The viability of the green energy transition is receiving some of the most significant scrutiny in some time because of the energy crisis in the European Union (EU). The EU has inflicted the crisis on itself by engaging in a hybrid war on Russia that has undermined EU energy security policy. For people that do not understand this dynamic, the energy crisis is contributing to the impression the green energy transition in the EU is progressing too fast. The deployment of alternative energy technology is not happening too fast, but the EU's energy security policy is exposing the limitations of these technologies.
The EU and their Western allies, most importantly The United States of America, pursued strategies of subjugation and then containment towards Russia following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The victory of Russia and their separatist allies in the Georgian war of 2008, The debacle in Ukraine that is a consequence of the Western backed Euromaidan coup in 2014, and the Russian intervention in Syria in 2015 that defeated the Western proxy war, has motivated politicians in the West to adopt a strategy of regime change in Russia.
Motivated by geopolitical considerations the EU attempted to lessen their dependency on Russian natural gas but were unable to find sufficient alternate supply. The EU was undeterred by the reality Russia is the only country with readily available supplies, of the necessary volumes, to function as a reliable backup source to alternative energy technologies. The EU could have acted prudently and secured sufficient backup energy supply to avoid the current energy crisis. Most significantly, the EU decided to prematurely stop contracting new long-term natural gas supply contracts with Russia. The EU also failed to implement sufficient energy storage technology to compensate for the variability of energy supplied from alternative energy technologies. Low alternative energy supply is one of the factors contributing to the EU's current energy supply shortage. It is claimed that it is only a lack of political will that rich countries are not already well underway in their transition to 100% reliance on alternative energy technologies. There is a robust debate among industry experts, but it is unfortunately becoming clear that ready to deploy energy storage technologies are not sufficient to maintain even the EU's relatively modest level of alternative energy adoption. In an effort to distract from the EU's incompetent green energy transition and energy security policies, EU politicians have accused Russia of using energy supply as a geopolitical weapon. In reality, Russia has fully fulfilled existing natural gas supply contracts and the EU has not purchased any additional supply. At the same time, the EU has criticized EU member states for pursuing bilateral natural gas supply contracts with Russia. There seems to have been a hope that alternative energy technologies could make up an increasing share of the EU's energy supply without backup, or there was in reality no energy security policy at all.
The EU energy crisis could undermine faith in the viability of the green energy transition in the minds of people that do not understand this self-inflicted crisis was avoidable. The EU made geopolitical policy objectives more important than sound energy security policy. To avoid the conclusion that the green energy transition is proceeding too fast, a public examination of the compatibility of all EU policies with the transition is needed. Hopefully, an examination will increase public support for a broader green social transition, made up of many components of which the adoption of alternative energy technologies is just one. The Public also needs to understand that geopolitical competition between countries undermines both the adoption of alternative energy technologies and implementation of a broader green social transition.
