The daring intervention of the European Parliament. At the end of September, the Commission presented proposed initiatives at European level to bring "social responsibility" into play with oil companies, to encourage them to orientate their investments towards energy savings programmes, the development of alternative energies and research. The Parliament believes, and it has made no bones about this, that "current gains" brought about particularly by the increase in crude oil prices allows them to make this effort; the instrument could be either a voluntary agreement taken by the companies themselves, or a "a co-ordinated political initiative" on the part of the European Union. At the same time, the Parliament emphasised the fact that speculation on future oil prices itself contributes towards this increase, and called for hedge funds to be monitored and for their regulatory status to be revised (see our bulletin 9038).
Beyond these audacious ideas, the Parliament's resolution sends out a sincere appeal for the implementation of a genuine European energy policy, and it must be emphasised that this has been supported and approved by almost all of the political groups. I make this point because it means that all of the Community institutions have moved, recognising the need for Europe to take action in this field jointly, above and beyond the fragmentary provisions which already exist. The Commission has been working on this for some on time, and Commissioner Andris Piebalgs recently presented an overview of the various initiatives which have been taken or which are in the pipeline; furthermore, within the European Council, a few Heads of State and Government have taken position in the same direction, which could be a turning-point for Europe in terms of energy (this column amply reported on this last week). I could also quoted various other reports all stances of the consultative bodies of the EU, even though some of them held back a bit (which may be because these bodies have to worry about getting unanimity or very large majorities).
All the cards are now on the table. All of this is positive. It is the proof that now, opinion in favour of a common energy policy is broadly shared. This opinion has come to maturity slowly, over several decades (this is no exaggeration). The reflection and the changing needs of our times, starting with the first oil crisis, already produced a large raft of partial measures, but every time things calmed down, the momentum was lost, and an overall vision covering all aspects, including those considered taboo, such as the role of financial speculation in the movements of crude oil prices or the lack of transparency of the oil market, never emerged at the level of political decision-makers. Now, all the cards are on the table. The debate at the European Parliament which preceded the above-mentioned resolution was highly instructive on this (those who have forgotten about this can read our summary in bulletin 9037). Circumstances, without a doubt, had a large part to play: the development of knowledge and the situation on the world markets made this awareness a necessity. Among the elements which facilitated it, I would quote: new downward evaluations (more or less reliable, it is true) of the actual size of oil reserves in certain countries of the Middle East; calculations about oil and gas reserves in Europe itself slowly running out; warnings about the ecological effects of exploiting oilfields; the spectacular increase in demand for oil in new economic giants such as India, and especially China; insufficient refining capacities in the large importing western countries. It is true that when the state of alert and concerns increase in the West, the manipulators are able to take a view steps backwards, letting prices fall a bit in order to slow down European efforts in favour of renewable energy sources and technological progress; but this is nothing to be proud of.
It seems to me that this time, there are a few reasons to hope that Europe will remain consistent in its determination to break its double dependency (on oil companies and certain traditional suppliers). The triptych of "energy savings/diversification of external sources of supply/development of renewable energy sources" is challenged by nobody. But when we come down from lofty principles to the details of actions, difficulties raise their ugly heads. These must, imperatively, be overcome by solutions or compromises. Tomorrow, I will take a look at the two main categories of problems which I referred to as last week as being the most significant. (F.R.)