September 19, 2021

Nord Stream II: geopolitical and environmental hazard

topic:	Energy
located:	Germany, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland
editor:	Abby Klinkenberg

While much of the controversy surrounding the construction of the 1,224 km Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline has pivoted around geopolitical concerns, its environmental implications have been understated at best and explicitly ignored at worst. 

Owned by the notorious Russian energy corporation Gazprom, Nord Stream 2 will transport natural gas from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea, running parallel to the existing Nord Stream 1 pipeline and matching its export capacity. Over the past decade, it has been one of the most internationally contentious projects approved by the German state: the United States has relentlessly opposed its construction across administrations, fearing increased EU reliance on Russian energy sources. The project’s environmental impact, however, has largely been lost in the geopolitical fray.

Since the pipeline has already been built (it wrapped up construction in early September), there is little point in rehashing the habitat disruption that the pipeline’s development has caused to the fragile marine ecosystems in the Baltic Sea. What remains at stake in a climate sense, however, is the role that this pipeline will play in the German - and overall European - transition to clean energy.

Nord Stream 2 will double the EU’s natural gas imports from Russia, increasing Nord Stream’s annual delivery capacity from 55 billion to 110 billion cubic meters. These numbers are fairly unfathomable on their own: to put them in perspective, 55 billion cubic meters is enough natural gas to sustain Sweden for 55 years (according to its level of consumption in 2020).

Meanwhile, the German state has set a goal for itself to become climate neutral by 2045 - a goal that will require ending reliance on nuclear and coal energy sources (set for 2022 and 2038, respectively). The fact that the German state is in the process of finalising its approval for another fossil fuel pipeline suggests a certain ambiguity about its intentions to follow through with its environmental commitments. 

While proponents have argued that natural gas should be viewed as a transitional energy source necessary to pivot towards a clean energy future, the German Institute for Economic Research’s senior energy expert described Nord Stream 2 as “unnecessary” and ​​"commercially inefficient." 

Although natural gas production emits less carbon than other fossil fuels like coal, Nord Stream 2 is still a step in the wrong direction: the pipeline is expected to emit at least 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually (not including methane-related environmental damage), which likely puts Germany’s reduced emissions targets out of reach. 

The pipeline’s construction is complete - that much is clear - however, it still faces a couple of hurdles before natural gas begins to pump through its metal veins: EU energy regulations and Germany’s certification. 

Gazprom is appealing a recent court decision that subjects the corporation to EU regulation regarding the separation of ownership between the producers, transporters and distributors of natural gas. While this issue will be settled in the courts, the matter of whether Germany will certify Nord Stream 2 will likely be settled at the ballot box during the German federal election on 26 September. 

While Angela Merkel of the CDU has defended the project over the course of her chancellorship, the German Green Party has pledged to stop the pipeline if it comes into power.

Image by Robson Machado

Call to Action

Stop the construction of Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota!

Support now