Europeans reject EU replacing russian pipeline natural gas with more expensive american one

Brussels would further increase natural gas purchases from the US

The Russia-Ukraine war and the ensuing trade conflicts have led the EU to significantly reduce its imports of pipeline natural gas from Russia. Most of the missing volume was replaced by increased shipments of liquefied natural gas from the US, making the United States the EU’s largest LNG supplier by 2023. Market penetration by the US is expected to continue in the future: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has committed the EU to purchasing US energy sources worth €750 billion in the future. To fulfill the agreement, the Community would need to increase its LNG imports from the United States several times over.

As many (companies, civil organisations, research institutes) have pointed out, the replacement of Russian natural gas with American gas will push the EU from its previous dependence into a new, more expensive dependence, which will significantly undermine its economic potential. The Draghi report concluded that one of the most serious challenges to the EU’s competitiveness is that European companies have to pay several times more for energy than their counterparts in the United States. Supplying more and more of the EU’s natural gas demand from American LNG perpetuates its competitive disadvantage, as gas extracted in the US will always be cheaper in the United States than it is in the EU after liquefaction, transport, and regasification.

Despite the unfavorable economic consequences, the European Commission continues to regard the ban on Russian energy sources from the EU forever and completely as its most important energy policy priority, thus insisting on increasing US LNG purchases. Although the energy mix is a matter for individual Member States, Brussels is attempting to restrict countries’ room for manoeuvre in the energy market through sanctions and trade measures. Furthermore, the goal of phasing out Russian oil and natural gas is already a strong element of Hungarian politics: the Tisza Party has included the Brussels requirement in its manifesto despite the fact that it would cause serious economic damage to a large section of society, causing fuel prices to rise above 1,000 forints per litre and utility bills to increase three and a half times, and is rejected by the majority of Hungarians.

The majority wants affordable energy instead of ideology

The social legitimacy of Brussels’ commitment to the US is fragile not only in Hungary, but throughout Europe. Results from the Századvég Project Europe survey show that 54% of EU citizens with an opinion don’t think it acceptable for the EU to replace its pipeline gas imports from Russia with more expensive liquefied natural gas from the US.

The issue divides Member States: in the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, which are pro-sanctions and have typically already terminated most of their trade relations with Russia, the majority (69% of respondents in Finland and 62% in Estonia) are in favour of the change. However, due to their current purchases and historical and geographical situations, Central and Eastern European countries do not support switching suppliers (73% in Hungary and Bulgaria, 71% in Greece). Interestingly, the question divides the populations of those Member States (France, Spain, Belgium) that currently purchase large quantities of Russian natural gas but do so in liquefied form rather than via pipelines.