Why Is The EU Spending Billions On A Gas Pipeline If It Wants To Fight Climate Change?

[Selva + 252]

Last month the European Investment Bank voted to provide a 1.5 billion euros loan to the controversal Trans Adriatic Pipeline, the Western part of a larger Southern Gas Corridor proposal that would ultimately connect a large gas field in the Caspian Sea to Italy. So how does the EU’s support for this major project fit in with its supposed goal of addressing climate change?  

[Vlad Kovalenko + 115]

The answer is simple. Russia is the main player when we talk about gas supplies  in Europe. Most of it Europe gets from Russia. If they decide to turn off the pipes, than all Europe will be in cold. Europe has to secure itself.  

[Adam Varga + 123]

I agree. There are only few pipelines to bring gas to Europe from other countries than Russia. Finally Russia would have a competition in the gas market. 

[Vlad Kovalenko + 115]

But it's not just a diversification of supply. It's about climate change and emission reductions. And that reduction wasn't much because of the renewables but because of gas replacing coal. 

[Selva + 252]

I fully support renewables but we need gas too. At least in a short term. 

[Adam Varga + 123]

And EU is still thinking in a short-term and trying to get a supply when Russia cuts the West off in case of conflict. But still better than coal. 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

The bigger question for me is why it is taking them so damn long to build TAP. If they were so serious about diversification they should have found a way to speed things up. But no, they're taking their time, grumbling about Russia. Sigh.

[Shelly L. + 2]

Because the EU knows that Oil is the best way to provide dependable energy. Solar is not proven to be enough to provide all the energy needed & is prone to being damaged by weather events. Wind is way to noisy & along with Solar is a danger to birds & wildlife. Oil is reliable & a proven source of reliable energy. All this climate change talk is just BS. The climate changes in cycles, the scientists who say different are just trying to make more money on their junk science. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

On 3/8/2018 at 4:41 PM, Selvedina said:

Last month the European Investment Bank voted to provide a 1.5 billion euros loan to the controversal Trans Adriatic Pipeline, the Western part of a larger Southern Gas Corridor proposal that would ultimately connect a large gas field in the Caspian Sea to Italy. So how does the EU’s support for this major project fit in with its supposed goal of addressing climate change?  

No choice. There is no viable alternative right now. Climate change goals or not, they need to keep the lights on, and at present, the only way to do that is through oil and gas. Yes, the EU should be working to meet climate goals, so should the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean turning off the taps immediately or halting all investments in oil and gas. As lovely or romantic as that idea sounds, it's completely unrealistic. 

[abdou + 4]

Actually, south of Europe, Algeria was so far  a reliable partner to provide Gas to European countries, but looks like the European are not really helping in developing gas and oil industry in Algeria.... reasons seem not to be evident (prices ? European investments in Algeria ? politics ? ) any views

[Oghenegare + 3]

It shows that natural gas is still an energy source that is still relevant in the world despite California energy commission's move to cut on natural gas usage

[TomTom + 183]

Cause gas is still one of the most important sources..... bit of a no-brainer title