Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 328–342 | Cite as

Energy security and the transatlantic dimension: a view from Germany

  • Sybille Röhrkasten
  • Kirsten WestphalEmail author
Article

Abstract

The ‘Energiewende’ of 2011 is the dominant issue in German energy policy, and therefore energy security is almost solely linked to domestic developments. More specifically, the major and immediate concern is system stability in the electricity sector. Nonetheless, mid- and long-term challenges for energy security are identified in the oil and gas markets. Overall though, energy security is framed in commercial rather than strategic terms. Meanwhile, Russia’s reliability remains a mantra for German energy policy. In contrast, the transatlantic relationship with regard to energy security receives little attention in Germany, and the US path of energy policies is perceived as diverging significantly from the German trajectory.

Keywords

Energiewende energy security German energy policy international energy relations transatlantic cooperation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Working Group on Energy Balances, March 2012, https://doi.org/www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Redaktion/Binaer/Energiedaten/energiegewinnung-und-energieverbrauch2-primaerenergieverbrauch, property =blob,bereich=bmwi,sprache=de,rwb=true.xls (accessed June 27, 2012).
  2. 2.
    Nevertheless, the pivotal role of individual energy companies should not be understated —it is the investment decisions of the private sector that ultimately determine the exact composition of national energy mixes.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See in more detail: John D. Duffield and Kirsten Westphal, ‘Germany and EU Energy Policy: Conflicted Champion or Integration?’, in Toward a Common European Union Energy Policy: Problems, Progress and Prospects, ed. Vicki L. Birchfield and John S. Duffield (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The goal of increasing energy efficiency by 20% was not binding originally, however, the energy efficiency directive of June 2012 makes this objective now obligatory.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EU Statistical Pocket Book 2010 — EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.6, https://doi.org/www.ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/statistics/statistics_en.htm(accessed June 27, 2012).
  6. 6.
    Duffield and Westphal, ‘Germany and EU Energy Policy’, 169–86.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For comprehensive information on the 2011 Energy Concept see https://doi.org/www.bmu.de/english/transformation_of_the_energy_system/resolutions_and_measures/doc/48054.php (accessed June 27, 2012).
  8. 8.
    International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2010 (Paris: International Energy Agency, 2010).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank Umbach, ‘The Intersection of Climate Protection Policies and Energy Security’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 10, no. 4 (2012): 374–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michael Rühle, ‘NATO and Energy Security: From Philosophy to Implementation’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 10, no. 4 (2012): 388–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Kirsten Westphal, ‘Russian Gas, Ukrainian Pipelines, and European Supply Security: Lessons of the 2009 Controversies’, SWP Research Paper 2009/RP 11 (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2009).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Kirsten Westphal, ‘Security of Gas Supply’, SWP Comments 2012/C 17 (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2012).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations