- BitsBlog - http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com -

How Obama Could Solve the Russian Problem, And Our Economy At the Same Time

I notice today over at Q&O, that Bruce McQuain has written an article [1] as regards Europe’s gas problem. It’s a problem that we should have predicted a long time ago and done something about.  And I’ll tell you true, that if we didn’t have our head so firmly implanted between our butt cheeks as regards energy and its usage and the global warming myth and all the rest of the nonsense that the left usually picks up when these subjects come up, that we could have solved the problem a long time ago.

A lot of people on these shores don’t understand this, but the only thing that’s kept rush of floating these last few years financially speaking is its huge natural gas and oil deposits.  In short, Russia is a huge energy company offering up its wares to the EU.  Says Bruce:

Another thing that is happening is Europe is discovering it has managed to put itself in an energy situation that isn’t at all to its advantage.  30% of Europe’s natural gas flows through Russian pipelines (Germany gets 40% of its natural gas supplies from Russia).

So the scramble is purportedly on to change that situation. [2]

European leaders will seek ways to cut their multi-billion-dollar dependence on Russian gas at talks in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, while stopping short of severing energy ties with Moscow for now. EU officials said the current Ukraine crisis had convinced many in Europe that Russia was no longer reliable and the political will to end its supply dominance had never been greater. “Everyone recognises a major change of pace is needed on the part of the European Union,” one EU official said on condition of anonymity. As alternatives to imported gas, the Brussels talks will debate the European Union’s “indigenous supplies”, which include renewable energy and shale gas.

Now, one would think that such a situation would call for drastic and speedy action.  Anyone want to bet how long they dither and, should they decide to exploit their “indigenous supplies”, how onerous the rules and regulations will be? [3]

When leaders of the European Union’s member states meet today and tomorrow (20-21 March) in Brussels, they hope to reach consensus on the EU’s long-term climate goals. But agreement appears unlikely because of deep divisions between east and west. Ahead of the summit, ministers from 13 member states signed a declaration supporting a European Commission proposal for an EU commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 – up from a 20% target set for 2020. This ‘green growth group’ includes France, Germany, Italy and the UK. But Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia are wary of the target and the timeline, and are resisting any such commitment.

The latter group will most likely be all for moving ahead as speedily as possible to exploit “indigenous supplies”.  They’ll meet some pretty stiff headwinds, apparently, from the Western EU nations. You can almost see this train wreck coming.

Meanwhile in the pursuit of “green energy”, Europe is apparently ready to toss in the towel [4]:

Governments across Europe, regretting the over-generous deals doled out to the renewable energy sector, have begun reneging on them. To slow ruinous power bills hikes, governments are unilaterally rewriting contracts and clawing back unseemly profits.

You have to laugh.  “Unseemly profits”?  They’re subsidies, sir.  Not profit.

It’ll be interesting to see if the EU has the will to sort this all out in the next couple of days.  If one is a betting person, you’d have to guess that the odds for success are long, given the EU’s recent history.

Well, it seems to me that if we really wanted to stop the expansion of Russia, all we would really need to do is provide the Europeans way to get their energy supplies without having to bow to Putin’s thuggery.  Now, consider… we have, in our grasp at the moment, more and natural gas available to us under this country than anyplace else in the world, Russia and the Middle East included.  Of course it means Fracking, which has put us safely and efficiently into an oil and gas producing boom the last decade or so, in spite of the efforts of the left to stifle such growth. What do you suppose the chances are of our actually making use of those resources to quell this situation?  I mean, all we’d need to do is offer a portion of our gas and oil to the Euroweinies, and tell them they can stop buying from Russia, now. We make money, they fall on their faces, the world is safer and our own economy gets a much needed boost.

The answer to that of course, will entirely depend on removing the current occupant.  Sarah Palin of all people saw this quite clearly back on 07, and took an awful lot in the way of slings and arrows from centrist GOP types who told us although she didn’t know what she was talking about

And of course the current occupant of the White House and those backing him are far more prone to put us back to the fourteenth century in terms of energy usage .  All in the name of saving the planet.

As to that argument, I merely suggest that a nuclear exchange between a recently reempowered Russia and the remainder of the world could possibly cause more damage than using the energy supplies within it for peaceful purposes.  At this stage of the game it comes down to the political priorities of the White House, I suppose.