JUST over 100 days on from the COP26 climate conference’s “moment of truth” in Glasgow, the Ukraine war has underscored just how much Europe is addicted to fossil fuels, particularly those of the Russian variety.

The EU depends on natural gas for 38% of its energy needs with 35% coming from Russia. Some member states are more reliant than others.

Finland gets 94% of its gas from Russia, Latvia 93% and Bulgaria 77%. Germany gets 49%, Italy 46%, Poland 40% and France 25%.

Smaller non-EU states’ habit is even worse. North Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Moldova are all 100% dependent on getting their gas fix from Russia. Thankfully, the UK relies on Russia for just 4% of its gas.

The EU is also heavily reliant on crude oil from Russia, by far the largest importer to the 27-strong bloc, accounting for 25% of all its oil imports.

Putin’s war has finally concentrated EU minds on its energy supply. Last month after the Russian tyrant unleashed his attack on Ukraine, Germany halted the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project meant to double the flow of Russian gas directly to its homes and businesses.

Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's ex-President, tweeted facetiously: “Welcome to the new world where Europeans will soon have to pay 2,000 euros per thousand cubic metres!” He pointed to how energy prices could soon double.

But the Gazprom-owned firm, which built Nord Stream 2 is now considering filing for insolvency, sacking all its 140 workforce.

On Tuesday, Ursula von der Leyen called for the EU to make an even swifter transition to renewable energy than planned. “We simply cannot rely so much on a supplier that explicitly threatens us,” she declared.

The European Commission President also pointed out how the bloc would build new liquefied natural gas[LNG] terminals to import gas by ship from countries other than Russia. Renewables would in the long term make the EU “truly independent,” she insisted, noting: “Every kilowatt-hour of electricity Europe generates from solar, wind, hydropower or biomass reduces our dependency on Russian gas and other energy sources.”

Next week, the European Commission will set out its new strategy to wean itself off Russian fossil fuels.

A leaked draft of the Commission’s plan has already suggested “using the full potential of green and low carbon energy sources,” with an expansion of renewable hydrogen and a legal minimum gas storage requirement to protect supplies.

However, the cold turkey process could take years. So, in the short term, various member states are looking at upping gas imports from elsewhere and stockpiling more coal. There are even reports some might reopen coal-fired power stations to fill the gap from reducing their reliance on Russian fossil fuels.

All of which is likely to affect those ambitious climate change targets set out so readily in Scotland in November.

Indeed this week, Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Government Green minister, said the war in Ukraine underlined the pressing need to accelerate the shift away from oil and gas, saying the link between fossil fuels and “political instability” was clearer than ever.

In Commons exchanges, Ed Miliband, the Shadow Climate Change Secretary, told MPs the Ukraine war was being “underwritten by Russia’s oil and gas” and the best route to energy and national security was “supercharging” the move to renewable, nuclear and energy efficiency to provide clean, cheap home-grown power.

Alok Sharma, the COP26 President, replied by saying the UK Government was working for a managed clean energy transition. “That is why we put forward the North Sea transition deal and, of course, this Government is focused on renewables, on nuclear, on hydrogen.”

The Commission President has sought to calm EU citizens’ nerves about next winter and the possible seizing up of energy supplies from Russia.

Insisting the bloc was “on the safe side for this winter," von der Leyen claimed: "For the time being, we would be able to replace the Russian gas with LNG deliveries we get from our friends all over the world". Yes, but at what cost?

Energy prices have rocketed out of fear Russian gas supplies could be hit by physical damage to pipelines in Ukraine or that Moscow could retaliate against Western sanctions by cutting off energy supplies to Europe.

The latter is unlikely as Putin needs the money to lubricate his war machine.

Fuel exports to the EU brings in £230m a day to Russia’s coffers. It’s been suggested a gas embargo would, over several years, lead to the country’s economy facing a hit of 2.9% to its GDP.

Roman Shakhmatenko, Ukraine’s deputy environment minister, has urged western nations themselves to turn off the tap to Russian fossil fuel supplies. Moscow, he declared, was “using this money to kill people”.

The point was echoed by leading Ukrainian scientist Dr Svitlana Krakovska, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who told the BBC: "The money, that's invested in fossil fuels, the Russians are using against us; against freedom, against humanity."

She warned the war was "closing the window of opportunity" for the world to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

But, as has been mentioned, European leaders don’t want to exacerbate the surge that is already taking place in energy prices and causing their citizens so much economic pain.

Economists here are forecasting how the Ukraine war looks set to increase fuel costs further with annual UK household energy bills possibly reaching £3,000 this year. The analysts, who have been warning us inflation could reach seven or eight per cent in 2022, are now suggesting price rises could top 10%.

Yesterday, the TUC called on Chancellor Rishi Sunak to introduce grants to help with domestic energy prices, roll out an emergency programme of home insulation and fund it with a windfall tax on “excess energy profits”.

Defending freedom can come at a mighty cost in a variety of ways. Britons should be ready as the eye-watering energy price rises look set to make this winter one of the harshest on record.