As expected, the welcome given last week to the European Council's conclusions was mixed. Although a newspaper in Brussels described them as “historic”, several reactions have been more reserved - they go in the right direction but after all the sweet-talking, deeds are now expected. Each of them criticises a different aspect that does not meet their particular expectations or choices. I therefore have to justify the relative optimism and confidence expressed in this column. It is not so much last Friday's text (too verbose and over-explained to my taste) which is reassuring but rather what surrounds and accompanies it.
Europe appears ready for “green turn”. What is encouraging, are the reactions and information overall that accompanied and even, in part, preceded the “green turn” announced by the summit, by political and industrial communities, as well as by several civil society associations as a whole. This, to my eyes, would all indicate that Europe is ready or almost, in practical terms, for leading the way in the search of a response to the challenges of climate change and energy (which is a single challenge, as the European Council was right to highlight). I think that the first shock came with the results from a small country such as Denmark. It succeeded in obtaining a response to the different aspects involved in this challenge facing humanity and is currently consolidating and developing it: energy savings; development of renewable energy; responsible use of non-renewable energies such as gas and oil; impact of energy policy on employment and growth and export capacity resulting from it. I would like to invite readers who have not already done so, to refer to EUROPE 9377 and the report on his visit made by Emmanuel Hagry.
Towards a correct assessment of biofuels. The second pleasant surprise is about the progress made by oil-alternative transport fuels. We almost get the impression that with the announcement of partial alternative solutions being ready, those in the know, as well as the industrial community, were expecting oil's political and financial domination to be loosened and that the power of the oil lobby would become less oppressive. I am not going to ignore the warnings about the dangers of excessive development of biofuels: destruction of forests to make way for new crops; the necessity of evaluating what energy is needed to produce and transport biofuels. These risks, however, have not been provoked by Europe's own current or foreseeable production! They involve the massive production projects in South America and some Asian countries, as well as the colossal import projects immediately planned by big business. The EU, on the other hand, has sufficient areas for responsible and ecologically useful crops (apart from that for beets, given that the political authorities are continuing to do their best to get rid of European sugar production). I'm getting the impression that this time the Greens have not understood anything. What did Claude Turmes, the vice president of the Greens/EFA at the European Parliament say? “Instead of producing biofuels that harm the environment and risk provoking a food crisis, Europe could do better”. This too was followed by some worthy advice. I would prefer it if the Greens were more concerned about defending farming in the EU because environmental damage, as well as the loss of food-self-sufficiency in Europe, would result from opening up the EU's borders to agricultural products from the whole world. This would not happen if there was regulated use of European biofuels. On the contrary, this would have a positive effect on territorial balance. It is a fact that there are ecological dangers in the Amazonian basin, in Indonesia, Malaysia and even in China. Europe has to be able to manage imports from these areas, without forgetting that thousands of kilometres taken up for transporting them also leads to considerable pollution (at a global level, maritime transport is more polluting than air transport, even if we mention the matter less often). A coalition of European environmental NGOs, including the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), explicitly requested a distinction to be made between different biofuels, based on their environmental performance, because unconditional support could encourage the destruction of tropical rainforests and the expansion of long distance transport, as well as have a negative effective on the availability of drinking water (EUROPE 9381).
Technical progress expected. With the application of the above-mentioned precautions, invaluable technological progress would allow for the use of biofuels and it is positive that Europe (together with Japan on certain aspects) is in the avant-garde. Summit conclusions are going to give another boost to research and action in this area. The European Council highlighted low-carbon emission technologies (§ 9); clean fossil fuels; tolls and carbon dioxide storage, as well as the construction and exploitation of a dozen sustainable technological demonstration installations by 2015 that allow for fossil fuels to be used in commercial electricity production (§ 10). Europe will be able to guide the “green revolution” as it has other areas. I'm convinced of it.
Positive political impact. In the period of diplomatic negotiations preceding the summit, the prospect of obtaining an agreement was already having a positive political impact, such as that of the common approach made by the Polish and Lithuanian prime ministers towards Angela Merkel to request more European solidarity in the energy arena (EUROPE 9381). Both Kaczynski and Kirkilas stressed that in the face of supply crises, solidarity between member states had to become one of the Union's essential goals, which should “speak with a single voice”. This approach was even more significant, given that from a Community point of view, Poland's previous attitude was not without reproach, as it had made unacceptable comparisons between the agreements of German and Russian operators and the Russian/German pact made during the Second World War. Energy solidarity can only be one aspect of global European solidarity. European solidarity also affects how the institutions work, Community funding to agriculture, regional development and negotiations for a new EU/Russia agreement. Poland cannot request a return to inter-governmental cooperation in the EU and at the same time appeal for solidarity in certain areas it chooses according to its national interests.
No European nuclear choice. Should the thorny nuclear dossier be brought up? There is quite simply no European doctrine because the opinions of member states are different and choices about it are made at a national level. It is normal that political forces and pressure groups do their best to get their respective views imposed, each of them thinking that it is right (all the better for those that never have any doubts). Wisdom dictates that member states themselves should make their choices in consideration of nuclear safety and security being decisive factors in reaching a final decision and in consideration of the EU supporting research on waste management. At a scientific and industrial level, it would appear a miracle that Europe is still in the avant-garde when it comes to building third and fourth generation nuclear plants, despite a widespread moratorium over recent years.
The long road ahead. My optimism does not mean that I am not aware of what Europe still has to accomplish in order to put in practice what it has decided in principle. The first stage consists of defining national obligations within the framework of European objectives. This will be a delicate stage because the stakes at play are not just ecological and political but also economic and financial. In the nuclear sector, companies that are able to supply the plants can be counted on one hand at an international level. Providing renewable energy is also becoming a growth industry. The political implications are also obvious. Certain sources have asserted that some of the political forces in Germany would support further reflection on abandoning nuclear energy but the coalition government cannot go against previously agreed arrangements. Belgium and the Netherlands will in turn be hesitating too. The institutions will also have to deal with the single energy market, a controversial question that the summit did not manage to resolve and on which it only retained a few principles, such as the separation of supply and production activities but without defining their modalities. The issue of liaisons between electricity networks in member states is also crucial (some of these relationships were explicitly mentioned by the summit).
The third major dossier involves relationships with third countries: Russia, of course, but also China, India, Brazil, the Mediterranean countries, Turkey, Ukraine and Moldavia. The principle of a Europe that speaks “with a single voice” is mentioned, but several aspects still need to be worked out further, notably the system that applies to energy companies from third countries that want to be active in the European market, and which are “vertically integrated” such as Gazprom; in this case, it is the principle of reciprocity that needs to be thrashed out and applied.
I've only mentioned some of the main dossiers and I am aware that months and sometimes years will be needed to resolve everything. But this should not underplay the reasonable optimism that is now justified.
(F.R.)