By P Gosselin
Germany’s online Blackout News reports on a brewing showdown: US and Qatar threaten EU LNG supply over new sustainability law
The European Union’s push for stricter environmental standards is now clashing head-on with its need for energy security.
The EU’s two largest Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) suppliers, the United States and Qatar, have issued a strong warning, threatening to halt critical gas deliveries over the bloc’s proposed Sustainability Act (Nachhaltigkeitsgesetz).
Europe’s Guide to drive out its industry.
The core issue is the EU’s new due diligence legislation. This law is designed to force companies to scrutinize their global supply chains for environmental and human rights violations, and prove how they plan to align their emissions with the Paris Agreement targets by 2050.
It’s the ever more irrelevant Europe’s way of demanding the rest of the world do as it says. Non-compliance could result in severe penalties for companies, potentially up to 5% of global annual turnover. But the rest of the world is t about to take it.
Harsh sustainability directive
Europe’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, CS3D) is a proposed regulation that aims to make companies accountable for their impact on people and the planet. In short, it requires companies 1) to scrutinize their global supply chains to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse impacts on human rights and the environment, and 2) to show how they will align their emissions with the Paris Agreement climate targets by 2050.
But both Washington and Doha view the regulation as a damaging intrusion into free trade and a risk to Europe’s energy supply. They have warned that the current form of the law could lead to a sensitive loss of energy security for the continent.
Already there’s been a mass exodus of industry out of Germany as political leaders remain stuck in climate protection fantasies.
Ultimatum from Key Energy Partners
Qatar’s Energy Minister, Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi, stated that the national energy giant, QatarEnergy, could simply withdraw from the European market if the legislation is implemented as is, calling the potential fines “unacceptable.” This move would place serious strain on Europe’s energy supplies, especially as the EU seeks to completely phase out Russian gas by 2027.
The US is also not going to put up the meddling and with the threat of fines. The US Energy Secretary warns that the regulation could endanger the 2020 transatlantic energy partnership and “impair investments” across partner nations, potentially jeopardizing the supply of American LNG.
Europe will likely stonewall, buy time
The EU now faces a high-stakes balancing act. The proposed law is crucial for upholding the bloc’s global climate goals, but enforcing it would trigger a serious energy crisis and trade conflict with its most vital energy partners. Pressure is mounting within Europe, with key leaders reportedly calling for a delay to the law’s introduction to safeguard fragile energy security. The coming weeks will determine whether Brussels can navigate this complex situation without sacrificing either its climate agenda or its energy stability.
Europe’s strategy will likely involve biding its time while hoping Democrats regain power over the next election cycles.
Article at Blackout News.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
UK…Ed Miliband…say no more..!
It’s by far not just UK. Here in Austria the Greentards were in the government for the last 5 years and imposed lots of taxes and bureaucracy as well as ever rising energy costs on the industry. The result was the worst economic performance among all EU-states in the last 5 years and a deep industrial recession. Of course this also led to a significant CO2-reduction, which was celebrated by the Green parties Climate minister Gewessler.
Also in Germany the former Green minister of Economy (Habeck) played wrecking ball on the industry and energy system. They are a dangerous cult.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize that if every country tried to enforce their own worldwide standards, everyone would be violating some standards. The sheer arrogance is beyond comprehension.
That’s the EU’s self image. They are proud of being supposed leaders in setting new standards, which will be globally adopted. They don’t understand that this has long since degenerated into bureaucratic madness and are unwilling to accept, that due to Europe’s declining economic importance the rest of the world is increasingly getting fed-up of EU’s arrogance to impose their bureaucratic madness on others.
All this insanity just to reduce CO2 amounts, even though there is no evidence that CO2 needs to be reduced.
Not one of these European bureaucrats could prove that CO2 is a danger. No one in this world can prove such a thing. Yet the Europeans proceed as if it is an established fact. Obviously, the bureaucrats can’t tell the difference between speculation and established facts.
Continuing down this path will only make matters worse for Europeans. They need to get over their unreasonable fear of CO2, and they need to do it fast. Otherwise, they are going down the tubes. They are fighting a danger that doesn’t exist. Delusional, is what it is.
Tom,
“They are fighting a danger that doesn’t exist” when the danger is claimed to be from CO2.
Did this ‘fighting the danger’ not work for the population explosion of the Club of Rome? For the LNT Linear No Threshold dose/danger relation? For opposition to things nuclear, like electricity generation? For their predictions of many deaths from man-made chemicals? For their claims that the element Lead, Pb, has no safe does? Even worse than Mercury, Hg?
Look, this is the tried and ?true method of green dissent. You have Buckley’s chance of getting greens to stop this way that has been so rewarding for them. They are deaf to assertions that they cause harm.
So what can be done? Plenty.
Take every one of these items they have demonised, show it is untrue, then lampoon the heck out of them.
But there is a problem. Plenty of scientists like me have shown how and why they are WRONG, have written detailed, unassailable articles, but cannot force anyone to read them.
So a prerequisite is education of the present educators, education of the media/press, education showing that most social media is claptrap gossip, education of the owners and gatekeepers of our main scientific journals to print only the best science free of dreamy ideology …..
We are again facing what 40 years ago was termed “the moral equivalent of warfare.” We have to educate that the quest for the best scientific understanding (some would write ‘truth’) is the only important communication task in a world saturated with lies, dogma, ambition, myth, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, misrepresentation, etc etc.
It really is that bad. But the frogs in the gently warming water are starting to show they feel the heat. Who can predict if they will hop out to live a longer better life, or will be killed by the mass ignoranti? Geoff S
Three times I corrected ‘does’ to be ‘dose’ but AI correction won.
We have another huge education task, to explain the actual, demonstrable, measurable benefits of AI, because its present trajectory is replete with errors and bias and lack of repeatability of answers. Caveat emptor.
And beware ‘its’ being corrected to ‘it’s’.
Geoff S
Geoff, my take on the current offerings of “A.I.” is that most provide Aggregated Imputations of lotsa selected snippets from ready “sources” such as Wikipedia and university media releases.
“Information” that is “Artificial” does not sound like anything upon which rational people should be inclined to rely.
I use a Chromebook, and I’ve been trying to figure out how to turn off the AI and auto correct. I don’t mind it flagging words it thinks are misspelled.
Lately it has started to randomly capitalize words as I’m typing.
When looking for a way to turn it off, I stumbled across something under the settings option. The category is labeled “AI Innovations” and it’s a feature that supposedly helps you write. However, among the description I found this little gem:
This little gem is turned on by default.
Turning this AI “feature” off didn’t disable auto-correct or the new auto capitalize functions.
Language is merely a social construct.
Meanwhile ignoring the very real dangers within their own borders that their stupid policies have aided and abetted.
“rocket surgeon”
Thanks for the laugh, and I agree with your assertions.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the EU [or eco-fanatics, but I repeat myself].
Well you can’t hit idiots hard enough…keep on hitting them until they wisen up.
Next funny chapter once those lunatics run out of pixie dust and rainbow farts: AI generated fusion power !
have fun with that keeping the lights on lol.
As a general idea: I’m convinced that the left/progressive/green position is primarily emotions based and at its core, driven by fear. I think the only way they see the light is not through reason, but pain. Their own policies have to hurt, and hopefully that wakes them up. Much like NYC is about to do if they elect Mamdani.
When the rubber meets the road there is friction. Ideas and reality ( consequences) clash. We will see if the EU budges. It should and i think it will, mainly because of Germany’s dire circumstances..
“Germany’s dire circumstances”
And why is Germany in dire circumstances? Answer: Attempting to implement Net Zero.
So what happens if Germany continues to implement Net Zero. Answer: The Dire Circumstances will just get worse.
If they are not careful, Net Zero is going to destroy Europe. And it is all self-inflicted by moronic politicians, who don’t have a clue.
I think Germany is already in a death spiral that will likely see the recreation of East Germany as a freedom loving convservative state.
Europe should keep in mind that “someone” sabotaged Nordstream II while a woke Democrat was in the White House. Waiting out Trump won’t help them.
Europe may be waiting a while for a Democrat president.
2028: JD Vance, President Marco Rubio, Vice President
2036: Marco Rubio, President
2044: Maybe still no Democrat president. Lots of very good Republican candidates available.
It is too easy to sway public opinion. Fear and anger being the best and as we sit an watch, it is nearly continuous now.
Fear, anger and greed.
New York City is about to elect a man who admits to being a democratic socialist and who has called for government to seize the means of production.
I’m involved in several other forums, on one of these I have debated several Mamdani (or as I call him MadMani) supporters. Almost all of them claim that they have a right to free health care. They have a right to “affordable” housing and food.
As good socialists, they truly believe that anything provided by government is free.
They also believe that it is evil that some people are allowed to be rich, while they still have stuff that they want, but can’t afford.
Greed gets votes, definitely. However, greed is not one of the primaries for swaying public opinion.
Don’t forget the deranged autopen…also in charge.
What happens if the US and Qatar just withdraw from the market?
How long until France (nuclear) and Poland (coal) are the only countries left with electricity?
Food goes bad in how many days?
Might be some rioting.
Canada? Well if only they had built Energy East, but they didn’t.
Russia? Russia would probably insist on payment before delivery, ignore the fines, and demand Ukraine, Moldavia and Finland to boot.
Iran? China needs that O&G and they’re going to be some upset if Iran wants to ship it to Europe instead. One can imagine an Iranian tanker getting interdicted by the Chinese navy while the US fumes because they were going to do it first. Europe’s navies would rush to protect the tanker except they only have enough fuel to get half way there and the sailors are all out rioting because they’re hungry too. They’d send their air force, but having converted to electric they only have enough range to get airborne and then land again. (To accommodate this, all military runways would have to be doubled in length as the planes don’t have enough range to actually turn around).
Smuggled oil and gas? Yeah they’d probably turn to that. Thereby bypassing the very fines they put in place because smugglers don’t pay fines.
Saudi Arabia? They’re actually pretty much tapped out.
Or baby, they could drill their own? then they’d have to fine themselves which they could fix by declaring subsidies equal to the fines. Plus another 20% for administration of course.
But if they can pay subsidies, why not just declare the subsidies (quietly) or rebates, whatever, and the US and Qatar can back down and everyone tell each other that a great job they all did.
The Europeans appear dumb enough to buy the rebate system but even if they didn’t the rebate system would look a lot better than rioting.
This could all just be a lot o fund if we let it.
Klimathysterin som odlas av den WEF-styrda Ursula är en gigantisk skamfläck som våra kärring-politiker inte står upp emot!
Well I dictated this comment into my phone’s recorder, then played it backwards like they used to do on Beatles tracks.
But Paul is still alive, so your claim has been unsubstantiated 🤓
Haha have mercy with that poor swede who can read english but is not so well versed in writing. I translate freely from my brain (as my swedish isn’t so good either):
Climate histery which origins from that WEF guided Ursula is a gigantic shame to which our politician don’t stand up against.
Online translation judges please 😉
New here, just want to say this piece nails the dilemma: Europe writes the moral rule-book but still needs other people’s molecules to keep the lights on. If Washington and Doha really walk away, the first thing “green” will mean is the color of the candles we’ll be burning in Berlin. Looking forward to reading more.
The writing is on the wall, in letters a mile high, but the UK and EU lemmings continue regardless.
Well let them jump off the cliff and smash to bits, you can’t fix stupid…so you must allow to eradicate itself…sarc
“the world is t about to take it” => “ the world is not about to take it”
Global climate. The greatest issue is this, by definition:
Until someone proves the earth has just one climate (it doesn’t) and then defines what the optimum climate is (never in equilibrium), then no one can prove that either (a) things are getting worse or (b) we are moving towards the optimum. The definition absolutely must include measurable parameters.
No one has proven that 1880 was the optimum climate yet it is used as the cherry picked beginning of the temperature & CO2 curves. Aside from that it is curious that 1850 to 1880 was when oil drilling started becoming mainstream.
50 years of predictions of doom and we are still here.
Evidence that things on earth (related to environment, life, all the good stuff) are improving creates the perception that we are faced with a positive outcome.
Evidence that forcing solutions to an ill-defined (or non-existent) problem are wreaking havoc in the environment world-wide and negatively impacting the well being of 8 billion people.
Can this be the “Null Hypothesis” that should accompany the AGW
hypothesesconjecture?Possibly.
I submit there should be a whole lot of independent minds providing input to it, including the Climate Alarmists.
Well since the US will officially be out of the Paris scam in 2026, US “Paris commitments” will be ZERO reductions of anything.
So, no fines then?! LMAO
I suppose they have some kind of “poison pill” *requiring* trading partners to submit to the Paris scam. In which case they can freeze. Or the US can just increase the price to make up for the “fines.”
It’s not just that “evil” CO2 molecule. Every person in the whole supply chain will need to be examined to ensure no one ever, ever has anything someone can call a human rights violation.
Oh, my Coke was warm! PENALTY.
I understand that LNG trade is usually done using long term contracts.
How would such a law work in relationship to those contracts?
Would the law not take affect until the current contract expires?
Would they have to renegotiate the contract?
Would the unilateral imposition of the finest and new regulations be considered a breach of the existing contract?
Interesting points. I wonder what the contract termination costs are. Those typically are paid by the organization trying to modify the Ts & Cs of an existing contract resulting in contract termination.
Without exploring it further, it could result in a ton of coin given up by the EU and the loss of the LNG shipments.
The EU is a test for One World Government which incidentally will be Marxist based.
And then Europe froze in the dark.
Prepare contracts that require the energy purchaser to pay any cost of compliance, penalties, fines, legal fees and any other impacts plus a 50% reimbursement for collateral impacts for any energy purchases. Delay any shipments until impact funding is reimbursed. Ship in small loads to monitor impacts even when Europe is freezing in the dark.
It gets even more interesting if the IMO implements it’s shipping carbon tax that allows ports to impound non-compliant ships. It gets very interesting, no?
The only reasonable response by the LNG suppliers is to metaphorically tell the EU to attempt something both obscene and impossible.
The EU has not conquered Qatar or the US, and only an act of war could enforce such a tax.
Yet more worthless corrupt government. No matter how bad I say government can get the EU shows me I’m wrong it is much worse. The US and Qatar should sell to Britain and Norway and those countries can sell to the EU. Nothing was ever solved by giving the government more money.