It seems that the EU has woken up from its schizophrenic attitude towards Russia.
What would have been desirable would have been to wake up in another way and not do so by verifying that the competition policy defended by the Commission collides with the dependence on Russian gas and lays bare the guarantees of supply;
The foregoing is verified with the gas casino that we were already experiencing and has worsened as a result of the invasion of Ukraine.
This occurs at a time when inflation is high, and rising prices affect supplies such as electricity.
At this point, one wonders if European citizens can continue assuming the 545 euros Mw/h of last March 8.
Remember that only a small part of electricity is produced with gas.
Meanwhile, nuclear, hydroelectric and renewables on the market see their profits multiply exponentially because their costs have not grown.
The time has come for the European Commission officials to think about the general interest and not the interest of certain countries and energy companies.
The impact of the current price system on European consumers may contribute to further widening and aggravating social inequalities and socioeconomic wounds deepened by the health crisis.
In the past, some Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia) strongly supported the policy of diversification in the origin of imports to alleviate their situation of dependence on Russia, while the large countries of Europe The West (Germany, France and Italy) were in favor of strengthening their bilateral energy relations with Russia (see the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, or to a lesser extent the Turk Stream that connects Russia with Turkey through the Black Sea).
Despite the foregoing, we know that the large gas and electricity corridors in the EU are old, obsolete and have been in the process of being renovated for some time.
They are insufficient to cover the needs of a demand harmonized with the objectives of climate neutrality and decarbonisation, and to compete with the great international energy corridors and smart grids.
The energy transition is and was a necessity, not only the old continent's response to the climatic emergency and ecological crisis.
During 2021, the EU established the legally binding obligation to reduce its CO₂ emissions by at least 55% by the end of the decade compared to 1990 levels. This substitution of coal for gas had already been taking place, although the The recent Commission Communication entitled
REPowerEU: Joint Action for More Affordable, Secure and Sustainable Energy
advocates
for a rapid transition to clean energy and European energy independence, setting the goals for this decade.
Making our energy bill cheaper, facing the climate crisis and demonstrating that the idea of Europe is still worthwhile as a political project, are among the keys to its development.
Right now, we run the risk of missing the boat of the ecological transition due to the security crisis resulting from the invasion of Ukraine.
What the pandemic placed on the agenda and accelerated could now be relegated and postponed as a consequence of the military and security crisis.
Despite spending decades talking about energy transition, fossil fuels still represent 80% of primary energy and unfortunately, the deployment of renewables has only served to cover an additional demand that continues to grow.
And yes, we live in times of uncertainty, but perhaps we have to address the urgent ones.
We are not certain about how the war in Ukraine will evolve, but we do know that whatever happens, the climate crisis continues and today it makes more sense than ever to accelerate the transition.
If we do not achieve sustainable and climate-resilient development, we will have a future for people and nature that is far from adequate.
Actions taken today will determine how people adapt and how nature responds to increasing climate risks.
It is still paradoxical that, if the EU had been more ambitious in the deployment of renewable energies, today it would be less dependent on Russian gas and its geopolitical strategy would be different.
Europe must choose between changing the functioning of the market, accelerating investments in renewables to enjoy greater energy independence —thus increasing its strategic autonomy and reducing the already existing climate risks— or shelving these objectives due to the urgency and instability of the moment.
Regardless of the foregoing, it seems clear that if Europe seeks different results, it cannot, nor should it, continue to do the same things.
Cecilia Carballo
is a political scientist.
Exclusive content for subscribers
read without limits
subscribe
I'm already a subscriber
