The Group of Seven(G7) countries recently made a controversial decision regarding their position on gas investments, a decision that has drawn criticism from environmental activists. Despite concerns about the impact on climate goals, G7 leaders viewed support for gas investments as a “temporary” measure to reduce their dependence on Russian energy. However, the decision has sparked a debate about the potential damage it could do to global climate efforts.
Towards a reduction of Russian energy dependence: The G7 supports gas investments
At the G7 climate ministers’ meeting in April, an agreement was reached recognizing that investments in gas could help address market shortfalls caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent disruptions in global energy markets. Despite some disagreements between Japan and the European countries, the ministers agreed on the appropriateness of gas investments in these exceptional circumstances.
Nevertheless, at the recent G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, the leaders’ statement changed the language to again include gas investments. It was stated that the acceleration of the reduction of dependence on Russian energy made it necessary to include investments in gas. The leaders highlighted the role that increased supplies of liquefied natural gas(LNG) can play, recognizing the opportunity to invest in the sector to address potential shortages in gas markets resulting from the crisis.
The G7 leaders’ statement described support for gas investments as a temporary measure in response to the urgent need to reduce dependence on Russian energy. However, it did not specify the duration of this temporary measure. The paper stressed that such investments should be aligned with climate goals and integrated with the development of low-carbon and renewable hydrogen.
Criticism and support: G7 divided on gas investments
Defending the G7 position, German government officials argued that investment in gas was needed to reduce dependence on Russian gas and find suitable alternatives. They emphasized the importance of building new gas-fired power plants so that they can run on green hydrogen in the future.
The G7 has committed to a goal of zero net emissions by 2050 and to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. German government officials emphasized their commitment to these goals and mentioned that any increase in coal or gas consumption would require a corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions in the future.
Critics say the G7 decision creates a loophole for new fossil gas investments, exploiting the Russian military conflict in Ukraine as an excuse. Max Lawson, head of inequality policy at Oxfam, criticized the G7 for not contributing fairly to the achievement of climate goals and for trying to shift the blame onto others.
The G7’s decision to include support for gas investments in their communication has sparked a heated debate. While some argue that this is a necessary step to reduce dependence on Russian energy, others express concern about its potentially harmful effects on climate goals.
