ukraine has clearly showed us that fossil fuels are actually a geopolitical weapon that can be used for blackmail. It is also a tool for exerting pressure, as Russia did with the German and European markets by offering them cheap gas and then cutting it off through the Nord Stream pipelines. That is one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is that nuclear energy is highly dangerous. It constitutes a threat to human lives and to the environment, while it is indeed low carbon and can be used as a transition fuel. However, as we can see, the world has been threatened by the nuclear button being in Putin’s reach and the risk its use poses to Ukraine and the entire planet.

And what about the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant?

Since the beginning of the full-scale war we have seen that Russia sees this plant as a tool to threaten Ukraine’s existence and thus wants to keep it occupied. I was a child when the Chernobyl power plant exploded. I remember that back then we were not told what had happened nor advised to take any measures. The Soviet authorities remained silent. Only later, when I was about 30, did I learn that there was research that revealed that people like me, who were children at the time of the disaster, have a very high chance of cancer in our old age, which is a side-effect of the nuclear radiation.  In Ukraine we also remember the moment when, as an independent country, but once the second-largest holder of nuclear resources in the Soviet Union, we were forced to give up our nuclear potential. Today, we know that had we kept this resource, our relations with Russia would have gone very differently. But to be honest, I support more democratic measures and the fact that it is international law that governs these kinds of issues. However, as we see, there are limitations also in that regard. Russia has shown us that it is not respecting international norms, neither those passed by the United Nations, nor other organizations. For this reason, we will have to hold it accountable for the huge damage and destruction it has been doing in Ukraine. Not to mention the war crimes, including those inflicted on Ukrainian children.

Speaking about Russian resources, what about the frozen Russian assets? Could they be used to rebuild Ukraine?

At the moment these assets are worth around 300 billion US dollars. They have been frozen by the European Union and could be used for that and other purposes. This resource could be used to compensate for the losses that Ukraine experienced and until Russia stops being a threat. I think it is time for the EU to make a straightforward and strong decision on these assets, along with introducing a ban on Russian LNG gas. Such decisive moves would have an impact on our political and energy security, as well as actual European security in the long term. All these things that we’ve listed: nuclear weapons; nuclear power plants, which also constitute a form of nuclear potential; as well as the frozen Russian assets; and the lack of a ban on Russian LNG, are challenges that we must overcome in order to deprive Russia of its ability to fund the war. On a more optimistic note, I can say that we are quite close to reaching this final point. The current budget of the Russian Federation already shows a huge deficit in funds. In addition, Russia is experiencing significant inflation. Gas prices have increased for ordinary Russians while Russian oil and gas companies are paying higher taxes, which is a resource for the Kremlin to finance its war efforts. That is why I think we need to push the EU to find a way to get Slovakia and Hungary on our side. The starting point should also be banning Russian LNG across Europe because for Russia that’s the main source of money it makes in Europe.

I’d like to return to the topic of nuclear power plants. There is new nuclear technology being developed that is called small modular reactors (SMR). What do you think about this technology?

I am an environmentalist and a former environmental law professor. That is why I am quite sure that small modular reactors are not yet a proven and reliable technology. This technology does not yet exist nor has proven its effectiveness. I think it is too early to say what it will bring us. Just like carbon capture and storage (CCS), which is something that does not exist. We can say it’s fake … or hope that something like this will be developed one day.

I have been hearing about CCS for a quarter of a century now…

I don’t think that SMR will be possible in the near future. There is actually a practical reason for that. Most of the work on small model reactors was funded by the US Department of State and the “Net Zero” labs. With the change of administration in Washington DC, they experienced funding cuts. As a result, there is no money for this development. I think that in addition to what has been a false solution, we can’t make these small modular reactors work. Neither can we make them industrially widespread and economically viable. And with the lack of investments, this technology will never be implemented.

At the moment, the dominating discourse in Europe is that we need to spend more on defence. Yet, many people say that defence and the Green Deal do not go together. What is your opinion?

I do think that the most pressing need is to invest in defence. But I also believe that having the European Green Deal move forward uninterrupted and properly financed is the key to energy independence. It is just as much of a necessity as defence. It is a different kind of resilience which can serve as a competitive advantage for the European economy. It will be a low carbon and low emitting economy. I believe that is our future. We are already witnessing the devastating impact of extreme weather events, which are causing significant damage to our economies. Therefore, I don’t believe it’s wise for Europe to prioritize defence spending at the sacrifice of the Green Deal. Doing so could leave us vulnerable to the most pressing climate threats.

Here I would like to mention what we call a climate genocide, which is quite a new term. It suggests that we may reach a point when only a very few wealthy people will be able to enjoy a few islands of fresh air and uncontaminated food. While everywhere else, people will be at risk of dying from floods or extreme heat, signs of which we are already seeing across Europe and the globe. For this reason, I don’t think that Europe should walk away from its climate goals. An emission-free economy is really a long-term priority. Let me point out here to maybe lesser-known research done in 2023 by the Oxford-based Smith Institute, which showed that by applying gas reduction measures Europe can effectively save 500 billion euros by 2028. This money could then be used for defence, for example. As an environmentalist, of course I don’t think that this is the best use of money. We know that the missiles that Russia launches against Ukraine almost every night now are very expensive and they are also contributing to increasing emissions. That is why I will never agree with a statement that military activities are good for the planet. But the current situation requires us to arm and defend ourselves. Yet at the same time we cannot give up on protecting the climate.

Do you really believe that renewable energy sources are reliable and sufficient to keep our economies going?

Yes. But of course, there are new challenges. But take Germany, which obtains about 54 per cent of its energy supply from renewables. 

But it is not every day that you have sun or wind…

Of course, and that is why you need what we call a balancing capacity. We need to invest in batteries and this balancing capacity, which is currently provided by gas or nuclear stations. I think that in the future when more renewable sources are developed this will be highly possible. Naturally, things like batteries or generators raise serious environmental questions but we also cannot solely rely on gas as a transition fuel because it is, as we have been witnessing, a geopolitical weapon that is used by non-democratic countries to expand their power. I really believe in Europe. There is research that shows that as early as 2040, by replacing its current energy with renewable energy, Europe can cut its emissions by 100 per cent. This gives us great hope. It will require financial resources, of course, but those can be obtained if we, as I said earlier, reduce our gas demand. In my view, heat pumps are a good solution here. As we can see renewable energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. So I think a breakthrough is already on the horizon. But we have to behave responsibly, recycle property, and not use plastic that is made with oil for everything we buy in a supermarket. If we continue doing that, we will of course never reach energy independence.

This interview took place on March 20th 2025 after the discussion “Cafe Kyiv Prague: How to sustain support for Ukraine in 2025?”, which was organized by the Association for International Affairs (AMO) and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS).

Svitlana Romanko is the founder and director of the Ukrainian campaign group “Razom We Stand”, which grew out of the #StandWithUkraine campaign. Romanko launched and coordinated both groups once the Russian war against Ukraine began. She has been an environmental lawyer for over 20 years and a high-impact climate justice campaigner for a decade. In 2022 she was awarded the Rose Braz Award for Bold Activism.

Aureliusz M. Pędziwol is a journalist with the Polish section of Deutsche Welle.

climate change, energy, Russia, Ukraine