Thrift is good for the wallet, the climate, and bad for scarcity profiteers like Putin. How many more reasons do we need?
The Russian attack on Ukraine has once again made it clear that the economic system of international trade is more unstable than many thought. The threat of (even) more expensive gas and a faltering supply prove that countries are not only held together by their connections, but can also be pulled apart. “States use their connections to thwart their enemies,” geopolitical thinker Mark Leonard told this newspaper on Saturday.
Last year the cabinet wrote in a strategic memorandum that we should strive for ‘functional cooperation’ with Russia. There were risks involved, but we had to see them in the context of ‘reciprocal dependence’: the Russians needed us just as much as we needed them. Unfortunately, that dependence has turned out to be asymmetric. Russia can do without our money more easily than we can do without their gas.
Energy independence has never really been an issue in the Netherlands in recent decades, at least not for the middle parties. In the end-of-history euphoria of the 1990s, government interference was exchanged for magical market thinking. If we were thinking ahead in The Hague, it was all about ‘security of supply’: if we diversified imports, we could overcome any problems in the supply by getting the gas elsewhere.
But now that such a problem arises, security of supply appears to be an illusion. Norway already supplies as much as it can, the terminal for liquefied natural gas in Rotterdam is full, and the gas storage at Alkmaar, also intended to absorb blows, is just not full – co-owner Gazprom, the Russian state gas company that is of liberalisation, failed to do so last summer.
In recent days, weary voices have been raised to open the Groningen gas tap again, or to start up coal-fired power stations again (Dutch power stations now run half on natural gas). The required energy has to come from somewhere.
But energy independence has two sides. ‘Security of supply’ is based on a given demand, for which supply must be sought. You can also consider the supply as given and adjust the demand accordingly. So use less gas.
That is not only of acute geopolitical importance. The new IPCC report released Monday foresees a bleak future if we don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Temperatures continue to rise, the climate is changing dramatically, and drought, heat, hunger and other disasters could drive millions from their homes. Death tolls will rise sharply.
At the moment 15 percent of the natural gas consumed in the Netherlands comes from Russian soil. Can that go to zero? What less lights on? Is the thermostat one or two degrees lower? The greenhouse horticulture or chemical industry, large consumers who for years paid much less energy tax, at half power?
Yes, we could also replace Russian gas with renewable energy. That amounts to about two thousand windmills, or 100 square kilometers of meadows with solar panels, plus the high-voltage grids. But the backyards for that are getting harder and harder to find.
In an interview, Dennis Meadows said Saturday, on the fiftieth anniversary of his report The Limits to Growth, that humanity is still living too much and is therefore on the brink of the abyss. Someday, we’ll have to make do with less. Thrift is good for the wallet, the climate, and bad for scarcity profiteers like Putin. How many more reasons do we need?
The position of the newspaper is expressed in the Volkskrant Commentaar. It is created after a discussion between the commentators and the editor-in-chief.