Belgium perpetrated the most brutal colonization upon Central Africa of any European country. Now these petty bureaucrats in Bruegel envision a colonization regime for all of Europe to satisfy their transition fantasies that is sure to bring misery and impoverishment akin to what they perpetrated on the Congo. This is a rodeo I want to watch
If your proposal requires global coordinated government to work, it isn’t going to work…
So they say that the only way to be competitive is to push forward on the transition even more and then a few pages later say that more subsidies are needed because at current prices the policies aren’t competitive?!?
This is just the mid 2010s zombie internationalist framework regurgitated with no clue how out of touch it is…
“The planners more or less presumed the existence of private-sector problems and took for granted that they could successfully solve those problems through the use of government’s coercive power and the taxpayers’ money. They did not give much weight – indeed, they often gave no weight whatsoever – to the possibility of what later came to be known in public-choice theory as “government failure.” Thus, seeing apparent market failures that left the economy in an inefficient configuration, they supposed that they could identify exactly what to tax, subsidize, or regulate and exactly how much to do so in order to move the economy into an efficient configuration.”
From Robert Higgs’s 2012 book, Delusions of Power.
When the market and consumers are not moving in the direction required - a grand plan is needed.
The EU’s continued existence is dependent on its Feasibility Study Factory (FSF™️) churning out these re-justifications of the Green Deal. Yet, this is a double-edged sword. EU citizens are wising up and will eventually see who is really preaching the false beliefs!
The Green Deal/Net Zero is the essence of Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy”. Someone - Far Right thug probably - heaves a stone through a shopkeeper’s window smashing it. This is actually a boost for the economy because it provides work for the glass-maker, glazier, painter and decorator. So if we want a vibrant, competitive economy gangs of stone-throwers should be hired to go around smashing windows. But as a wise man said, everything has a cost. The economic boost ignores the financial and opportunity cost to the shopkeeper, loss of business, and what economic activity that prevented. Also resources are mis-allocated replacing windows, rather than fitting new ones.
Bruegel is stark raving mad. So, which country will be the first to leave the EU? If a country would take one for the new team, & announce plans to cut all ties with the crazy bobbleheads in Brussels, surely they would be joined by a majority of the member countries. On a positive note, Go Sebastian! I recommend he beefs up his security detail. GREAT ARTICLE! 🤘😎🤘
I hear he's kind of a populist, big on the talking and not so big on the action but as I told the friend who informed me about this, even talking about the transition disaster is a positive these days.
Aside from the efforts to reconcile "the need for support to cope with higher energy prices because of the transition" with their unquestionable axiom that "the transition equals competitiveness", Bruegel has been consistently calling for Europe to shut down the energy-intensive parts of its value chains and to import these products instead.
The basis for their argument is that Europe is “energy poor”, while energy-intensives consume a lot of energy and produce lower value added than other (downstream) segments of value chains. Therefore, they claim that Europe should shut down its energy intensives, import these materials instead, and focus on producing more specialized, downstream products. A few indicative quotes from Bruegel’s recent publication on this matter:
“The chemicals sector, for example, accounts for a quarter of total industrial natural gas demand and almost 18 percent of industrial electricity consumption, but represents only 0.5 percent of EU jobs and 3.7 percent of EU manufacturing jobs. While this snapshot does not take into account the indirect value-added these industries provide to other economic sectors, it suggests that the importance of these industries might have been overstated in the public debate since the beginning of the energy crisis.”
“The European energy-price shock might have made energy-intensive commodities, such as primary steel, commercially unviable in Europe. Industrial policy might more usefully support high value-added parts of value chain, such as complex gearboxes, instead of persistently subsidising the production of energy-intensive commodities. Energy-intensive intermediary products generally have low margins and, as their price is set on international markets, an increase in the cost of inputs can lead to market exit”
“Therefore, more weight should be given to facilitating imports of energy-intensive products, while helping EU industry to move up to higher value-added parts of the value chain. This strategy would have the advantage of directing subsidies to industrial sectors that have not become structurally uncompetitive globally. Moreover, restraining public intervention in shielding energy-intensive industries might spur creative destruction and foster innovation, while reducing energy demand and thus making energy cheaper for everyone. This strategy would need to take into account concerns about excessive import dependency, and would need to be engineered to ensure there is no carbon leakage.”
Which begs the question why have e.g. electro-intensive industries in Europe "become structurally uncompetitive globally"? An if emissions are indeed their main concern, how do they justify replacing e.g. European primary aluminum production, with an avg carbon footprint of 6tnCO2/tnAl with Chinese or Indonesian production with double or triple the carbon footprint?
Similar considerations can be found in their article “Rebooting European Union’s NZIA”.
In their book called “Sparking Europe’s new industrial revolution”, they again explicitly call for a shut-down of domestic EIIs “Trying to keep energy-intensive nodes of the value chain in Europe is unlikely to succeed. Instead, these nodes should relocate to places that are potentially more efficient in capturing green energy. Part of the mechanism through which Europe will achieve net zero is by relocating – outside of Europe – production steps that can be more effectively decarbonised elsewhere. European green industrial policy shouldn’t try to fight this reality: it should instead plan an orderly transition into the green industries of the future in which it is likely to retain or enhance its comparative advantage.“ . Actually, the entire chapter “A framework for green growth” aggressively advances this proposition.
Big question again: if the EU is the green frontrunner, and green energy ensures competitiveness, why should European EIIs relocate? just a thought...
And one more issue to consider: the EU consistently claims that the transition ensures energy security: unless I'm mistaken roughly 90% (perhaps even higher now) of li-on batteries in Europe come from China; for PV panels that number is even higher (close to 97% if my numbers are correct). We're still mostly producing our own wind-turbines (perhaps 60%) but give it another 2-3 years and that'll likely change too. Our trade deficit with China is bound to worsen dramatically, which -in my book- means overdependence for our entire energy strategy on one country (which may have shown signs of being ready to use that dependence, look at germanium & gallium export restrictions). Not to mention the "drivers of electrification" like heat-pumps and EVs (and their components). Am I missing smth or is that not really "secure"?
Their nonsense only make sense in a thoroughly and permanently globally connected world - free trade; no/low tariffs, peace... good luck counting on these factors into perpetuity. The world now and actually for at least 2016 has been moving away from globalism. America is a cautionary tale of what happens to a nation when everything but today's high-margin goods are outsourced. Tomorrow comes, the trade deals fall apart and you are stuck with a bunch of wind turbines that no longer work.
Because of this we got Trump and people are going berserk with enthusiasm for everything he does. I cannot imagine what is going to eventually happen in Europe.
Thank you, Irina for wading through that morass of contradictory nonsense.
Still not clear to me what the point is of the energy transition in the first place. Decades back it was a forecast of doom - well the doom never came. A hint of doom is absent to this day. What's the motivation for the transition at all? Clearly, by now practically all people realize wind and solar are not cheaper than gas/nuke/coal. How does the green leviathan keep stomping its way thru Europe?
For some numbers I looked at politico's chart of German "Poll of polls" since they got an election coming right up:
CDU/CSU 30% (Christian democracy, Pro EU, pro-transition)
BSW 6% (Insane, period. Pro-transition. I find Sahra Wagenknecht terrifying.)
FDP 4% (Classical liberals. Pro-transition)
Left 4% (Kommies, insane, Pro-transition)
I'm sure these various parties have all sorts of claims and promises beyond the green transition and EU opinions, but to my American quantitative mind, this line-up hardly represents any kind of majority skepticism of Klimate Katastrophe. But the physics and economics do not change.
My conclusion is more propaganda, because it's working splendidly, and an eventual breakdown of civil society in Europe. People organized into modern nation states cannot survive without cheap energy. Energy is prosperity. We'll see.
Those are some truly frightening numbers. 80% of Germans are still delusional?
I guess it is partly a testament to the effectiveness of propaganda. But I thought German schools were good. Anyone who can do math and a modicum of chemistry or physics can quickly see that nothing about "the transition" makes a lick of sense.
80% of the population refuses to engage its brains...
Perhaps they are educated enough to know and still believe the propaganda.
If so, I predict that the cognitive dissonance will eventually cause heads to pop across Germany. It will be like Germany is a giant corn popper with human heads as the kernels.
Yeah, the numbers are stunning - but double check me I'm no authority and I'm using Germany as a proxy because I lived there for three years, speak the language (poorly), and am using them as a bellwether for the EU.
I actually cannot understand how Europeans en-mass can't grasp the futility of their energy plans. I am fearing that as they get closer to complete energy melt-down, whatever that actually looks like, the actual melt-down will be preceded by some sort of singularity - grid failure? mass civil uprisings? emergence of some sort of charismatic super-crazy political figure(s)? People are kvetching about the AfD bur seriously, check out Sahra Wagenknecht. It could very suddenly go off the rails in Europe if they don't wise up fast.
Well, to be fair, that's 80% of the sample for the poll. I don't know how representative is but I do know, as we all do here, that stats can be "adjusted". Also, it bears noting a lot of people may be supporting certain parties out of habit or general agreement with their non-transition policies. We'll see.
The reason I made the point about the sample is a recent poll by a BG media outlet that decided to sound out opinions of the eurozone. An overwhelming majority was against entry. Hours later the poll was removed from the media's website. :D They'd failed to adjust the sample, clearly.
You are absolutely right in pointing out the malleability of polls - one pollster here in the USA immediately after the recent election scolded viewers that they shouldn't be paying so much attention to the polls but rather should pay attention to what the politicians are actually saying and promising. Having said that, it is entirely possible that the polls aren't really reflecting some serious second thoughts people are having concerning the energy transition. I mean, a person could be thinking to themselves that "environmental protection" is a nice and moral thing, but be harboring fears that if the electric bills go up much more they won't be able to pay since they were recently laid off due to the company they worked for going out of business because of high energy prices.
At some point, besides the Grune / Kommie / Euroinsane people, a high percentage of Europeans really need to wake up.
Years and years, and years of brainwashing is why the green leviathan is still alive and stomping. But they forgot to brainwash everyone deeply enough.
"Because they did, come 2030, there’s not going to be an EU in its current form."
Here's hoping. I applauded Brexit, because it finally got the UK out from under the insane German/Austrian energy policy. Then they inflicted just as much of exactly the same damage on themselves without help.
Sigh.
Here's hoping that in addition to dissolving the EU, Europeans have the wisdom to abandon the policies of the EU severally.
Except… if you look at Europeans (particularly the Germanics) starting with the Romans they have a predilection for authoritarian, centralised government and European Empires: Holy Roman Empire; Austro-Hungary; Napoleon, Fascism, Vichy, Third Reich and now the Fourth Reich. I see no prospect of change - it’s in the DNA.
Meanwhile UK having formally cut the tether, but not completely moving away, is slowly being pulled back aided and abetted by WEF stooge Herr Starmwurstführer.
In other words, “transition” means transition from national Governments to a single World Government with absolute authority run by people with intellects and abilities the size of the Solar System. Net Zero is just the cover story for the real plan many of us realise.
Yes. We can't be trusted to know what's best for us with a Higher Power to guide us and regulate us. How fast these people forget the lessons of history. It's kind of horrifying.
“Being poorly endowed with domestic resources, Europe is highly dependent on fossil-fuel imports, as dramatically illustrated by the 2022-2023 energy crisis." This belief is the biggest part of the problem, but they apparently want to hold onto that idea and refuse to see evidence that it is not true. While Europe may not have the resources of Saudi Arabia, or even Russia, it is not without significant sources of hydrocarbons of all types. What it is missing, is not resources, but political will to recognize and utilize its own resources. Of the top ten oil fields in Europe (and this becomes another issue of semantics over what is included in Europe/EU) the largest is Troll of 5.18 Billion barrels, and the tenth largest is Ecofisk of 547 million barrels. Gas resources in the Netherlands total 174 billion cubic meters, and even Germany holds 71 billion cubic meters of gas in its subsurface (as proved or probable). The real tragedy of Europe is that exploration and drilling for oil and gas is almost impossible there. This is a matter of political will, societal attitude, and existing regulatory structure. It is not that Europe "is poorly endowed" it is that Europe is unwilling to let oil and gas resources be exploited. Poland, Romania, Hungary, Albania, France and even Germany have potential resources that were left impossible to utilize by either anti-fracking movements or general government obstructions. That obstruction is now turning to offshore resources after it has managed to stifle onshore efforts to find oil and gas. Endowment is not the problem. They have willingly made their own resources into stranded resources.
Thank you for the stats and facts on fuel-mineral wealth in Europe.
Also let's not forget nuclear energy. I don't know the precise breakdown of how much the cost percentage uranium fuel stock is to the buildout and operation of nuclear plants, but I am assuming it's a fraction of the total operating cost. Further, Europeans are smart, well educated, have well regulated industries, are thus well-suited to build and operate such facilities and you'd think nuclear power would be a perfect fit. But it's not. They shut down nuke plants and build wind farms.
Europeans were smart and well educated. Now, not so much, I'm afraid. The legend that was German engineering is over and so are a lot of other legends. And so they shut down nuclear plants and build wind turbines...
It will be interesting to see which political will is stronger as this progresses, that of the greens who are vehemently against production of fossil fuels locally, or that of the ordinary European who upon learning there is a local alternative that can cost less than the green transition and actually provide stability, decides to change governments wholesale
I fear, Irina, that you will need a vacation having consumed that entire document. At this point, I would have thought you understood anything Bruegel puts out is full of stuff and nonsense only.
It is. The trouble is that they have Brussels' ear, as do the fruitcakes at Ember and suchlike. And their recommendations are totally in line with actual policy plans -- were it not for the growing opposition of more voter-sensitive members of the political class.
Thank you Irina. The UK is proof that the EU isn't necessary to trash one's country, though it certainly seems to be wanting to help. Brits were happy to join the Common Market in the 70s, but never bought into the superstate idea. At least we have the chance to oust the current lot of numpties in a few years (and probably replace them with another lot), whereas there is no plebiscite for the European Commission bigwigs.
As noted before, Breugel should stick to painting.
Finally, from the late David Mackay, taken long before his time, author of Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air: "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic.."
Belgium perpetrated the most brutal colonization upon Central Africa of any European country. Now these petty bureaucrats in Bruegel envision a colonization regime for all of Europe to satisfy their transition fantasies that is sure to bring misery and impoverishment akin to what they perpetrated on the Congo. This is a rodeo I want to watch
Good point. The coloniser mindset appears deeply ingrained.
Unfortunately, Substack does not allow for the posting of GIFs of funny-looking people slapping their heads and falling over backwards.
If your proposal requires global coordinated government to work, it isn’t going to work…
So they say that the only way to be competitive is to push forward on the transition even more and then a few pages later say that more subsidies are needed because at current prices the policies aren’t competitive?!?
This is just the mid 2010s zombie internationalist framework regurgitated with no clue how out of touch it is…
“The planners more or less presumed the existence of private-sector problems and took for granted that they could successfully solve those problems through the use of government’s coercive power and the taxpayers’ money. They did not give much weight – indeed, they often gave no weight whatsoever – to the possibility of what later came to be known in public-choice theory as “government failure.” Thus, seeing apparent market failures that left the economy in an inefficient configuration, they supposed that they could identify exactly what to tax, subsidize, or regulate and exactly how much to do so in order to move the economy into an efficient configuration.”
From Robert Higgs’s 2012 book, Delusions of Power.
When the market and consumers are not moving in the direction required - a grand plan is needed.
John, Thank you for the nod to Robert Higgs. I checked it out and bought the book, it looks interesting.
The EU’s continued existence is dependent on its Feasibility Study Factory (FSF™️) churning out these re-justifications of the Green Deal. Yet, this is a double-edged sword. EU citizens are wising up and will eventually see who is really preaching the false beliefs!
Irina - another great article. Thank you! 😊
The Green Deal/Net Zero is the essence of Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy”. Someone - Far Right thug probably - heaves a stone through a shopkeeper’s window smashing it. This is actually a boost for the economy because it provides work for the glass-maker, glazier, painter and decorator. So if we want a vibrant, competitive economy gangs of stone-throwers should be hired to go around smashing windows. But as a wise man said, everything has a cost. The economic boost ignores the financial and opportunity cost to the shopkeeper, loss of business, and what economic activity that prevented. Also resources are mis-allocated replacing windows, rather than fitting new ones.
Excellent point.
My pleasure!
Bruegel is stark raving mad. So, which country will be the first to leave the EU? If a country would take one for the new team, & announce plans to cut all ties with the crazy bobbleheads in Brussels, surely they would be joined by a majority of the member countries. On a positive note, Go Sebastian! I recommend he beefs up his security detail. GREAT ARTICLE! 🤘😎🤘
My money is turning toward Quitaly and PM Meloni
They're not grumbling loudly enough. Now, the Central Europeans, on the other hand...
Second to leave the EU?
Apologies: the first to leave was Greenland in 1985, UK second, who'll be third?
I hear he's kind of a populist, big on the talking and not so big on the action but as I told the friend who informed me about this, even talking about the transition disaster is a positive these days.
Aside from the efforts to reconcile "the need for support to cope with higher energy prices because of the transition" with their unquestionable axiom that "the transition equals competitiveness", Bruegel has been consistently calling for Europe to shut down the energy-intensive parts of its value chains and to import these products instead.
The basis for their argument is that Europe is “energy poor”, while energy-intensives consume a lot of energy and produce lower value added than other (downstream) segments of value chains. Therefore, they claim that Europe should shut down its energy intensives, import these materials instead, and focus on producing more specialized, downstream products. A few indicative quotes from Bruegel’s recent publication on this matter:
“The chemicals sector, for example, accounts for a quarter of total industrial natural gas demand and almost 18 percent of industrial electricity consumption, but represents only 0.5 percent of EU jobs and 3.7 percent of EU manufacturing jobs. While this snapshot does not take into account the indirect value-added these industries provide to other economic sectors, it suggests that the importance of these industries might have been overstated in the public debate since the beginning of the energy crisis.”
“The European energy-price shock might have made energy-intensive commodities, such as primary steel, commercially unviable in Europe. Industrial policy might more usefully support high value-added parts of value chain, such as complex gearboxes, instead of persistently subsidising the production of energy-intensive commodities. Energy-intensive intermediary products generally have low margins and, as their price is set on international markets, an increase in the cost of inputs can lead to market exit”
“Therefore, more weight should be given to facilitating imports of energy-intensive products, while helping EU industry to move up to higher value-added parts of the value chain. This strategy would have the advantage of directing subsidies to industrial sectors that have not become structurally uncompetitive globally. Moreover, restraining public intervention in shielding energy-intensive industries might spur creative destruction and foster innovation, while reducing energy demand and thus making energy cheaper for everyone. This strategy would need to take into account concerns about excessive import dependency, and would need to be engineered to ensure there is no carbon leakage.”
Which begs the question why have e.g. electro-intensive industries in Europe "become structurally uncompetitive globally"? An if emissions are indeed their main concern, how do they justify replacing e.g. European primary aluminum production, with an avg carbon footprint of 6tnCO2/tnAl with Chinese or Indonesian production with double or triple the carbon footprint?
Similar considerations can be found in their article “Rebooting European Union’s NZIA”.
In their book called “Sparking Europe’s new industrial revolution”, they again explicitly call for a shut-down of domestic EIIs “Trying to keep energy-intensive nodes of the value chain in Europe is unlikely to succeed. Instead, these nodes should relocate to places that are potentially more efficient in capturing green energy. Part of the mechanism through which Europe will achieve net zero is by relocating – outside of Europe – production steps that can be more effectively decarbonised elsewhere. European green industrial policy shouldn’t try to fight this reality: it should instead plan an orderly transition into the green industries of the future in which it is likely to retain or enhance its comparative advantage.“ . Actually, the entire chapter “A framework for green growth” aggressively advances this proposition.
Big question again: if the EU is the green frontrunner, and green energy ensures competitiveness, why should European EIIs relocate? just a thought...
And one more issue to consider: the EU consistently claims that the transition ensures energy security: unless I'm mistaken roughly 90% (perhaps even higher now) of li-on batteries in Europe come from China; for PV panels that number is even higher (close to 97% if my numbers are correct). We're still mostly producing our own wind-turbines (perhaps 60%) but give it another 2-3 years and that'll likely change too. Our trade deficit with China is bound to worsen dramatically, which -in my book- means overdependence for our entire energy strategy on one country (which may have shown signs of being ready to use that dependence, look at germanium & gallium export restrictions). Not to mention the "drivers of electrification" like heat-pumps and EVs (and their components). Am I missing smth or is that not really "secure"?
Thank you for the thoughtful detailed comment.
Their nonsense only make sense in a thoroughly and permanently globally connected world - free trade; no/low tariffs, peace... good luck counting on these factors into perpetuity. The world now and actually for at least 2016 has been moving away from globalism. America is a cautionary tale of what happens to a nation when everything but today's high-margin goods are outsourced. Tomorrow comes, the trade deals fall apart and you are stuck with a bunch of wind turbines that no longer work.
Because of this we got Trump and people are going berserk with enthusiasm for everything he does. I cannot imagine what is going to eventually happen in Europe.
Well, we are already seeing it with AfD's rise in Germany and the RN in France.
A great overview of the paradoxical line of "reasoning:" they employ. Thank you!
Thank you, Irina for wading through that morass of contradictory nonsense.
Still not clear to me what the point is of the energy transition in the first place. Decades back it was a forecast of doom - well the doom never came. A hint of doom is absent to this day. What's the motivation for the transition at all? Clearly, by now practically all people realize wind and solar are not cheaper than gas/nuke/coal. How does the green leviathan keep stomping its way thru Europe?
For some numbers I looked at politico's chart of German "Poll of polls" since they got an election coming right up:
CDU/CSU 30% (Christian democracy, Pro EU, pro-transition)
AfD 20% (German nationalist, Euroskeptic, anti-transition)
SPD 17% (Leftards, Pro EU, Pro-transition)
Greens 14% (Insane Enviro Wack-jobs, Pro-transition)
BSW 6% (Insane, period. Pro-transition. I find Sahra Wagenknecht terrifying.)
FDP 4% (Classical liberals. Pro-transition)
Left 4% (Kommies, insane, Pro-transition)
I'm sure these various parties have all sorts of claims and promises beyond the green transition and EU opinions, but to my American quantitative mind, this line-up hardly represents any kind of majority skepticism of Klimate Katastrophe. But the physics and economics do not change.
My conclusion is more propaganda, because it's working splendidly, and an eventual breakdown of civil society in Europe. People organized into modern nation states cannot survive without cheap energy. Energy is prosperity. We'll see.
Those are some truly frightening numbers. 80% of Germans are still delusional?
I guess it is partly a testament to the effectiveness of propaganda. But I thought German schools were good. Anyone who can do math and a modicum of chemistry or physics can quickly see that nothing about "the transition" makes a lick of sense.
80% of the population refuses to engage its brains...
Perhaps they are educated enough to know and still believe the propaganda.
If so, I predict that the cognitive dissonance will eventually cause heads to pop across Germany. It will be like Germany is a giant corn popper with human heads as the kernels.
Yeah, the numbers are stunning - but double check me I'm no authority and I'm using Germany as a proxy because I lived there for three years, speak the language (poorly), and am using them as a bellwether for the EU.
I actually cannot understand how Europeans en-mass can't grasp the futility of their energy plans. I am fearing that as they get closer to complete energy melt-down, whatever that actually looks like, the actual melt-down will be preceded by some sort of singularity - grid failure? mass civil uprisings? emergence of some sort of charismatic super-crazy political figure(s)? People are kvetching about the AfD bur seriously, check out Sahra Wagenknecht. It could very suddenly go off the rails in Europe if they don't wise up fast.
Well, to be fair, that's 80% of the sample for the poll. I don't know how representative is but I do know, as we all do here, that stats can be "adjusted". Also, it bears noting a lot of people may be supporting certain parties out of habit or general agreement with their non-transition policies. We'll see.
The reason I made the point about the sample is a recent poll by a BG media outlet that decided to sound out opinions of the eurozone. An overwhelming majority was against entry. Hours later the poll was removed from the media's website. :D They'd failed to adjust the sample, clearly.
You are absolutely right in pointing out the malleability of polls - one pollster here in the USA immediately after the recent election scolded viewers that they shouldn't be paying so much attention to the polls but rather should pay attention to what the politicians are actually saying and promising. Having said that, it is entirely possible that the polls aren't really reflecting some serious second thoughts people are having concerning the energy transition. I mean, a person could be thinking to themselves that "environmental protection" is a nice and moral thing, but be harboring fears that if the electric bills go up much more they won't be able to pay since they were recently laid off due to the company they worked for going out of business because of high energy prices.
At some point, besides the Grune / Kommie / Euroinsane people, a high percentage of Europeans really need to wake up.
Years and years, and years of brainwashing is why the green leviathan is still alive and stomping. But they forgot to brainwash everyone deeply enough.
"Because they did, come 2030, there’s not going to be an EU in its current form."
Here's hoping. I applauded Brexit, because it finally got the UK out from under the insane German/Austrian energy policy. Then they inflicted just as much of exactly the same damage on themselves without help.
Sigh.
Here's hoping that in addition to dissolving the EU, Europeans have the wisdom to abandon the policies of the EU severally.
Except… if you look at Europeans (particularly the Germanics) starting with the Romans they have a predilection for authoritarian, centralised government and European Empires: Holy Roman Empire; Austro-Hungary; Napoleon, Fascism, Vichy, Third Reich and now the Fourth Reich. I see no prospect of change - it’s in the DNA.
Meanwhile UK having formally cut the tether, but not completely moving away, is slowly being pulled back aided and abetted by WEF stooge Herr Starmwurstführer.
In other words, “transition” means transition from national Governments to a single World Government with absolute authority run by people with intellects and abilities the size of the Solar System. Net Zero is just the cover story for the real plan many of us realise.
Yes. We can't be trusted to know what's best for us with a Higher Power to guide us and regulate us. How fast these people forget the lessons of history. It's kind of horrifying.
“Being poorly endowed with domestic resources, Europe is highly dependent on fossil-fuel imports, as dramatically illustrated by the 2022-2023 energy crisis." This belief is the biggest part of the problem, but they apparently want to hold onto that idea and refuse to see evidence that it is not true. While Europe may not have the resources of Saudi Arabia, or even Russia, it is not without significant sources of hydrocarbons of all types. What it is missing, is not resources, but political will to recognize and utilize its own resources. Of the top ten oil fields in Europe (and this becomes another issue of semantics over what is included in Europe/EU) the largest is Troll of 5.18 Billion barrels, and the tenth largest is Ecofisk of 547 million barrels. Gas resources in the Netherlands total 174 billion cubic meters, and even Germany holds 71 billion cubic meters of gas in its subsurface (as proved or probable). The real tragedy of Europe is that exploration and drilling for oil and gas is almost impossible there. This is a matter of political will, societal attitude, and existing regulatory structure. It is not that Europe "is poorly endowed" it is that Europe is unwilling to let oil and gas resources be exploited. Poland, Romania, Hungary, Albania, France and even Germany have potential resources that were left impossible to utilize by either anti-fracking movements or general government obstructions. That obstruction is now turning to offshore resources after it has managed to stifle onshore efforts to find oil and gas. Endowment is not the problem. They have willingly made their own resources into stranded resources.
Thank you for the stats and facts on fuel-mineral wealth in Europe.
Also let's not forget nuclear energy. I don't know the precise breakdown of how much the cost percentage uranium fuel stock is to the buildout and operation of nuclear plants, but I am assuming it's a fraction of the total operating cost. Further, Europeans are smart, well educated, have well regulated industries, are thus well-suited to build and operate such facilities and you'd think nuclear power would be a perfect fit. But it's not. They shut down nuke plants and build wind farms.
I simply do not understand the European mindset.
Europeans were smart and well educated. Now, not so much, I'm afraid. The legend that was German engineering is over and so are a lot of other legends. And so they shut down nuclear plants and build wind turbines...
It will be interesting to see which political will is stronger as this progresses, that of the greens who are vehemently against production of fossil fuels locally, or that of the ordinary European who upon learning there is a local alternative that can cost less than the green transition and actually provide stability, decides to change governments wholesale
I bet on us, ordinary folk. There's a lot more of us, after all, and we're not all brainwashed beyond repair.
I fear, Irina, that you will need a vacation having consumed that entire document. At this point, I would have thought you understood anything Bruegel puts out is full of stuff and nonsense only.
It is. The trouble is that they have Brussels' ear, as do the fruitcakes at Ember and suchlike. And their recommendations are totally in line with actual policy plans -- were it not for the growing opposition of more voter-sensitive members of the political class.
That’s just nuts!
Thank you Irina. The UK is proof that the EU isn't necessary to trash one's country, though it certainly seems to be wanting to help. Brits were happy to join the Common Market in the 70s, but never bought into the superstate idea. At least we have the chance to oust the current lot of numpties in a few years (and probably replace them with another lot), whereas there is no plebiscite for the European Commission bigwigs.
As noted before, Breugel should stick to painting.
Finally, from the late David Mackay, taken long before his time, author of Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air: "I'm not trying to be pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic.."
In the U.S. were able to put the brakes on this nonsense just in the nick of time. I fear for Europe that they may not.
I have never seen a cost estimate that I believe captures all of the costs. This bunch needs to multiply by 10.
Suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it
if I please