>The U.S. and EU need to develop more strategic and long-term plans to limit the geopolitical and climate nightmare that is Russian gas.
I’m pretty sure that this is an EU problem, not a US problem.
The only way I can imagine the US being involved is if the EU isn’t willing to cut use of Russian gas unless the US commits to cutting use of US gas or something like that — the “If I stop polluting, you have to do so too” climate change aspect rather than the geopolitical aspect.
I think that the immediate driver is probably the geopolitical aspect, not the climate. Nobody suddenly got a lot more concerned about the climate.
Gas is not ideal, but much better than oil or coal.
I’d love to have my car moved by wind farts, but until we can make it work without fossil fuels, oil will have to do.
and yes, the EU knows how poor Russia is, this is precisely why it is buying gas from them. The last thing we want is a collapsing state with nukes on our border.
Ah yes, LNG that has to be hauled by ship for thousands of miles, so environmentally friendly!
Why specifically russian gas and not all gas. This is political bulshit
The EU should be encouraging member states to sign long term contracts with European, American, and Australian LNG exporting companies. The EU may also want to look into expanding underground gas storage so they can keep more gas in reserve.
40% of gas imports coming from Russia may have been acceptable in the past when the EU didn’t have better alternatives, but now with LNG being a viable option I don’t think the EU has an excuse to be as reliant on Russian gas as it is and the EU’s energy policy should reflect this. US needs to develop LNG terminals on the east coast and the EU needs natural gas, it’s a win win situation.
Let’s face it. Until we have cheap storage nuclear is s must. While we are doing it we should be looking into fast neutron reactors and waste reprocessing so we can solve the long term storage problem by simply not creating long lived radioactive waste.
Then don’t use gas, boom, problem solved /s
Yes we know but coal is worse and where do we get other stuff than gas?
Im all for cutting out Russia of our resources supply system, but I never heard anyone mention what the cost or the possibility might be.
Yeh better buy merican fracking gas which is shipped around the half world.
Nat gas burns far cleaner than ANY other fossils fuel we have, and contrary to popular belief has contributed far more to ‘green’ policies than any renewable. Is it an ideal situation? No, of course not. But it’s a right step in the right direction. This article is juvenile nonsense.
We must continue and intensify a strategy of diversification, with more investment in the mediterranean, in the the north sea and in LNG.
12 comments
>The U.S. and EU need to develop more strategic and long-term plans to limit the geopolitical and climate nightmare that is Russian gas.
I’m pretty sure that this is an EU problem, not a US problem.
The only way I can imagine the US being involved is if the EU isn’t willing to cut use of Russian gas unless the US commits to cutting use of US gas or something like that — the “If I stop polluting, you have to do so too” climate change aspect rather than the geopolitical aspect.
I think that the immediate driver is probably the geopolitical aspect, not the climate. Nobody suddenly got a lot more concerned about the climate.
Gas is not ideal, but much better than oil or coal.
I’d love to have my car moved by wind farts, but until we can make it work without fossil fuels, oil will have to do.
and yes, the EU knows how poor Russia is, this is precisely why it is buying gas from them. The last thing we want is a collapsing state with nukes on our border.
Ah yes, LNG that has to be hauled by ship for thousands of miles, so environmentally friendly!
Why specifically russian gas and not all gas. This is political bulshit
The EU should be encouraging member states to sign long term contracts with European, American, and Australian LNG exporting companies. The EU may also want to look into expanding underground gas storage so they can keep more gas in reserve.
40% of gas imports coming from Russia may have been acceptable in the past when the EU didn’t have better alternatives, but now with LNG being a viable option I don’t think the EU has an excuse to be as reliant on Russian gas as it is and the EU’s energy policy should reflect this. US needs to develop LNG terminals on the east coast and the EU needs natural gas, it’s a win win situation.
Let’s face it. Until we have cheap storage nuclear is s must. While we are doing it we should be looking into fast neutron reactors and waste reprocessing so we can solve the long term storage problem by simply not creating long lived radioactive waste.
Then don’t use gas, boom, problem solved /s
Yes we know but coal is worse and where do we get other stuff than gas?
Im all for cutting out Russia of our resources supply system, but I never heard anyone mention what the cost or the possibility might be.
Yeh better buy merican fracking gas which is shipped around the half world.
Nat gas burns far cleaner than ANY other fossils fuel we have, and contrary to popular belief has contributed far more to ‘green’ policies than any renewable. Is it an ideal situation? No, of course not. But it’s a right step in the right direction. This article is juvenile nonsense.
We must continue and intensify a strategy of diversification, with more investment in the mediterranean, in the the north sea and in LNG.
RUSSA BAD!!111