An ambitious plan. The central role of energy to face up to current and future challenges is universally acknowledged; either humanity masters these challenges, or it risks losing control of its destiny. What is true for humanity in general is even more so for Europe, which does not have sufficient natural energy resources to cover its needs and its salvation, therefore, will depend on its ability to come up with adequate responses on all fronts: environmental, social, economic and, therefore, political as well. And it will only be able to do this if it brings together the strengths and capacities of the countries and peoples which make it up. It is at this level of importance and urgency that we must assess the first symptoms of dawning awareness on the part of the Heads of State and Government on the need for a common energy policy, as announced at the informal summit in London (see this column yesterday).
In his speech last Friday, the European Commissioner for Energy Andris Piebalgs summed up the actions which are of vital importance and the work the Commission is carrying out or busy preparing, in order to: get rid of waste and reduce consumption; improve its control on the functioning of the oil market by making it predictable and transparent; develop clean and sustainable energy sources. "Despite a lot of hot air and good intentions, a considerable proportion of the energy produced continues to be wasted in Europe", said the Commissioner, who provided a few figures: the potential for energy savings by dint of behavioural changes alone exceeds 20% of consumption; the effective application of existing Community legislation would lead to savings of 10%. The overall potential for energy saving is much higher than this, but this easily achievable 20% corresponds to a quarter of the cost of European imports. It's a question of political goodwill. There are many measures already in force at European level, particularly in the fields of electricity and gas; they must be properly applied.
If the war on waste is the first priority, then the second is that of investments in infrastructure, an area which has been seriously neglected over the last 10 years, either in the refining sector or for the transport networks. Now, the financial possibilities exist, and the companies in question must do their duty. The third aspect relates to renewable energy sources. In many ways, Europe is in the vanguard for this, with wind energy for example, which, according to the Commissioner, presents the best prospects for development (together with biomass). The Commission is putting together a communication on how to pay for renewable energies, and a specific plan for biomass. As for research, the priorities are included in the draft research programme for 2007-2013.
Differences of opinion and criticism. Should we conclude from the Commissioner's general overview that everything is in place and that the future is assured? This would be too perfect. In reality, the lion's share remains to be done. Objectives already set for the production of alternative energy sources have not been achieved and won't be in the near future (with a few exceptions, such as Denmark and, for biomass, Finland) and, in particular, criticisms and reservations are making themselves heard on these objectives themselves, never mind the possibility of making them even more ambitious still. Three studies published in Belgian state that the promotion of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel production made from sugar beet and rape is not viable; in Wallonia, it would take 31% of the entire surface area used for agriculture to achieve the planned percentage for incorporating bio-fuel and conventional fuels. Only the spaces available in Brazil and, in Europe, certain areas of France would justify agricultural crops designed specifically for the production of bio-fuels. The use of biomass, made from waste vegetable matter, appears far more promising (Canada has already gone in this direction). At the same time, in certain areas, the Greens are supporting the protests of the local populations against the proliferation of wind turbines, which have taken residence in and are destroying certain sections of the landscape, and sometimes they also criticised solar energy (not for individual houses, but for electricity production).
As we can see, the road to renewable energy is a steep and treacherous one, to say nothing of the planned return to nuclear energy, on which the positions for and against are radically opposed. Furthermore, delicate political problems are implicit in cooperation with the supplier countries when they are the size of Russia, to say nothing of the financial interests at stake. These are the aspects which cannot and must not be neglected, and which justify one more comment, for next week.
(F.R.)