by Jerome a Paris
Wed Apr 21st, 2010 at 04:08:39 AM EST
There have been quite a few substantial contributions to the European energy debate recently, including Towards a European Energy Community: A Policy Proposal, by Notre Europe and A Smart EU Energy Policy by the Clingendael International Energy Programme. I haven't had the time to read these and do them justice, but the article in the European Energy Review on the latter had an interesting tidbit:
Unlike the former EU President Jacques Delors, who in a recent report argued that there is no common European energy policy, De Jong and his fellow-authors do believe that ‘there is indeed a EU energy policy’, as their report puts it. It is the ‘three-tier approach’ that the European Council agreed on in the spring of 2007. This approach is based on three pillars, which are known for short as “Lisbon” (the idea of an internal, competitive market), “Kyoto” (the pursuit of a sustainable energy economy) and “Moscow” (which is short-hand for the pursuit of security of energy supply).
The main problem is, says De Jong, that the way in which these three policies are implemented is frequently at odds with each other. Hence the call for ‘integration and coordination’.
This is the first time I see in a "serious" publication the idea I have long developed that the 3 core priorities of the EU (competitive markets, climate change and security of supply) are incoherent and incompatible... The report complains that renewable energy subsidies damage security of supply (by making upstream investment less profitable, and reducing security of demand for external suppliers), which is technically correct but demonstrates a rather too narrow gas-focused mindset (not completely surprising from a Dutch institution)... but at least they see some of the contradictions between the various objectives, and the "Kyoto" "Lisbon" and "Moscow" labels are useful.
Hopefully this will help push the debate forward.