Priorities and the facts. The fact that schist gas and wind-power are the most controversial aspects of energy policy in Europe at the moment (see the previous newsletter) does not in itself mean that they are the most important. Other aspects are, or should be, more of a priority because they have a greater impact on the general interest and protection of nature. It is true that some suitable measures already exist and others are in debate. The European Parliament and European Commission have taken important initiatives, and the Council of Ministers often accepts them as far as is possible in the present situation. The EU has effective energy-saving measures, which give a foretaste of what would be possible if a common energy policy were planned.
Most energy questions remain national decisions, but even against this backdrop, there are positive outcomes, even in small countries. Take Portugal, for instance, where 40% of the electricity generated is from renewable energy and it is planned that by 2060, 60% of electricity will come from green sources. Most energy issues are decided by national policies that are often too multifarious or even contradictory from one country to the next.
Abuse of oil, and a few changes in the pipeline. The most damaging aspect of the EU's impotence to take action as a single body is seen in the way the oil market functions and how the oil market is governed. I believe that historians in the future will see this market as one of the worst governed at global level, a source of abuse, unfairness and war without end. A small group of Saudi Arabian emirates, Russia and a handful of other countries lay down the law, hand-in-hand with big oil companies. They are currently acting openly to get prices to rise. Not to mention the often very selfish way some countries make use of the piles of gold their oil has given them!
Changes are, however, taking place and everything is up for grabs. The EU will not be able to influence matters because every member state and every oil company pursues its own interests. If, as is far from certain, the schist gas in the United States were to become the special source of energy the US says it will, then the present day “oil emperors” would have to tone down their demands and their arrogance. Experts calculate that Russia currently demands $17 per 300 cubic metres of gas, whereas the United States would probably be able to produce gas for $2.50; and similar equations hold good for Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Not to mention the fact that schist gas experts say this type of gas is also to be found in China, Argentina, Mexico, Canada and Australia, all of which would compete with the big oil producers.
National attitudes. In reality, the presence of schist gas does not necessarily mean it can be exploited because the first drillings in Poland, the EU country with vast schist gas reserves, have not led to much. France has begun a big national debate about its energy future, including schist gas (despite the French president's initial opposition); the future of nuclear power will also be discussed. Germany has decided to abandon nuclear power - once again without discussing the matter at EU level. In France, the long view is being taken and national targets have been set out: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, increasing renewable energy to 20% and cutting energy consumption by 20%; cutting nuclear energy to 50% of total energy consumption by 2025; reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a quarter by 2050. Each country is acting independently of the others.
The reality in Europe is that objectives are mostly a purely national affair, and this includes energy objectives. It is true that the EU institutions are trying to establish EU objectives - the Energy Council meets regularly. It has even enumerated, as we have reported in our newsletter, six areas of action, including energy efficiency, the internal energy market, nuclear energy and foreign relations. These matters are being discussed at EU level, although we see that each country is still doing its own thing and the theory is not on speaking terms with the facts.
It should also be noted that all energy issues are closely related with environmental policy: energy policy has to take account of what our little planet can put up with. This is understood and trumpeted from the rooftops, but stupidity and cacophony will continue to exist while energy is managed at national level with one country keeping nuclear power, its neighbour abandoning it, schist gas is used by one country and banned in the next, and so on and so forth.
(FR/transl.fl)