Spoiler alert. It will backfire again. Interventionism always damages the ones they pretend to protect.
Energy efficiency is producing the same or greater goods and services with less energy use. Imposing restrictive measures isn’t energy efficiency, but control policies looking to collect more taxes via fines.
The solution to a supply risk from Russia is to increase diversification and supply sources, not repression.
We can’t forget that the same politicians who tell Europeans that they must turn off lights, cut air conditioning, and reduce heating are the ones who decided to shut down nuclear plants, ban natural gas exploration, and introduce regulatory changes that have limited investment in domestic energy.
The solution is to close many more bilateral treaties and trade agreements with other natural gas suppliers, continue to develop wind and solar power, strengthen and extend the life of nuclear power plants, and develop our natural gas reserves, which is prohibited.
Imposing restrictive measures isn’t energy efficiency, but control.
Take the example of Spain. The government wants Spaniards to limit air conditioning and heating while the same administration created an unnecessary diplomatic conflict with Algeria, its largest gas supplier.
Spain is also the only country in Europe that is maintaining the schedule for closing nuclear power plants when even Germany is considering extending the useful life of its plants.
Germany created its own problem by shutting down nuclear plants and making its energy mix more volatile, intermittent, and expensive despite—or due to—more than 150 billion euros of subsidies. The average power price for households and small businesses in Germany has increased by more than 45 percent since 2006, according to the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW). More than half of the price paid by households is due to politically determined components, such as taxes, levies, and surcharges.
If we want to improve efficiency we must invest in technology, not multiply government spending that supposes a much higher energy consumption.
Government-imposed light and heating cuts will destroy the European Union economy with no relevant impact on Russia’s energy trade.
Temporarily and artificially limiting the demand for natural gas only harms the country that implements it and, at the same time, perpetuates long-term use: the economy contracts, but the energy mix doesn’t change.
Contracting Europe’s demand for natural gas has done nothing to the global supply-demand balance. The demand for natural gas in Europe fell by 10 percent in the first six months of 2022 according to the IEA, and the impact on the world energy market was negligible, even less on the price of European natural gas.
As I have mentioned, the European Union accounts for 549 bcm of global gas demand. China and the Asia Pacific region are 907 bcm, and global demand is 4,083 bcm according to the IEA. Artificially cutting 15 percent of European gas demand doesn’t amount to 2 percent of world demand and doesn’t reduce dependence on Russian gas at all.
In most cases, what governments calls “energy efficiency policies” are tax collection policies with no impact on efficiency.
In Europe, governments have created the problem: banning exploration and development of domestic resources, closing nuclear power plants, imposing heavy taxes on the companies that invest the most in solar and wind power, and introducing constant legal uncertainty in energy investment with random and harmful regulatory changes. The solution isn’t repression, it’s investment.
It doesn’t make any sense to force citizens to freeze from the cold in winter and suffocate from heat in summer while the European governments maintain enormous public spending programs and bloated administrations. That is huge power consumption.
If Europe wants to lower Russian imports, what it should do is stop putting limits and barriers on trade and investment in energy.