US Pushed For More Fossil Fuels At Energy Security Summit

At the Future of Energy Security Summit, hosted by the International Energy Agency and UK Government at Lancaster House in London, the US pushed for more fossil fuels and downplayed renewables.

Both China and the US are central players in the global clean energy transition. As one doubles down on decarbonisation and the other pivots toward fossil fuels, the question is no longer just who wins — but what happens to global efforts to fight climate change. Will the clean energy shift stall, reroute or evolve beyond ?

While the leaders of the UK, European Union (EU) argued that clean energy provides energy security, ministers and officials from oil and gas producers like the US, Iraq and Egypt said that fossil fuels should remain part of the energy system.

In case of renewables , countries will have to look for alternatives to the US. With Trumps the assault on wind energy, and clean energy funding cuts, decarbonisation is going to slow down in US. Countries and companies supplying to the US will need to replace lost sales with orders from elsewhere.

According to Barbados’ energy and business development minister Lisa Cummins -” energy security looks different for small island developing countries like hers. Barbados is on the receiving end of fossil fuel generation in the sense that we are on the frontline of sea level rise as the result of the climate crisis.”

Solar cells might be an exception to this rule. US envoy Tommy Joyce blamed recent power cuts in Barbados’ Caribbean neighbour – US territory Puerto Rico – on the island becoming more dependent on renewables for electricity.

“After bolting on over about 30% wind and solar variable renewables, traditional grids began failing,” he said. Countries not manufacturing those solar cells, say, will get them at a lower cost. In energy circles, for instance, Pakistan made headlines after it used cheap Chinese panels to build itself a solar boom.

As for countries manufacturing solar cells, they have a choice of either moving up the value chain or erecting tariff or non-tariff walls. CBAM is one example here. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Energy experts said that relying on other countries for equipment like solar panels and wind turbines is preferable to relying on them for fuel. Ember’s Europe programme director Sarah Brown said importing fossil fuels involves “constant risk, constant cost” whereas importing machinery like solar panels is a one-off on both fronts.

But Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington DC, told Climate Home that the climate community needs to address the question of whether the West can decarbonise while decoupling from China.

The writer of this article is Dr. Seema Javed, an environmentalist & a communications professional in the field of climate and energy