In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission plans to cut the E.U.’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels. Russia currently supplies 40% of the Union’s natural gas, and 27% of imported oil, in exchange for about 400 billion euro annually. This strong economic dependency is difficult to reverse. However, continuing to purchase Russian gas and oil has opened the E.U. to criticism for fueling the Russian offensive in Ukraine. Like several non-E.U. countries, the Union responded to Russia’s initial military incursions with a series of economic sanctions. Unfortunately, due to the global rise in fuel prices, Russia’s monthly earnings from fossil fuel exports have doubled – despite the sanctions. In the name of opposing the Kremlin, as well as moving toward clean energy, the E.U. created the REPowerEU strategy in March. With an overarching goal to reduce Russian gas imports by two thirds in 2022 and completely wean Europe off of Russian fuel by 2030, this plan is estimated to cost approximately 210 billion euro over the next five years.

The first element of REPowerEU centers around progressing energy efficiency through encouraging consumers to be more energy-conscious. This will be done through improving building insulation and utilizing electric heat pumps rather than fossil fuel burning boilers. Second, the E.U. aims to expand its use of renewable energy in the form of wind and solar farms, changing legislation to expedite permits on such infrastructure. The last point of REPowerEU focuses on securing non-Russian suppliers of oil and gas. The E.U. will invest 12 billion euro in pipelines enabling it to access gas and oil from Israel, Nigeria, and Egypt.

In order to critique REPowerEU, it is important to understand why the European Union is so reliant on Russian fuel. Russia is the world’s third largest producer of oil (after the United States and Saudi Arabia), and, due to its geographic proximity, an economic agreement between it and the E.U. is logical. In fact, before the sanctions were put in place, the E.U. received about 50% of Russia’s crude oil exports. Because economic codependency between Russia and E.U. nations is so institutionalized, their political differences have come second to mutual benefit in the past. Now, however, the E.U. is taking a stand against Russian aggression, even if it comes at a cost.

Still, although the REPowerEU plan to promote international peace and combat climate change is well intentioned, it fails to recognize some tensions. For example, in diversifying from Russian fuel, decision-makers ought to consider how creating partnerships with African and Middle Eastern countries may impact the existing international and regional balance of power. The European Commission also failed to fully analyze the liberalization of the energy market that would occur if its plan is successfully carried out. After analyzing how the energy market has reacted to liberalization, the European Public Service Union concluded that the effects “were largely negative for users and workers. Energy prices have been rising for years and quality unionized jobs were lost.”

In addition to European job loss, this plan’s impact on Russian workers presents another unintended consequence. Because Russia’s natural gas industry employs so many of its citizens, a dramatic decrease in oil and gas exports will cause extreme unemployment, and furthermore, will harm the Russian economy as a whole. Although this is a well-known impact of economic sanctions, sanctions are meant to punish governments – not their people. If the Russian economy suffers too much, another Eastern European refugee crisis may emerge.

In examining alternatives or modifications to address some of REPowerEU’s faults, it is vital to consider the plan’s long-term future implications. As the global climate crisis worsens, it will impact international conflict; future conflicts will likely be caused by a lack of resources. Thus, a region must be energy-independent and utilize only renewable resources if it is to maintain peace. In other words, environmentalism and peace will be more intertwined than ever in the future.

With this in mind, the European Union ought to plan as sustainably as possible. To that end, its REPowerEU plan should avoid moving away from Russian exports only to potentially turn that energy reliance on other regions.

In its current state, the E.U.’s strategy will re-invest in gas infrastructure. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (W.W.F.), “Counting on unrealistic levels of hydrogen or increasing the use of bioenergy without restrictions on feedstocks risks prolonging the E.U.’s dependence on fossil fuels and jeopardizing climate and nature targets.”

While it is true that the current strategy prioritizes the advancement of wind and solar energy, its success depends on raising funds by selling permits waiving the need for Environmental Impact Assessments. This potential for added damage to habitats and natural resources would directly oppose the E.U.’s own goals of nature restoration. According to Alex Mason, the Head of E.U. climate and energy policy at the W.W.F. European Policy Office, “Speeding up permitting is a good idea, and will inject new impetus to the ramp up of wind and solar power across the E.U., But the way to do this is to fix inefficient bureaucratic procedures, not weaken environmental legislation. Indiscriminate exemptions from nature laws for renewable energy projects could harm biodiversity and stir up public opposition – causing conflicts and further delays.”

The European Commission’s plan should re-invest money currently directed at re-establishing access to natural gas in order to plan for an economy based on renewable resources.