Hydrocarbons and the Climate Crisis

On the one hand, we now know with certainty that the climate crisis is a very serious issue and that all countries have committed, under the Paris Agreement, to achieving Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. On the other hand, several countries—Greece among them—are celebrating the opportunities arising from hydrocarbon extraction and from creating hub stations for importing American LNG into Europe, which will eliminate natural gas imports from Russia. In the European Union we also see a turn toward increased defense spending and the abandonment of decarbonization plans.

So what is the situation that is taking shape? Are the Net Zero goals now being neglected or overlooked?

How can humanity continue its parallel path toward Net Zero despite the intermediate “stops” of geostrategic maneuvering through LNG? How are these issues analyzed?

Short-term Analysis

In recent years, scientific and political consensus has solidified around the idea that climate change is no longer a future risk but an immediate reality. The Paris Agreement, with its ambitious goal of climate neutrality by 2050, has created a framework that obligates countries to progressively reduce emissions and transform their energy systems. However, the instability of recent years—from the Russia–Ukraine crisis to pressures in the global energy market—has brought to the forefront a more contradictory picture in which the transition is not a linear path but a complex mixture of environmental ambitions and geopolitical needs.

Recent geopolitical instability and global energy-market pressures have highlighted a more conflicting landscape, in which the transition to climate neutrality is not a straight line but a multifaceted mix of environmental aims and geopolitical necessities.

Several countries, including Greece, now emerge as key players in Europe’s energy strategy. The upgrading of LNG infrastructure, the creation of energy hubs, and the promotion of hydrocarbon extraction appear as opportunities to strengthen national economies and geopolitical significance. Europe is attempting to wean itself off Russian natural gas, turning instead to American LNG and new supply sources. While this move is crucial for the security of the coming years, at first glance it seems to distance the continent from the path of full decarbonization.

Reality, however, is more complex. A temporary increase in natural gas use does not equal abandonment of climate goals. Instead, many governments are trying to follow a “dual pathway”: on one hand securing immediate energy adequacy so that economies and societies can function without instability; on the other, keeping alive the momentum toward cleaner technologies.

Indeed, many governments aim both to ensure immediate energy sufficiency and to maintain the push toward cleaner technologies.

A key way to remain on track for Net Zero—even with increased natural-gas use—is to invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS). Many countries are already financing projects in which CO₂ emitted from power plants or industrial facilities is collected and permanently stored underground. If these technologies scale up as required, they can allow some gas-fired units to operate without significant climate burden, acting as a “bridge mechanism” until renewables fully dominate.

Meanwhile, new solutions are emerging that once seemed like distant science fiction. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), new fusion-energy technologies, and upgraded energy-storage systems (such as advanced batteries or hydrogen) can serve as stabilizers in an energy system increasingly reliant on renewables. Fusion, in particular, is still experimental, but the wave of investment and scientific progress suggests it could play a decisive role in the second half of the century.

The European Union, of course, faces the additional challenge of boosting defense spending. This necessity compresses budgets and slows some green initiatives. Nevertheless, the EU is trying to integrate the green transition into its industrial and defense strategies, strengthening domestic production of key technologies—from solar panels to batteries and rare-earth materials. In this way it seeks to reduce dependence on third countries, which is a strategic priority.

Intermediate stops—LNG, hydrocarbons, defense—do not cancel the final destination. They aim to ensure that the transition does not undermine social cohesion or geopolitical stability.

What is emerging is therefore a more “realistic” and less idealistic path. The intermediate stops—LNG, hydrocarbons, defense—do not negate the final goal. They constitute a way to ensure that the transition does not unfold in a manner that jeopardizes social cohesion or geopolitical stability. Provided technological progress continues and political will remains strong, the dual strategy may succeed: security today, Net Zero tomorrow. The challenge for the coming years will be to prevent “temporary” solutions from becoming permanent and to ensure that the world continues to invest boldly in the cleaner energy future the planet requires.

Long-term Analysis

Is it correct to argue that hydrocarbons do not constitute a long-term energy solution, since proven reserves eventually run out? Is it reasonable for humanity to expect that with new drilling and the discovery of new hydrocarbon deposits, we will have sufficient energy, for example, up to and beyond the year 2100? We often hear that Saudi Arabia’s reserves will be depleted around 2050–2060. What will it do then? For this reason we hear that the country is investing heavily in renewables. We also hear that Net Zero cannot be achieved without a (large) share of nuclear energy. What appears likely over a longer-term horizon?

1. Hydrocarbons: Why They Are Not a Long-Term Solution

It is absolutely correct to say that hydrocarbons—due not only to climate change but also to finite reserves—are not a solution for the long-term horizon (late 21st century and beyond). Proven oil and gas reserves are not infinite, and more importantly, the large, cheap resources are being depleted faster. This does not mean that oil will disappear as an absolute resource—it means that the easily accessible, low-cost oil is becoming scarce.

History shows that each decade technology uncovers new deposits or enables extraction from more difficult fields. But these are usually more expensive, more energy-intensive, or more environmentally burdensome. Thus, yes: hydrocarbons are not a long-term strategy.

2. Can We Expect Enough Energy from New Deposits Until 2100?

Practically speaking, probably yes—but only with enormous environmental and financial costs. Global assessments indicate that resources can be discovered and exploited for several more decades. But three major problems remain:

• Economic – As we move to more difficult extraction, costs rise sharply.

• Climate – We cannot burn hydrocarbons for another century without catastrophic climate impact.

• Geopolitical – Dependence on limited regions creates crises and instability.

Therefore, while reserves may exist, if humanity relies on them until 2100, achieving Net Zero becomes impossible. Hydrocarbon use may continue at a reduced level, but not as the backbone of the system.

3. Example: Saudi Arabia and the Post-Oil Era

A key example of hydrocarbon-reserve trajectory is Saudi Arabia. The country, enriched by its massive fields, predicts that production will begin to drop significantly after 2050–2060—not because “there will be no oil left,” but because extraction will no longer be cheap or productive enough to support its current economic model.

This is why it is investing enormous capital in renewables, creating funds for green-hydrogen technologies, and planning major carbon-capture projects.

Other hydrocarbon-exporting countries—like Norway and the UK—are preparing as well, knowing that the 21st century will see a peak and then a decline in oil demand.

4. Net Zero Without Nuclear Energy: Is It Possible?

Here the picture is clear: Most international studies (IEA, IPCC, MIT, OECD) conclude that without a significant amount of nuclear energy—whether from conventional reactors, SMRs, or later, fusion—Net Zero cannot be achieved on a global scale.

Reasons:

• Renewables, although critical, are intermittent.

• Energy storage is not yet mature at global scale.

• Heavy industry and megacities require stable 24/7 power.

• Hydrogen and CCS are supportive technologies, not full replacements.

  
  

Thus, a realistic Net Zero strategy will require: Renewables + Nuclear + Storage + CCS + Hydrogen = the most likely future energy mix.

Conclusion

If we put the above issues in logical order, we can conclude that:

1. Hydrocarbon reserves are limited and increasingly expensive.

2. New drilling can provide “breathing space,” but not a solution for the 22nd century.

3. Oil-producing countries know this and are already investing in green energy.

4. If humanity relies on hydrocarbons until 2100, Net Zero becomes unattainable.

5. The transition requires new stable sources: mainly nuclear (SMR/fusion), renewables, hydrogen, and CCS.

6. So, the strategy of the future is not “either hydrocarbons or green energy,” but a gradual transition in which hydrocarbons progressively decline and the remaining energy gap is covered by nuclear power together with renewable energy sources.