Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 313–327 | Cite as

Transatlantic energy relations: a view from Washington

  • Karen Smith StegenaEmail author
  • Karen Smith Stegen
Article

Abstract

Recent upheaval in the global energy system — how energy is produced, transported and consumed — has unsettled long-held notions of energy security. For decades, transatlantic cooperation helped undergird the system’s stability, but how is the relationship faring in the current era of energy uncertainty? In this special issue, experts from across Europe and the USA, including advisers to the executive and legislative branches of both the EU and the USA, to senior military commanders and to major international organisations and companies, examine various facets of the transatlantic energy relationship and whether it is characterised by convergence or divergence.

Keywords

transatlantic relationship energy security renewable energies shale gas NATO 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    For more on the global energy system, see Robert Orttung, Jeronim Perovic, and Andreas Wenger, ‘The Changing International Energy System and Its Implications for Cooperation in International Politics’, in Energy and the Transformation of International Relations. Toward a New Producer-Consumer Framework, ed. A. Wenger, R. Orttung, and J. Perovic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3–25Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    J. Perovic, ‘Changing Markets, Politics, and Perceptions: Dealing with Energy (Inter-) Dependencies’, in Energy and the Transformation of International Relations. Toward a New Producer-Consumer Framework, ed. A. Wenger, R. Orttung, and J. Perovic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 26–58.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Jeremy Shapiro and Nick Witney, Towards a Post-American Europe: A Power Audit of EU-US Relations (London: European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 2a.
    Carla Monteleone, ‘The End of the Euro-Atlantic Pluralistic Security Community? The New Agenda of Transatlantic Security Relations in the Global Political System’, in Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe, ed. Natividad Fernandez Sola and Michael Smith (Hoboken: Taylor & Francis, 2009), 136–68.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    András Deák, ‘Towards a New Balance with Russia? Russian Energy Challenges and the West’, in Transatlantic Energy Future Strategic Perspective on Energy Security Climate Change and New Technologies in Europe and in the US, ed. David Koranyi (Washington: Johns Hopkins University, 2011), 247–67.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Robert Kagan, America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 4a.
    Agt von Chrisoph, ‘Buying time: Energy and Art of Sustainable Advancement in Transatlantic Relations’, in Transatlantic 2020: A Tale of Four Futures, ed. Daniel Hamilton and Kurt Volker (Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, John Hopkins University, 2011), 257–86.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    The authors would like to thank the Stiftung Deutsch-Amerikanische Wissenschaftsbeziehungen (SDAW/Foundation German-American Academic Relations), which provided Karen Smith Stegen with funding for this research project.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Mark Ostrhoorn, ‘Climate Change and the Future of Clean Energy: Towards Transatlantic Convergence’, in Transatlantic Energy Future, ed. David Koranyi (Washington: Johns Hopkins University, 2011), 27–54Google Scholar
  10. 6a.
    J.T Mathews, ‘Estranged Partners’, Foreign Policy, no. 127 (2001): 48–53.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Paweł Świeboda, ‘Climate Policy: The Quest for Policy, Europe and US Multilateralism under Obama’, in The Obama Moment. European and American Perspective, ed. Alvaro de Vasconcelas and Marcin Zaborowski (Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), 2009), 111–123; Ostrhoorn, ‘Climate Change’.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    In Copenhagen, the EU pledged a 20% emission reduction by 2020 with 1990 as the baseline and the USA pledged a 17% reduction by 2020 with 2005 as the baseline, see UNFCCCC, Appendix I — Quantified Economy-wide Emissions Targets for 2020’, Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009, https://doi.org/unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5264.php. Although the US’ 17% appears only 3% lower than the EU’s 20% offer, the different benchmark years means that the US offer was actually only a relative 4% reduction.
  13. 9.
    For more see European Union, ‘European Union welcomes Cancuń Agreement as Important Step towards Global Framework for Climate Action’, Press Releases RAPID, December 10, 2010, https://doi.org/europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference_IP/10/1699; US Department of State, Secretary Clinton Welcomes Cancun Agreements, December 11, 2010, https://doi.org/blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/secretary_clinton_welcomes_cancun_ agreements (accessed June 11, 2012); FCCC, ‘Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session’, held in Cancun from November 29 to December 10, 2010, March 15, 2011, https://doi.org/unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page_2.
  14. 10.
    European Union, ‘Durban Conference Delivers Breakthrough for Climate (12/12/2011)’, Press Releases RAPID, December 11, 2011, https://doi.org/europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference_MEMO/11/895&format_HTML&aged_0&language_EN&guiLanguage_en.Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    See, for example, Daniel Yergin, ‘Ensuring Energy Security’, Foreign Affairs 85, no. 2, (2006): 69–82; and Clingendael International Energy Programme (CIEP), ‘Study on Energy Supply Security and Geopolitics’ (TREN/C1-06-2002), CIEP Final Report, January 2004, https://doi.org/www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/200401000_ciep_study.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 12.
    See Aad Correljé and Coby van der Linde, ‘Energy Supply Security and Geopolitics: A European Perspective,’ Energy Policy 34, no. 5 (March 2006): 532–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 12a.
    Richard Youngs, ‘Europe’s External Energy Policy: Between Geopolitics and the Market’ (Center for European Policy Studies, November 2007).Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    Robert Kagan, ‘Power and Weakness’, Policy Review 13 (June/July 2002): 3–28.Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    For an elaboration of how energy can be used as political tool, see Karen Smith Stegen, ‘Deconstructing the ‘Energy Weapon’: Russia’s Threat to Europe as Case Study’, Energy Policy 39, no. 10 (2011): 6505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 15.
    Richard G. Lugar, ‘Opening Statement for Hearing on Oil, Oligarchs and Opportunities: Energy from Central Asia to Europe’ (US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, June 12, 2008).Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Angela E. Stent, Soviet Energy and Western Europe (Washington DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1982)Google Scholar
  22. 16a.
    Jonathan P. Stern, Oil and Gas in the Former Soviet Union. The Changing Foreign Investment Agenda (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1993)Google Scholar
  23. 16b.
    David G. Victor and Nadejda Makarova Victor, ‘The Belarus Connection: Exporting Russian Gas to Germany and Poland’, Working Paper #26, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, May 2004, https://doi.org/www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/thebelarus-connection-exporting-russian-gas-to-germany-and-poland.Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    European Commission, EU-Russia Energy Relations, https://doi.org/ec.europa.eu/energy/international/russia/russia_en.htm.
  25. 18.
    W. Eden-Fleig, ‘Freund oder Feind?’ ZEIT online, December 12, 2007, https://doi.org/images.zeit.de/text/online/2007/52/abhaengigkeit-deutschland-russlandGoogle Scholar
  26. 18a.
    Ronald Goötz, ‘Russlands Erdgas und Europas Energiesicherheit’, SWP-Studie (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2008)Google Scholar
  27. 18b.
    Alexander Rahr, ‘Putins Energie’, WELT online, January 3, 2006, https://doi.org/www.welt.de/print-welt/article188175/Putins_Energie.html.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    European Commission, Communication from the Commission of the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Second Strategic Energy Review _ An EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan (Brussels: European Commission, November 13, 2008), https://doi.org/eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri_COM:2008:0781:FIN:EN:PDF.Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    European Parliament, ‘Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity and Repealing’, Directive 96/92/ECEU, July 15, 2003, Official Journal of the European Union, https://doi.org/eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri_OJ:L:2003:176:0037:0037:EN:PDF.Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    For more see Jan Frederik Braun, ‘EU Energy Policy under the Treaty of Lisbon Rules. Between a New Policy and Business as Usual’, EPIN Working Paper, No. 31, February 2011, https://doi.org/www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/2011/02/EPINWP31BraunonEUEnergyPolicyunderLisbon.pdf (accessed June 25, 2012).Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2009 (Paris: International Energy Agency, 2009).Google Scholar
  32. 23.
    Richard Morningstar, ‘The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: A Retrospective and a Look at the Future’, Central Asia & Caucasus Analyst, August 23, 2006Google Scholar
  33. 23a.
    L. Ruseckas, ‘U.S. Policy and Caspian Pipeline Politics: The Two Faces of Baku-Ceyhan’, in Succession and Longterm Stability in the Caspian Region, Caspian Studies Program Experts Conference (Cambridge, MA: BCSIA, 2000)Google Scholar
  34. 23b.
    Martha Brill Olcott, A New Direction for U.S. Policy in the Caspian Region, Summary, February 2009 (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), https://doi.org/carnegieendowment.org/files/us_caspian_policy.pdf.Google Scholar
  35. 24.
    European Commission, An EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan.Google Scholar
  36. 25.
    Jozias Van Aartsen, Project of European Interest (Brussels: European Commission, February 2009), https://doi.org/ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/tent_e/doc/axis/2009_axis_linking_activity_report_2007_2009.pdf (accessed June 11, 2012).Google Scholar
  37. 26.
    International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2011, Special Report “Are We Entering a Golden Age of Gas” (Paris: International Energy Agency, 2011), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 27.
    European Commission, Prague Summit on Southern Corridor. The Declaration, May 8, 2009, https://doi.org/www.eu2009.cz/en/news-and-documents/press-releases/declaration—praguesummit—southern-corridor—may-8—2009-21533/.Google Scholar
  39. 28.
    European Commission, The Joint Declaration on the Southern Gas Corridor (Baku: European Commission, January 13, 2011), https://doi.org/ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/strategy/doc/2011_01_13_joint_declaration_southern_corridor.pdf;ia]28a_European Commission, ‘EU Starts Negotiations on Caspian Pipeline to Bring Gas to Europe’, European Commission Press Release, Brussels, September 12, 2011, https://doi.org/europa.eu/rapid/press-ReleasesAction.do?reference_IP/11/1023&format_HTML&aged_0&language_EN&gui Language_en.Google Scholar
  40. 29.
    Yergin, ‘Ensuring Energy Security’.Google Scholar
  41. 30.
    US Energy Information Administration, World Shale Gas Resources: an Initial Assessment of 14 Regions outside the United States 2010, April 2011, https://doi.org/www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/fullreport.pdf, 4.Google Scholar
  42. 31.
    Alice Tallents, ‘European Gas Supply and Demand, and the Outlook for Shale Gas’, Analysis, no. 3 (May 2011), https://doi.org/oilgas-info.jogmec.go.jp/pdf/4/4368/201105_043a.pdf (accessed May 15, 2012), 10_12.Google Scholar
  43. 32.
    Lionel Kapff and Jacques Pelkmans, ‘Interconnector Investment for a Well-functioning Internal Market. What EU Regime of Regulatory Incentives?’ BEER no.18 (2010), Department of European Economic Studies, Natolin, https://doi.org/www.coleurop.be/content/studyprogrammes/eco/publications/BEER/BEER18.pdf (accessed June 11, 2012).Google Scholar
  44. 33.
    Arianna Checchi, Gas Interconnectors in Europe: More than a Funding Issue (Centre for European Policy Studies, April 9, 2009), https://doi.org/www.ceps.eu/book/gas-interconnectorseurope-more-funding-issue (accessed June 12, 2012); Kapff and Pelkmans, ‘Interconnector Investment’.Google Scholar
  45. 34.
    Checchi, ‘Gas Interconnectors’.Google Scholar
  46. 35.
    Checchi, ‘Gas Interconnectors’; Kapff and Pelkmans, ‘Interconnector Investment’; European Commission, 2009-2010 Report on Progress in Creating the Internal Gas and Electricity Market (Brussels: European Commission, June 9, 2011), https://doi.org/ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/legislation/doc/20100609_internal_market_report_2009_2010.pdf.Google Scholar
  47. 36.
    European Commission, 2009_2010 Report on Progress, 3.Google Scholar
  48. 37.
    Ibid., 17_23.Google Scholar
  49. 38.
    Checchi, ‘Gas Interconnectors’; Kapff and Pelkmans, ‘Interconnector Investment’.Google Scholar
  50. 39.
    European Commission, 2009-2010 Report on Progress.Google Scholar
  51. 40.
    Kirsten Westphal, ‘Energy in an Era of Unprecedented Uncertainty: International Energy Governance in the Face of Macroeconomic, Geopolitical, and Systemic Challenges’, in Transatlantic Energy Future, ed. Koranyi, 1–27.Google Scholar
  52. 41.
    Stefan Fröhlich, Future Perspectives for Transatlantic Relations, https://doi.org/www.aicgs.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AICGS-Washington-Froehlich.pdf (accessed June 19, 2012). This comment was in reference to energy security among other broad issues.Google Scholar
  53. 42.
    Hal Harvey, Director of the American Energy Innovation Council and Climate Activist, telephone interview by Karen Smith Stegen, June 28, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jacobs University/Bremer Energie InstitutBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations