To Be or Not to Be Sustainable

That is the question currently on everyone’s lips. A close second: will we actually be able to meet the net-zero emissions target by 2050?

As is the case with most serious questions, there is no hard “yes” or “no” response, but many shades of gray.

The COPs are always a great source of debates, deals and sometimes even compromise, with decision makers trying, but not always succeeding, in finding common ground.

Let’s dive in together into the story of COP29 and unravel the key points and a way forward.

 

The dialogues and key themes

Decision makers involved in the energy sector, but not only, shared the floor at this most recent COP and recommitted to meeting the clean transition goals. We’re talking about actions, plans and several opportunities that would eventually lead to keeping the 1.5°C target close and within reach.

Sure, ambitious targets, such as transitioning away from fossil fuels, a triple energy capacity come 2030, accelerating the deployment of low-emission tech and doubling the energy efficiency improvements are always crowd favourites, but what about actual solutions?

This year’s talks focused on two main pillars, namely enhancing ambition and enabling action. Among the top priorities: climate finance. But talking is cheap. Let’s see about the present opportunities and a way to tackle them:

• Scaling up energy storage and electricity grids.

These should serve as a key enabler in achieving the lofty ambition of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.

In order to reach this target, we would require a global energy storage capacity increase of 1,500 GW by 2030. Not to mention 1,200 GW in battery storage, an increase almost 15 times compared to current capacities.

If this wasn’t quite enough, another condition that needs to be met is the obtaining of building permits for over 25 million kilometres worth of electricity grids come 2030.

Another 65 million kilometres are waiting in the wings, come 2040. Not meeting these objectives would result in driving up emissions, higher electricity prices and reducing the share of renewable energy in the current mix.

• Making sure that member states implement the required policy of achieving energy efficiency progress by 2030.

COP 28 came and went, and we’re not closer to achieving our energy efficiency standards.

In order to change that tune, we’d need integrated policy approaches that address shortages of skilled workers and scaling up investment.

The IEA is working with governments in order to prioritize energy efficiency, but policies have yet to be translated into concrete actions.

• Focusing on cutting emissions from fossil fuels and methane.

As clean energy grows its share, fossil fuel dependency goes down. At least it should, in a world not dominated by uncertainty.

Given that clear policies have yet to be drafted, only dialogue and cooperation between a diverse range of stakeholders seem to be the key.

• Informing the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions, according to the Global Stocktake outcomes.

The GST marked a crucial point: the Parties agreed on the 1.5C goal and the needed solutions, such as sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.

As such, in order to meet this objective, the next rounds of national contributions should be integrated into national development strategies, informed by the GST.

• Implementing solutions that boost clean energy investment in developing economies.

This would require a tripling of annual concessional funding, close to USD 115 billion by 2030.

At the same time, we would require targeted solutions that could serve in increasing private-capital mobilization and lowering the cost of capital for clean energy investing.

No one will be left behind, on condition that relevant institutions come up with a strong lineup of profitable clean energy projects, coupled with fast-tracking reforms for international financial institutions.

 

Compromise or deal?

There’s a really fine line between the two, one that we must always tread carefully. Sometimes it leads to everyone benefiting, sometimes everyone walks away from the table feeling discontent.

The COP29 $300 billion deal between industrialized countries is being called controversial, as developing countries would require bigger funds in order to realistically cope with climate change.

The argument goes like this: richer countries are producing the majority of greenhouse gas, and developing countries are suffering the same consequences, without the benefit. As such, maybe the compensation should be higher?

Also, the money will be invested in stages and the deal (worth at least $1.3 trillion) would only be complete by 2035.

According to the wronged party, developing countries in this instance, the sum is paltry compared to what it will cost them to transition.

Apparently, many participants wanted to establish a higher climate finance goal, and are left somewhat disappointed, both on mitigation and finance. However, it represents a great starting point.

At the same time, greenhouse gas levels are at an all-time high, as 2024 is envisioned to be the hottest year yet. Glaciers are retreating at an unprecedented rate, the sea is rising, and extreme weather events are already causing major loss of livelihood and, most importantly, human lives.

As it stands, this new target should serve as an insurance policy for going forward with the clean energy boom. Will the premiums be paid on time and in full? And will it be enough? Remains to be seen.

 

The nuclear side of the equation

Admittedly, nuclear energy was not the main topic of COP29.

The main talking points were the creation of carbon credits, the strong criticism of the Western governments (the strongest polluters asking for unrealistic outcomes) and the seemingly clear outcome: a lot of proposed actions without any serious political will that could back them up.

In what pertains to nuclear power, the IAEA, the World Nuclear Association, the USA and the COP29 Presidency co-organized an event where six additional countries pledged to triple nuclear energy by 2050. The same declaration was signed by 22 countries at COP 28 in 2023. Among these, South Korea, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the USA and the UK.

As for the usual suspects, as in the big players who chose not to sign the agreements, we mention China and Russia. From Europe, we mention Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain, from the Americas — Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, and from South Asia — India and Pakistan.

Rounding up the list, we have Iran and South Africa. However, it’s worth pointing out that the new signatories are not nuclear states at present. We’re talking about El Salvador, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Nigeria and Turkey. Be that as it may, it’s worth noting that NPPs are currently under construction in Turkey and Kazakhstan already has firm plans in place for their development.

Other countries mentioned nuclear at COP29 in their national addresses. Among the most prominent we found:

• Kazakhstan spoke highly about its uranium exports.
• Czechia advertised nuclear services provided to other countries.
• Poland encouraged a future based on nuclear power.
• Slovakia mentioned plans for small modular reactors and recycling of used fuel.
• The US announced the planned deployment of 200 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2050.

 

Where does Romania stand? 

Of course, we want to be at the big boys’ table. However, are we truly ready for that?

As with each COP, critical issues are raised regarding climate goals and energy security. Combine that with an avid need for economic development and you get quite the balancing act.

Indeed, Romania has committed to various actions in order to increase nuclear and renewable energy capacities, not to mention the implementation of carbon capture, storage technologies and management.

COP29 focused on regional cooperation on energy interconnectivity, in our case, between South-East Europe and the Caspian Sea region. This raises some interesting opportunities that we could take advantage of, in order to bolster collaboration and energy security in the region.

As per statements issued by Minister of Energy Sebastian-Ioan Burduja at COP29, we should see the launch of a joint project company that will connect the Caspian Sea to the European Union via the Green Corridor. This is a joint venture, where Romania, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Hungary all work together in order to transform the region into a standard of energy security and stability. As of right now, the headquarters of the project are located in Bucharest.

The goal of the Green Corridor is that of integrating a substantial amount of clean energy with the help of a high-voltage, direct current submarine cable, which will connect the four countries. This should increase the connectivity in the Black Sea basin, all the while diversifying supply routes and increasing the potential and share of renewable energy in the national mix. As a result, electricity prices for household consumers, as well as Romanian companies, are projected to go down.

According to Sebastian-Ioan Burduja, there can be no energy transition without an energy transmission infrastructure. The lack of one is the main reason for paying comparably much higher prices in Eastern Europe, as opposed to Western Europe. There are billions of euros projected to flow through the Romanian economy, as this investment will amount to jobs, economic growth and lower bills for the average Romanian.

While the transition towards clean energy is the final goal, we should not forget about the means of reaching that goal. As such, natural gas is still set to feature heavily in the energy mix as transitional fuel, at least until we find a better, more sustainable alternative.

A meeting between Romania’s Minister of Energy, the Minister of Environment and Energy of Greece and the Minister of Energy of Bulgaria took place at COP29, as part of the Vertical Gas Corridor. They were guests of honour, as were the Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic, the President of Bulgaria, and the Minister of Energy of the Republic of Moldova.

Together, the mentioned dignitaries were all in agreement of the fact that natural gas is still irreplaceable as transition fuel. A crucial point: the urgent diversification of import sources, in a bid to ensure Europe’s competitive energy prices and security of supply. The Vertical Corridor is paramount in this case, especially since the agreement regarding Russian gas transit via Ukraine expired in 2024.

As of right now, Romania is the number one gas producer in the European Union, and we’ll double that production capacity once Neptune Deep comes on stream.

BRUA, the Vertical Corridor and other vital infrastructure, such as interconnection projects, are set to position Romania both as a major gas producer and a gas transmission hub in Europe. As a bonus to lower gas prices and market efficiency, this victory would notably strengthen the energy security of Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.

According to the Romanian Minister of Energy, no country can work out the energy trilemma, which is cheap, safe and clean energy, by itself. As such, the lack of infrastructure for the interconnection between Central and Western Europe is a fundamental European concern, with transit states needed to step up and connect with their neighbours. On our part, Romania supports three solutions:

• An analysis of the already existing interconnection capacities and how useable they really are.
• Coordination at European level of the interconnection lines and maintenance work
• An acceleration of development plans for cross-border energy infrastructure, on a timeline preapproved at European level.

The conclusion seems to be a simple one: the road to sustainability, global sustainability, at that, seems to be fraught with peril, but nonetheless achievable.

Bumps in the road appear because governments squabble about who did what and who is supposed to do what, instead of pooling resources, realizing differences, and supporting a common goal.

This is a team effort. All that’s left now is getting on the same page. It remains to be seen if we’re all capable of sustaining that approach long-term.