I had planned to write one of those year-end reviews for today on what Europe lost over the past year in its ongoing self-immolation against Russia, but that will have to wait for a later date. That’s because while much of the attention these days is on the upcoming closure of the final gas pipeline running from Russia to Europe through Ukraine, the EU also has the shovels out and is digging itself a hole with another of its big LNG suppliers in Qatar.
The EU Threatens to Cut Itself Off From Another Supplier
The EU is targeting Qatar with its new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which requires larger companies operating in the bloc to check whether their supply chains use forced labour or cause environmental damage. On its face, that sounds great, but it could further limit Europe’s energy options following its decision to restrict supplies from Russia, which has caused widespread economic devastation in the bloc. Failure to take enough action on the EU’s corporate sustainability items in the eyes of Brussels can result in penalties, including fines of up to five percent of global turnover.
Qatar simply says it will end all liquefied natural gas (LNG) sales to the EU rather than pay any penalties.
“If the case is that I lose 5% of my generated revenue by going to Europe, I will not go to Europe. I’m not bluffing,” Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi told the Financial Times in an interview published on Dec. 22. He added that “five percent of generated revenue of QatarEnergy means five percent of generated revenue of the Qatar state. This is the people’s money, so I cannot lose that kind of money – and nobody would accept losing that kind of money.”
Now it’s entirely possible — if not likely — that the EU backs down on corporate sustainability demands of Qatar. Maybe this is just a threat so that some palms can be greased in Brussels. Then again, who would have believed that the EU would voluntarily cut off Russian pipeline gas and destroy its own industry over the course of the past three years?
The Consequences
Qatar is the world’s third largest exporter of LNG after the US and Australia. And since the EU cut itself off from Russian pipeline gas, Qatar has provided between 12-14 percent of Europe’s LNG needs, which puts it alongside the US and Russia as one of the top LNG suppliers to the bloc.
Any supply constraints from Qatar would be a major blow.
“Qatar is one of the world’s largest LNG exporters. The EU is increasingly reliant on its LNG due to reduced natural gas supplies from Russia. A disruption in Qatari LNG shipments would likely exacerbate supply constraints, especially during winter months when demand peaks,” James Willn, partner at global law company Reed Smith’s energy and natural resources group, told The National.
As we can see from the above chart, it’s especially bad news for Europe’s second largest industrial center in Italy, which gets about 50 percent of its LNG from the US, while around 39 percent was arriving from Qatar. As a result of the Red Sea chaos — driven by the West’s support for genocide in Gaza and Yemen’s efforts to put an end to it — shipments are being cancelled or delayed, but Italian energy company Edison is still in the middle of a 25-year contract with QatarEnergy for about 6.5 billion cubic metres (bcm) per year of LNG, and Italian energy giant Eni signed a 27-year deal in 2023. Those deliveries might not be completely cut off, but Kaabi, Qatar’s energy minister, said Doha will explore legal avenues if it faces penalties and would rule out shipping any new supplies.
The EU is already dealing with demand destruction and could be looking at even more should it begin to face problems with the supply of Qatari LNG.
In 2022, EU gas consumption dropped by 13.5 percent compared to the prior year’s levels, its steepest drop in history. The decline is the equivalent to the amount of gas needed to supply over 40 million homes, but it was factories rather than homes making up the biggest chunk of that drop: the EU’s industrial sector accounted for approximately 45% of the demand decrease.
It’s struggled to recover, and there’s probably not a lot the EU can do at this point to fix the problem as the hardest hit industries have not recovered and many operations have either closed or relocated.
Brussels could, however, make the problem even worse, which issues with Qatari LNG could do.
That’s because one of the biggest components of the bloc’s strategy to deal with the loss of Russian pipeline gas is more reliance on LNG. Twelve new LNG terminals and six expansion projects of existing terminals were commissioned between 2022 and 2024, which are increasing the EU’s LNG import capacity by 70 bcm to 284 bcm.
That strategy has its own problems, namely it is more expensive and less reliable, but it becomes even more unworkable if the EU starts excluding the world’s third largest LNG producer. A brief look at the current situation shows how little room the EU has to mess around.
The industrial gas demand drop in the bloc has not resulted in significant fuel switching, but instead in lower industrial output, largely due to the loss of competitiveness. It’s easy to see why. From the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia:
Import substitution in some energy-intensive sectors—and broader macroeconomic headwinds for manufacturing activity—have prolonged the weakness of gas-consuming industries, especially in 2023. These headwinds are unlikely to subside soon. As of March 2024, the forward curve for the TTF benchmark still indicated price levels of around €25–30/MWh through 2028, markedly higher than the historical average of €15–20/MWh observed over 2015–19. Even if European gas prices returned to those historical levels, energy-intensive industries across the EU would still face immense pressures from overseas competitors in North America (where the Henry Hub benchmark was trading at well under the equivalent of €10/MWh in early March 2024) and from other producers benefiting from artificially low regulated gas prices, including those in the Middle East and North Africa.
The EU likes to tout its growing renewables energy, but that has not made up the difference of gas reduction and is largely unhelpful for energy-intensive industries. We can see the effect on the EU’s two largest industrial centers, Italy and Germany:
Italy’s industrial output has contracted for 18 consecutive months and is already dealing with recent gas supply issues due to the cutoffs of Russian gas that was still flowing via pipeline through Ukraine to Slovakia, Hungary, and Austria. Austrian company Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung or Austrian Mineral Oil Administration was already forced by a European court ruling to stop buying from Russia; now Ukrainian emperor Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the last remaining pipeline transit through Ukraine can only continue on the condition that Moscow does not receive payment until after the war. Despite efforts by Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, it appears as though a deal is not in the cards.
This is a blow to Italy as Rome had been buying from Vienna increasing amounts from Vienna due to Red Sea shipment problems and as grand plans to source more gas from North Africa largely fell through.
At first, I could not believe my eyes. But digging, data is revealing an unpleasant truth. Italy still relies on Russian gas more than what could appear.
In March, Italy imports from Austria ballooned year-on-year and month-on-month.— Francesco Sassi (@Frank_Stones) April 23, 2024
Doing no better than Italy is Germany, which is entering global financial crisis or pandemic-level-decline territory:
Berlin is calling for the sustainability directive to be postponed by two years.
Why Is the Fight with Qatar Now?
The stated reason is that’s what the directive on corporate sustainability due diligence passed in July 2024 requires. Here’s the overview from the European Commission:
The core elements of this duty are identifying and addressing potential and actual adverse human rights and environmental impacts in the company’s own operations, their subsidiaries and, where related to their value chain(s), those of their business partners. In addition, the Directive sets out an obligation for large companies to adopt and put into effect, through best efforts, a transition plan for climate change mitigation aligned with the 2050 climate neutrality objective of the Paris Agreement as well as intermediate targets under the European Climate Law.
The directive requires EU countries to impose fines for non-compliance with a maximum limit of not less than five percent of the company’s annual global revenue. Qatar still has time to adhere to the requirements. Countries have to adopt the EU-mandated rules into national law by 2026 and in 2027 the rules will start to apply to companies, but they’re already starting to call into question the long-term viability of Qatar as an LNG supplier to the EU.
We’ll have to wait and see exactly how the rules are applied and if US companies face the same scrutiny. The EU’s track record there isn’t great as its human rights and environmental concerns are often wielded as a geopolitical tool. We don’t have to look far for evidence. While the EU is super worried about Uyghurs in China and the plight of Iranians, it somehow never utters a word about the nearly 700,000 Americans (a number that is likely higher) who are homeless or the US carceral state, which leads the world and coincidentally gives the US a labor advantage at a time when the EU is facing a competitiveness crisis.
Brussels can lecture China and others on climate change action while ignoring the fact that the US LNG it increasingly relies on is worse for the environment than coal. That’s because the production of shale gas, as well as liquefaction to make LNG and transport it by tanker, is energy-intensive.
And it looks set to rely even more on those LNG exports from Washington. Trump plans to remove any barriers to more drilling, and the EU wants to buy all it can in an effort to charm Trump and prevent tariffs on imports to the US from the EU.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, doing her best to prove her worth to the incoming administration, came up with a plan to buy even more gas from the US, which would shoot the EU in both feet. This would increase dependence on the US while simultaneously doing even more to wreck the economies of EU states. Here’s Politico with the details:
Stressing that the EU still buys significant amounts of energy from Russia, von der Leyen asked: “Why not replace it by American LNG, which is cheaper for us and brings down our energy prices? It’s something where we can get into a discussion, also [where] our trade deficit is concerned.”
During the first Trump term, Juncker avoided more tariffs by assuring the U.S. president that Europe would facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas (and more American soybeans.) In fact, the European Commission has no real power in determining European companies’ purchases of LNG and soybeans, but Trump was happy to accept the political theater of parading data that European purchases were going up.
There is no evidence that American LNG is cheaper, as von der Leyen is quoted as saying. It’s actually a lot more expensive than the pipeline Russian gas Europe used to get. There’s also the fact that the European Commission doesn’t have the power to dictate who member states buy gas from.
It can remove some options via sanctions, however.
It could also utilize its new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive to make business with certain countries — say Qatar — more unattractive while simultaneously making US exports more appealing. Willn, the partner at global law company Reed Smith’s energy and natural resources group told The National the following:
“Qatar could redirect its LNG exports to other markets, such as China, Japan or South Korea, which are major LNG importers and less likely to impose similar sustainability laws. The EU would need to seek alternative suppliers, such as the US, Australia or African nations, potentially at higher costs.”
The directive was one of many new powers added to Ursula’s toolbox during her first five-year term in response to the crisis brought on by the bloc’s war against Russia. They include the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, International Procurement Instrument, an Anti-Coercion Instrument, and the EU Critical Raw Materials Act.
Most are being put to good use for the benefit of US geopolitical goals and the bottom lines of American companies. The same looks likely with the sustainability directive.
Read about this story a coupla days ago in some disbelief. It would be on thing for the EU to demand a 5% penalty on sales to the EU for what they consider violations but the EU wants to demand 5% of world sales by Qatar. That is nothing less than a shakedown. I would guess that Qatar would be able to get out of present contracts because the EU is introducing new conditions that were not present when the present contracts were signed. Come to think of it, the EU tried to pull this stunt with Russia a coupla years ago. And gas is fungible which means that Qatar could tell the EU to go to hell and sell it to Asia for example. Great way to turn the EU into a pastoral society, fellas.
And I don’t see how they can believe that US gas is cheaper than Russian gas. Russian gas came straight down the line ready to use. Can’t do that with US gas as that gas has to be semi-frozen into a liquid if I recall, loaded aboard specialized ships, sails across the Atlantic, is unloaded in specialized ports, warmed up until it is a gas again and then it is sent through the pipeline network. That makes it much more expensive and if there are any interruptions like Trump not exporting any to make it cheaper in the US to make himself look good or a hurricane going through those port infrastructures, then it is Katy bar the door. In short, the economy of the EU will be in tatters, tatters I tell you.
I believe they mean cheaper after you take into account all costs.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-eu-should-make-up-tremendous-deficit-with-us-by-purchasing-its-oil-2024-12-20/
What Qatari along with other oil state officials are trying to understand, is why immense oil wealth has not been turned to development for so many decades. There is a deepening sense that must change now, but how?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Cwlb
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, 1977-2023
(Indexed to 1977)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Cwl0
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, 1977-2023
(Percent change)
Notice that while per capita GDP has barely grown in Qatar since 1977, per capita GDP in the UAE has fallen by almost 63%:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Cwa4
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, Qatar and United Arab Emirates, 1977-2023
(Indexed to 1977)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Cwa0
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, Qatar and United Arab Emirates, 1977-2023
(Percent change)
Hmm, I would curious to know the contribution of the change in numerator and chamge in denominator and the definition of per capita. It is quite possible the UAE us including exlat residents (professional and guest labourers) and Qatar is not, for example….
There are too many variables to conclude much from these graphs.
Now do a similar comparison against UK, Germany, Italy, France, USA versus China……..and versus say Qatar
I suspect large amounts of Qatari “GDP” are not recorded as such because they are “invested” offshore in Asset Holdings
“It would be on thing for the EU to demand a 5% penalty on sales to the EU for what they consider violations but the EU wants to demand 5% of world sales by Qatar. That is nothing less than a shakedown.”
Shakedown. It brings to mind The Duran’s show yesterday: Big Biden sanctions on Russia’s spooky SHADOW GHOST fleet.
It’s mainly about oil. Yet, the hosts mention that the term “shadow ghost fleet” means not insured by London.
Basically, if the West doesn’t have its greedy, funky fingers in everything a country or business does, then it’s in the “shadows” or “doesn’t exist” in the establishment’s addled minds.
However, the for the win quip on the this subject came in comments section on the Duran show:
“A ghost president sanctions a ghost ship.”
“It would be on thing for the EU to demand a 5% penalty on sales to the EU for what they consider violations but the EU wants to demand 5% of world sales by Qatar…”
Astonishing persistence of a European colonial sense, obviously led by German officials but with broad-spread support.
Not dissimilar to US practice however –
Clearly BMW was planning way way ahead when they plopped their largest international assembly plant onto upstate South Carolina.
And we yahoos are finding greater prosperity from our current German speaking overlords than the previous colonization by New England textile magnates.
Also the Carolinas got a lot of tool companies moved to them as a temporary home, until movement to China.
I bought a used, somewhat rusty but nice old Jacobs drill bit chuck over the weekend.
It was engraved “Made in the USA” Hartford Conn.
When I cleaned it up, I could read the manufacturing date, F 64.
Still working smoothly after 60 years.
excellent piece, thanks
Is there any limit to where jurisdiction could set in and one may indict EU officials for not keeping harm from their populations. As far as the German constitution is concerned, at least on paper, the chancellor is obliged to keep the country and its people out of harm’s way. What are the rules and laws here?
p.s. I never understood why at least there is no attempt by lawyers to take action against the German government and its affiliates at the Constitutional Court for its various practices since 2022 (and 2023 Gaza), militarily, economically, and in terms of freedom of speech.
Verfassungsgericht is a bit of a joke really. When the Merkel Lockdown suspended the same functions as Hitler‘s 1933 Enabling Act no lawyer succeeded in applications to Verfassungsgericht.
Judges in Germany toe the line. The judge in Weimar who dared exclude children from mask mandates at school – in his child welfare judicial role – had his office and home searched by police snd was arrested and out on trial. People laying flowers outside the court had them tossed into garbage trucks snd were manhandled by police from Berlin snd Bavaria
Lawyers face arrest and disbarment for being too outspoken.
Simply criticising can be considered Majestätsbeleidigung and get you raised by police and on trial. Job loss and bank account cancellation can follow
sigh – I know. In fact the people who I know and who come from law have the least common sense understanding of the most important issues.
But, well, what else can I do…but appeal to some decency?
p.s. didn ‘t know about the flower story…I once talked to Patrik Baab. The stuff he told about how they behaved at Berlin Media Univers. was shameful to say the least. And stuff like that happens all over as you know. In those cases – at least – Arbeitsgericht confirmed the libel cases. But in each one eventually the people left the institutions they worked for because it became unbearable…Overton-Magazin had another story just recently from Munich…
And the bad impression caused by the cases is devastating. Even my closer circle initially reacts not with indignation but curiousity because they assume both sides are responsible, both must have done something wrong. I then have to put down my foot and tell them: Well darlings, there is no “Ausgewogenheit” here!
I think it suits the Qatari’s to put the squeeze on now. The Russians and/or Ukrainians are threatening to cut off the remaining gas pipelines to Europe. And the fall of Syria once again re-open the possibility of a Qatar/Turkey/Europe pipeline, which will be all the easier to finance if the price of gas comes up.
Not only that Qatar Investment Authority holds 17% VW and a big chunk of Hochtief and Daimler. I think it was trying to buy the chemical firm Evonik.
That is ignoring Qatar‘s role in Syria where it paid for Al-Qaeda to take power and Germany has a lot of Syrians who are bankrupting health insurers and the welfare system.
This is the Qatar where Habeck went on bended knee to beg for LNG and where he is renting de-compression ships at €220,000/day per ship to land LNG
It is quite funny. EU firms are being impaled on this Supply Chain Directive which makes it impossible to import into EU let alone export
“EU firms are being impaled on this Supply Chain Directive…”
These are interesting comments, but tell me I really have no sense as to whose interests are being served by the Supply Chain Directive. Whose interests are being served by the leaders of the European Commission? How is the election in Germany to be viewed?
Thank you for the comments.
Election in Germany is only relevant if AfD gets to be the biggest party. Otherwise the other parties will form a coalition to exclude it. Merkel used a GDR tactic called “Zersetzung” to break off the conservative wing of CDU so she could move onto SPD and Green territory to create a Blockpartei power base.
Cameron tried the same in UK by coalescing with LibDems under Clegg and thereby created the UKIP problem – BreXit – and now Reform.
The German election only has meaning if a definable geopolitical result is clear. For instance – Greens only get directly elected in West German cities with affluent populations – in the East they depend on the Second Votes nationally to elect on The List.
BSW is a Communist Party run as a Fan Club for Sahra Wagenknecht – it was hyped up during Land Elections to dilute AfD vote. Typically youth votes AfD in protest at lack of opportunity and pensioners vote “Linke” to guarantee pensions. Merkel was dependent on female vote which is why she promoted vdL or Kramp-Karrenberger et al.
As for EU politicians – read Jessica’s perceptive comment below.
Supply Chain Directive is another form of Protectionism
https://www.activemind.legal/guides/eu-supply-chain-directive/
It is designed by Administrators – many of whom were Communists in former times. However like several EU Directives the stimulus (NetzDG as another example) comes from Berlin and EU takes it further to prevent other EU states gaining economic advantage over Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_Chain_Act
EU Law is bizarre. Supposedly it ensures a level playing field for producers to trade in the Single Market, yet if you import a bicycle lamp from France you cannot legally fit it to a bicycle in Germany as it does not “conform” to German regulations. There are similar rules which I think affect tractors………
Similarly under EU Law anyone in EU can operate a bank account in any other EuroZone country and pay bills through SEPA – HOWEVER – many companies in Germany and public bodies refuse to accept anything but a German IBAN. If you try to pay at a German Post Office only German bank cards “EU/Girokarten” – can be used in the machines but the ATMs outside take all cards.
Same in government offices – the machines that accept payment to produce the receipt that is then stamped at the Cashier’s Office only accept German bank cards.
There is a German poem with the line –
Kaiser Wilhelm used it imperiously in 1907 and it aptly describes the Political Aristocracy in Germany lecturing the World……..even if the original poet meant something less bombastic
Additionally, the US is not a reliable supplier to its vassals – its not agreement capable. For example, a few years ago, a storm did a lot of damage to Gulf Production, so the US halted LNG exports. Recipe for further de-industrialization, as industry needs long-term stable energy sources and pricing.
Ursula VDL (and most other EU leaders) sure act like Manchurian candidates.
Not so much Manchurian candidates as highly credentialled functionaries who have hijacked policy and decisionmaking from the European Council and its members – who, after all, are merely the elected leaders of the 27 countries who are undergoing a transformative economic renaissance to a future of innovative hunter gatherers while the rest of the world stupidly aims for industrial and technological growth by way of multipolarity and managed trade.
I would agree, UVDL is operation paperclip incarnate.
1945 was just a minor setback.
“Ursula VDL (and most other EU leaders) sure act like Manchurian candidates.”
Comprador elites. Their power comes not from service to their own people and support from them but from service to their imperial master (US) and support from them.
How does one get picky with energy suppliers when you are in the middle of a supply crunch? Does this not lack common sense?
Josep Borrel spoke of Europe as a Garden. Why do I get the feeling that the elites of Europe, through venal politicians, are intent on ripping up the Garden, (or at least do so for its ordinary citizens).
For the Russians, a weak Europe is in one way a security blessing, although a deranged Europe is still problematic…
I think billy bourghs put it best, enhanced wonderfully by the reckless drunk,Cale.
Dead city radio should be mandated in all public education facilities.
10 mins to change a life
Ah puk forever
Entropy. The garden is overrun with weeds choking the flowers and the carelessly cultivated lawn, whereas the jungle is verdant, the new growing from the old, reaching higher and higher to taste the light and invite the rain. That’s what jungles do. They become rainforests, responding to and creating their own environment if they are left to be by the gardeners and the cattle ranchers. Maybe in fifty years, the weeds will provide the groundwork for an expansion of the jungle. Or not, as the case may be.
USA may also resell Qatari gaz to EU, now that the nice gringos have finally destroyed Syria, so can use it as energy hub. USA destroyed a major Russian pipeline and robbed Russian central bank, and it has just now turned a secular sovereign country (Syria) to an islamic wreck after having caused earlier millions of refugees from Syria to EU. En passant USA has also decided to kill Palestine and let the worst kind of rabbinist monsters do a genocide on Gaza. A Tarantino or Rodriguez movie? No! real world…
Facts disrupt Fantasy !
There is one LNG plant on the Med it is in Egypt.
Qatar is investing in a fleet of 65 LNG tankers………its markets are in Asia.
How does USA sell Qatari gas to EU ?
How many LNG tankers can USA lease and send to The Gulf without being visited by Houthi emissaries ?
How would US get tankers from The Gulf to Rotterdam or even Marseilles ?
If you think there is some US-fantasy pipeline from Qatar through Saudi Arabia and Jordan to the Syrian Coast to then direct to Europe you are more deluded that most in the Western Hemisphere.
Qatar is directly opposite Iran – they share a gas field.
Qatar does not need to supply Europe – it can meet its revenue needs in Asia
It is focused on LNG not pipeline gas
Noone controls Syria – certainly not the Saudi-born Media-Studies puppet Turkey selected even if his motley crew was funded by Qatar. Recall that Qatar was blockaded by Saudi Arabia over its funding of terrorism.
Only Americans could divine a straight line in the Middle East snakepit.
Even US LNG has only one benefit to Europe – it raises domestic energy prices inside USA to World Market Levels – that is vital to Europe. The more USA converges on a European price level the less aggressive it can afford to be globally as American voters becoming increasingly indebted and marginalised economically
Exactly how many feet does the EU have? It has been shooting itself in the feet with both barrels for a while now, and you’d think there wouldn’t be much left to shoot at – but, somehow, it finds more.
A single shot to the head might put it out of its (everyone else’s) misery. Try it, Ursula, please.
Forced labour?
Is a highly selective approach to ‘morality’ the best way of dealing with the genuinely serious issue of forced labour?
Why are they targeting Qatar?
Will the EU drop Apple?
Why has DRC filed criminal charges against Apple over ‘conflict minerals’?
Will they review the supply chains in their green energy policies?
Exposed: Child labour behind smart phone and electric car batteries
Major electronics brands, including Apple, Samsung and Sony, are failing to do basic checks to ensure that cobalt mined by child labourers has not been used in their products, said Amnesty International and Afrewatch in a report published today.
What about Bayer’s track record?
Will the EU review this and compensate the victims and the families of the victims?
Monsanto, seed-corn companies continue use of contractors despite allegations of migrant labor abuses
Families of Polish WWII victims sue German firms for millions in compensation
Is US LNG sustainable?
Corporate sustainability due diligence
Fostering sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour for a just transition towards a sustainable economy.
Zombie Wells: A $280 Billion Problem the U.S. Can’t Ignore
Don’t Bail Out Oil and Gas – Use the Money for Environmental Cleanup Instead
‘Halliburton Loophole’ Allows Fracking Companies to Avoid Chemical Regulation
DOE Study Finds LNG Exports Don’t Just Hurt the Climate – They Hit Americans in Their Pocketbooks
With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.
Is this another fake green signal from the EU traffic lights?
I am sorry, this is “whataboutism” which is not a logically valid argument strategy.
Would you criticize people who feed the hungry for not addressing child sex trafficking? That is what your position amounts to.
I am not saying the LNG move is not misguided but this is not a great rhetorical strategy for taking it on.
Thanks for the constructive feedback.
Whataboutisms can be a sign of a great potential for circular motion.
What can we do with whataboutisms?
Perhaps we can put them to some use as fuel for a better answer.
An energy policy that is taking active steps to move away from energy sources that use ‘forced labour’ and which has publicly stated objectives of “corporate sustainability due diligence” is probably moving in the right direction.
However, in practice if this policy is going to produce meaningful results that improve the environment and ‘working’ conditions, organisations that produce sustainable energy policies have to be clear
that powerful corporations and governments have to be transparent and should provide good quality data about their actions so that they can demonstrate that they are compliant with the objectives of the policy.
A meaningful and sustainable energy policy requires transparency, good quality data and inclusivity (processing data can be fairly technical, it’s important to do the technical in a way that enables a wide range of people to be able to
use the outputs from this work).
Air pollution is an example of an area where some efforts have been made to put some resources behind processing data effectively.
In the UK a wide variety of sectors have come together to produce some valuable data analysis work in this area, e.g.
the university sector
Understanding the air we breathe
standards laboratories
Air quality networks
NPL Air Quality Networks Team
A robust policy has to put an onus on energy to producers to take an active interest on the stuff that they call ‘data’.
This means that energy producers should be providing traceable data sets, and that they should be transparent about the software and hardware that is used to perform numerical calculations.
For example, on traceability:
What do I need to do to support a claim of traceability? – (NIST)
“To support a claim of traceability, the provider of a measurement result must document the measurement process or system used to establish the claim”
A sustianable energy supplier has to be a transparent supplier of information.
Good quality information about an energy source should put the circular motion that can arise with whataboutisms to sleep as a policy that is supported by open sources of data will support a decision making process where judgements about an energy source can be made on the merits and issues with that energy source.
Perhaps hydrogen is another example of a major EU energy policy error that could benefit from transparency and better data?
“H2 for energy is mistake that’ll damage EU economy”