The truth is not pessimistic. Is everything going badly in Europe regarding energy? That's not how this column's comments should be interpreted - in the two previous editions of EUROPE - on the situation in this domain. The objective of all of the editions is to highlight the current gaps and the risks for the future - so as to serve as a wake-up call. Raising an awareness of the reality is the first step - this column tries to contribute to this awareness raising. Nothing is simple because the gaps are enormous, the differences between the member states are evident, and relations with third countries - including the United States - are complex. Yet looking at the reality that faces us does not mean being pessimistic. The interests at stake are huge and each defends his own.
At the beginning of the month, the head of BusinessEurope - a body that represents industry - called for the European energy policy to be balanced, and he asked the EU to be concerned about the security of energy supply and the competitiveness of the European industry, as well as with climate change (see EUROPE 10841). The president of the European Commission replied by underlining the need to keep account of two objectives - climate risk is an existential threat, and the competitiveness of energy is crucial. The right balance between the two needs to be pursued and Mr Barroso announced a document aiming to reconcile the two objectives.
It would be too simplistic to choose between energy efficiency and the safeguard of nature. What is more, there are strong differences of opinion even within each of the two positions - the wind turbine manufacturer does not have the same interests as the manufacturer or manager of nuclear power plants! Ecologists, on their side, pursue objectives that are also partly different.
The Parliament's search for balance. The European Parliament could balance the positions, but its majority choices do not appease the differences of opinion. After a vote, the minority reaffirms its position and lashes out against the majority - through conviction and through thinking of the elections that are to come. Compromises that satisfy everyone are rare. Yet it is possible reasonably to keep account of the arguments of the minority - energy is crucial and the protection of nature is just as much so.
And it should never be forgotten that the fight against wastage has the same weight as the development of production - which fits with the sentence that has already been quoted in this column: the best energy is that which we do not consume. As for shale gas, it should be debated at European level but being aware that in no way could the EU achieve results as spectacular as those pursued by the USA (see this column yesterday) because the costs of production in Europe will be much higher anyway, and real production will in a few cases prove to be weak.
Jacques Delors' true project. The former president of the European Commission, and the current President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz have advocated a true change in society in the production, transport and consumption of energy. The fragmentation of the Community framework, the lack of consensus on the fundamental objectives, the different (indeed, contradictory) national approaches, destabilise the system that is currently in force, and lead to unnecessary and costly investment.
The idea of a European Energy Community would not involve a supranational authority that would decide on everything, nor a monopolistic centralisation of the purchase of gas or oil.
It would be about creating a tangible and operational instrument, the tasks of which would be: (i) negotiating framework agreements at EU level with supplier and transit countries; (ii) organising differentiated cooperation between the member states on a regional basis, by depending on the strengths and weaknesses of each one; (iii) organising political, economic and structural cooperation between neighbouring states, covering transport, distribution and joint planning; (iv) ending up gradually with the joint financing of ambitious research-development programmes and infrastructure.
A decisive sector. My conclusion is simple. Europe must be aware of its gaps and the risks that it must face because the energy sector will largely influence its economic future and the safeguard of nature. Only by acting as a whole and by defining a valid degree of balance between the current interests, will the EU avoid its outlook being compromised.
(FR/transl.fl)