

Article
Reducing energy consumption: the best way to cut ties with Russian oil and gas in record time
Reducing energy consumption: the best way to cut ties with Russian oil and gas in record time
As the war in Ukraine continues, proposals to address the energy crisis are multiplying, such as the government’s “economic and social resilience plan.” But these measures do not truly address the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel imports.
We keep hearing about false solutions
For example, for natural gas:
- Fill storage capacity to the max: but do we even have the means to fill it, and even if we do, it’ll last a year—and then what?
- Increasing production capacity in Norway, the United Kingdom, and even North Africa: the reserves in these regions are already almost all in decline!
- Increase LNG imports from other countries, such as the United States: even without considering shale gas, LNG emits more greenhouse gases than Russian gas [1] ; it takes 2–3 years to build LNG terminals to receive LNG on our soil [2] ; and we're just replacing one dependency with another. What will happen when gas prices rise even further because of these geopolitical dependencies?
Each of these so-called “solutions” can replace only 5–20% of Russian gas, requiring considerable industrial efforts that are far from immediate and likely unrealistic—especially in a global energy market where Europe is not alone. And even if they were implemented, the pressure on gas prices would likely not ease and would continue to cost Europe a fortune.
It's mentioned a little energy efficiency, but all too rarely of energy efficiency. Yet this is the most powerful set of measures we have to wean ourselves off Russian oil and gas within 1 to 2 years. It would reduce demand—and potentially ease price pressures—and would finally put us on track to comply with the Paris Agreement.
The real solution is to reduce our energy consumption
So what are we talking about?
Let's clarify the concept of simplicity, often labeled as a personal sacrifice or a return to the days of candlelight. We do talk about changing our lifestyles to reduce our energy consumption, but above all, it’s about bringing some rationality to our excessive energy use. There’s no need to take your car for a trip of just a few kilometers, for example. So this isn’t about individual effort; it’s about collectively organizing these changes so that they’re easy to adopt and socially valued. The perfect example is the bicycle. With safe, continuous, high-quality bike lanes, cycling becomes enjoyable—faster than driving in the city, more economical, better for your health, and so on.
In fact, 58% of French men and women fully understand that we will need to change our lifestyles, and 64% of them are willing to accept these changes if they are shared fairly among all members of our society. [3]
To reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (which means moving away from fossil fuels), three strategies—including energy conservation—must be implemented [4] :

These measures are complementary and necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement. We cannot achieve carbon neutrality through energy conservation alone, because we would continue to consume fossil fuels that are incompatible with this agreement. We cannot achieve carbon neutrality through low-carbon energy sources alone, because we would still emit too many greenhouse gases if energy consumption levels remained comparable to today’s or even continued to rise.
Let's apply this logic to natural gas and oil to see the impact of major measures on the amount of energy coming from Russia.
First, it should be noted that the figures presented are averages. As such, they mask social disparities (energy insecurity, mobility insecurity) that must be taken into account when implementing these measures. The goal here is to identify the general orders of magnitude.
Oil: Nearly 60% Is Used in Transportation in France

We could eliminate our reliance on Russian oil in the transportation sector in less than a year by implementing a few energy-saving measures

Gas: Nearly 50% is used in buildings in France

We could stop using Russian gas in the building within 1–2 years by implementing a few measures

It should be noted that the proposed measures are not exhaustive. They are intended to be among the most fundamental to the energy transition. Furthermore, we must not forget our other dependencies on Russia, such as metals and food resources.
Conclusion: Energy conservation measures would very quickly allow us to largely free ourselves from Russian gas and oil

We shouldn't pit everything against each other: all measures, including the most conventional ones, must be considered. They will be complementary and additive, helping us move even further toward our independence from fossil fuels.
Emmanuel Macron’s declaration that “we are at war” left a lasting impression at the start of the health crisis. And yet, against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, there’s no need for a “whatever the cost” approach: generally speaking, energy conservation and efficiency measures require little funding and/or are virtually self-financing. They often even generate additional income for households in the short to medium term, assuming energy prices remain constant. [5]
Of course, this requires an effort to change our habits, but hasn’t the health crisis shown us that we’re capable of doing so? Aren’t we in a time of war? What would our grandparents say if they thought back to food rationing during World War II? Probably that it’s better to choose frugality collectively than to have it imposed on us.
5.
Sustainability measures generally require little funding: for example, communication, education, and training campaigns, as well as tax incentives (such as bonus/penalty systems that are net-zero for public finances) to promote the most climate-friendly behaviors and encourage their widespread and natural adoption. Investments are sometimes needed, such as for bike lanes, but they are relatively much lower than the equivalent costs for roads for cars and trucks; energy-efficiency measures, such as heat pumps or building renovations, pay for themselves over the course of the project—especially in a context of high energy prices.
6.
For the assumptions explained below:
a. https://www.carbone4.com/publication-letat-francais-se-donne-t-moyens-de-ambition-climat
b. https://negawatt.org/IMG/pdf/220308_note_energie-climat-paix-et-securite.pdf
c. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/programmations-pluriannuelles-lenergie-ppe
d. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/strategie-nationale-bas-carbone-snbc
Calculation assumptions and comments for the various measurements:
· Oil:
· Slow down on the road:
· Energy savings: negaWatt
· Implementation timeline: This would require a large-scale communication and training campaign, as well as inspections, but it could be accomplished within a few months or years through a proactive and collectively organized effort
· Reduce car travel by 10% in kilometers:
· Energy savings: negaWatt
· Implementation timeline: This would require a large-scale communication campaign to promote shorter distances and less frequent trips, as well as tax incentives to encourage remote work; however, it could be achieved within a few months or years through a proactive and collectively organized effort
· Cycling as much as in the Netherlands:
· The energy savings result from replacing 10% of car trips, which account for 90% of the oil consumed in passenger transportation
· Implementation speed: There should be a proactive effort to develop a network of safe, continuous, and widespread bike lanes; this can be done quickly given that the cost and time required are relatively lower than for a car road; usage would follow very quickly, as observed in the Nordic countries
· Double the share of rail transportation in the overall transportation system
· The energy savings are equivalent to replacing 10% of car and truck travel in kilometers, which accounts for approximately 90% of the oil consumed in transportation
· Implementation speed: This would require significant investment in new infrastructure, maintenance and upgrades to the existing network, as well as fare incentives and improved service for passengers. Compliance with the National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC)—which would already be very ambitious—would only allow rail traffic to grow by 20% over approximately 10 years. It is therefore a long-term measure.
· 10% more electric vehicles in the fleet
· The energy savings result from replacing 10% of car trips, which account for 90% of the oil consumed in passenger transportation
· Implementation pace: If the SNBC were followed, electric vehicles would account for 15% of the vehicle fleet by 2030, compared with the current share of 1% in 2021
· Gas:
· Lower the heating temperature by 2°C:
· négaWatt estimates energy savings of ~15 TWh per 1°C reduction; for a 2°C reduction, a nonlinear energy savings profile is taken into account
· In terms of implementation speed, this would require a large-scale communication campaign, tools for monitoring energy consumption in homes, and financial incentives for energy-efficient behavior; however, it could be achieved within a few months through a proactive and collectively organized effort
· Insulate 30% of the housing stock heated by natural gas:
· Energy savings after a high-performance renovation: 60%
· Implementation rate: Currently, approximately 100,000 energy-efficient renovations are carried out each year. There are about 12 million gas-heated homes. Insulating 30% of these homes would mean insulating 3.6 million of them. Assuming we accelerate renovation efforts to meet the SNBC’s 2030 target of 500,000 renovations per year, we could insulate 3–4 million homes by 2030. In the high-end scenario, where renovations are focused exclusively on gas-heated homes, this would take at least 8 years.
· Replace 20% of gas boilers with low-carbon heating systems
· Energy savings are immediate, with a 20% reduction in the building's gas consumption
· Pace of implementation: If the SNBC were followed, the number of gas-heated homes would drop from 12 million to 9 million by 2030—a 25% reduction over approximately 10 years. We could be even more proactive by mandating and subsidizing the replacement of gas furnaces before the end of their useful life with low-carbon heating systems. In that case, we could expect a 30–40% reduction over approximately 10 years.
· Increase the share of biomethane in the natural gas grid
· The PPE projects a high-end figure of 30 TWh in the grids by 2030, compared to 4 TWh in 2021; this would mean an additional 26 TWh that could replace Russian gas. Given that the building sector accounts for 50% of gas consumption, this would represent a gain of 13 TWh in this sector by 2030.



.jpg%3Fv%3D2026-06-30T09%253A31%253A20.056Z&w=3840&q=75)







