Europe's disorganized approach to energy security once again threatens to leave its citizens out in the cold. After Russia and Belarus failed to agree on tariff rates for crude oil exports when the previous agreement expired on New Year's Eve, Russia briefly cut off oil supplies to its smaller neighbor. This left Western Europe, which relies on Belarus to re-export much of its oil supply, facing the possibility of energy disruptions in the dead of winter. This dispute is just the latest example of how Europe is paying the price for its unwillingness to invest in new energy sources... Unless Europeans are prepared to match the Chinese dollar for dollar (or rather, euro for yuan), EU policymakers need to develop alternatives to provide their citizens with meaningful energy security. As of now, Europe still has a number of viable strategic options. The European Union needs to tackle its energy problems as a collective, instead of a haphazard collection of individual states only looking out for their short-term interest. Europe should develop an approach modeled off NATO's collective security pact, where members -- potentially including the United States -- would agree to share reserves and help each other in the event of a future energy disruption. Nowhere is this more necessary than in Central Europe, which is most dependent on Russia. Brussels has provided countries with a variety of regulatory options, and Central European governments must ensure that they synchronize their laws to provide the strongest possible protection against foreign energy monopolies and predatory behavior in the marketplace. Finally, Europe must abandon its emphasis on pipelines and look for other options to diversify its energy supply. Liquid natural gas transported in tanker ships, for example, would allow Central European consumers greater access to the global market for energy, forcing Russia to compete alongside producers from Qatar and Nigeria. Barroso was correct: Europe needs a more unified response to energy. However, rhetoric alone will not heat European homes and businesses during the next crisis. If the European Union is going to deliver more than pipe dreams, it will have to bring its policy in line with its ambitions.
Unless Europeans are prepared to match the Chinese dollar for dollar (or rather, euro for yuan), EU policymakers need to develop alternatives to provide their citizens with meaningful energy security. As of now, Europe still has a number of viable strategic options.
The European Union needs to tackle its energy problems as a collective, instead of a haphazard collection of individual states only looking out for their short-term interest. Europe should develop an approach modeled off NATO's collective security pact, where members -- potentially including the United States -- would agree to share reserves and help each other in the event of a future energy disruption. Nowhere is this more necessary than in Central Europe, which is most dependent on Russia. Brussels has provided countries with a variety of regulatory options, and Central European governments must ensure that they synchronize their laws to provide the strongest possible protection against foreign energy monopolies and predatory behavior in the marketplace. Finally, Europe must abandon its emphasis on pipelines and look for other options to diversify its energy supply. Liquid natural gas transported in tanker ships, for example, would allow Central European consumers greater access to the global market for energy, forcing Russia to compete alongside producers from Qatar and Nigeria.
Barroso was correct: Europe needs a more unified response to energy. However, rhetoric alone will not heat European homes and businesses during the next crisis. If the European Union is going to deliver more than pipe dreams, it will have to bring its policy in line with its ambitions.
Doran's focus seems entirely on fossil fuels and willfully overlooks Europe's investment in wind and solar. There are other ways to heat homes in Europe other than burning natural gas.
Swapping pipelines for tankers seems to me to be ignoring the problem that dependency on a foreign source of energy creates. Is exchanging reliance on floating pipelines in the form of supertankers any more secure than a relinace on overland pipelines?
Reading between the lines, I question Doran's suggestion that the EU would benefit from a NATO-like alliance for energy disruption with the USA, especially without equal consumer prices for oil-derived products and a mishmash of building codes for insulation and energy efficiency. Why should Europeans subsidize cheap energy for Americans?
This left Western Europe, which relies on Belarus to re-export much of its oil supply, facing the possibility of energy disruptions in the dead of winter.
Russian oil transiting through Belarus can only reach a few old refineries in Central Europe. Russia doesn't like using these pipelines because they lead only to fickle clients (who know they are the only paying customers and thus have leverage) or to FSU refineries which find creative ways not to pay.
Europe had no shortfall in oil - oil can be found on the seaborne market rather easily (and most Russian exports go through waterways controlled by EU countries, ie the Baltic Sea or the Mediterranean...)
Unless Europeans are prepared to match the Chinese dollar for dollar (or rather, euro for yuan), EU policymakers need to develop alternatives to provide their citizens with meaningful energy security.
Erm, yes, we can easily buy oil given that our consumers pay oil products 5 times the price of oil thanks to high taxation...
And we are developing alternatives: wind. France did nuclear
The European Union needs to tackle its energy problems as a collective, instead of a haphazard collection of individual states only looking out for their short-term interest.
Hmm... let's see. France did nuclear and gas import diversification (including the very LNG terminals that the article moans about later). Germany did long term gas import contracts. The Netherlands did long term rationing of the production of the Groningen field. Denmark did long term support to wind, translating into world leadership.
Deregulated markets? Err....
members -- potentially including the United States -- would agree to share reserves and help each other in the event of a future energy disruption.
Erm... Europe doesn't have reserves (well, the UK and Norway still do for a short while). We do have strategic storage, as coordinated by the IEA "a sort of energy NATO" - and in fact we did send some of our strategic reserves to the US following Katrina...
Central European governments must ensure that they synchronize their laws to provide the strongest possible protection against foreign energy monopolies and predatory behavior in the marketplace.
foreign monopolies are not bound by our domestic laws. They don't have to sell if we don't show them the interest to do so. We can't regulate them if they don't want to.
Europe must abandon its emphasis on pipelines and look for other options to diversify its energy supply. Liquid natural gas transported in tanker ships,
Pipelines to Europe can deliver gas only to Europe. LNG tankers can deliver gas to whomever will pay for it. How is that superior? (the diversification argument works, but it's not about pipelines vs LNG per se).
Barf. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
