Voir tous les articles

A conversation with Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing

The United States could enter a direct conflict with Iran. How prepared is the European Union to deal with global oil prices reaching 100 dollars a barrel if the situation in the Middle East escalates? 

The energy market is inherently volatile and geopolitics have a significant influence on movements and reactions. We cannot predict how the current situation will develop in the next few days as we don’t know what will happen exactly. But we are prepared to deal with market volatility. If necessary, we will convene energy ministers to discuss what else may be needed in this situation. 

For me, this is yet another clear sign that we must remain focused on our ambition to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It leaves us too vulnerable. Last year, we spent more than 400 billion euros on fossil fuels. We have said that we want to move away from oil, gas and coal, so we should maintain our focus on doing so instead of paying more for things that we say we don’t want.

What has happened and will continue to happen to the price of oil only underlines the need to accelerate our green transition and efforts to end our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly those from countries such as Russia.

With the war in the Middle East, does Europe risk an energy crisis similar to the one the continent went through in 2023 after Vladimir Putin reduced gas flows to Europe?

I will not speculate on that — my point is: we have to accelerate our energy transition.

This is yet another reminder of our dependencies. The best way to address our vulnerabilities is to produce clean energy in Europe. 

You presented a roadmap this week for eliminating all imports of Russian fossil fuels by 2028. Your proposal is intended to transform the European energy landscape. Why do you consider this to be a pivotal moment for Europe?

The European Union has never taken such a measure before. We are now proposing a very decisive and forceful measure: a ban on the import of fossil fuels from Russia. Announcing a fundamental rupture like this has never been done before, so it is not something we take lightly. It will transform the European energy landscape.

It is necessary to do it. 

Russia has weaponised energy against us many times. It is neither reliable nor economically sensible. We will not return to a position where Russia can blackmail us as it did when preparing to invade Ukraine. It is important to remember that Russia drastically reduced gas flows into Europe while orchestrating an energy crisis against us. Our proposal ensures this will never happen again.

Do you have the political support required to implement the plan? Both Hungary and Slovakia have acknowledged the strategic importance of Russian energy to their economies, and both countries continue to operate contracts with Russian suppliers.

I am optimistic that this proposal will be approved. While this plan is ambitious, it only requires a qualified majority. I am aware that three to four member states may oppose it, and I would prefer it to be approved unanimously but if that is not possible, we should still go ahead. 

How do you see the timeline ? 

Our proposal could be approved and come into force by the end of the year. It is clear that we must do everything we can to stop Russia from waging war on Ukraine, and energy is a key part of that. We should not be funding Russia’s ability to continue its attacks on another country.

Looking to the future, we all hope that peace will be achieved. However, this will not change our relationship with Russia fundamentally, as Moscow has proven itself to be an unreliable partner and an aggressive country.  It would be a mistake to resume importing Russian gas.

Some imagine a world in which Vladimir Putin is gone and a new Russia has emerged. This could provide the impetus needed to resume large infrastructure projects, such as the Nord Stream pipeline. Would that be a mistake, too? Should we even entertain the idea of renewed ties once the war is over?

We won’t need it. 

In that distant future, we won’t rely on Russian gas, as our economy will be fully decarbonised. Each year, we reduce our dependence further—driven by distrust in the short term and by self-sufficiency in the long term. Our strategy is to fast-track the green transition and build a carbon-free economy.

This will allow Europe to operate on clean, sustainable energy instead of spending 400 million euros annually on fossil fuels. That’s the path ahead.

In the meantime, Europe finds itself at a disadvantage. European companies point out that they are paying two to nearly three times more for energy than their counterparts in the United States and China. The key challenge now is: how can Europe secure clean, affordable energy with a reliable supply?

That’s the strategy we have to deliver on all three of those elements. 

We need to fight climate change by decarbonising our economy. At the same time, we need to reduce our energy costs, which is important for our competitiveness. We also need to secure a safe and stable energy supply for economic security. 

These challenges overlap and are interrelated. The good news is that the solutions are too.

Is there a risk that rare metals emerging as the new geopolitical lever, akin to the role Russian gas played?

We must avoid swapping one dependency for another. That’s why it’s crucial to stay true to the core of our strategy: producing our own energy rather than relying on imports from elsewhere. 

This also highlights the importance of securing our supply chains and building the expertise needed to manufacture in Europe. We’re not there yet—but if we stay the course on energy independence, I believe Europe is well positioned to lead the way.

It is up to us Europeans to move as quickly as possible.

How? 

We have to deploy more renewable energy at a much faster rate. 

Last year, we installed 78 gigawatts of new renewable energy. To give you an idea, one gigawatt is enough to supply 500,000 households. So 78 gigawatts is a significant amount. We estimate that around 89 gigawatts of new renewable energy will become operational this year.

But if we truly aim to power our economy in the most sustainable, clean and efficient way, that’s nowhere near enough and it’s not fast enough. 

Change is needed. 

We need to reform our permitting rules and ensure that we have the necessary grids and interconnections. The concept of an Energy Union is enjoying a revival : most countries realise — and I argue for this every day — that we need to be greener and more connected. 

Within the Commission, there seem to be two sides to this debate. Some would like to see the rules simplified further, accompanied by an easing of climate targets. Others want simplification that leaves the targets intact.

We are all fully committed to the Green Deal. This has been clear from day one. 

Does this contradict the idea of simplifying rules and making things easier? Not at all. 

There are ways to achieve both. Take permitting, for instance — that’s a very clear example. Rather than restricting it with complicated rules that are difficult to implement and ultimately slow us down, we can make it easier and faster. Simplification doesn’t mean undoing the Green Deal. Quite the opposite

Will the member states agree to a climate target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040?

We are fully committed to the targets that have already been adopted. We have clear plans on how to implement them. That’s what we plan to do with the 2040 target. It’s a target, not a magic number, and it’s also the Commission’s core vision.

We will deliver on it because it is necessary. When we ask European industries and citizens to transform our societies and believe in renewable energy, we cannot hesitate. Or to change our minds.

This does not contradict our commitment to being pragmatic, simplifying overly complex rules and fast-tracking procedures. Simplifying these rules is necessary for a successful transition.

Elections across Europe have revealed some push-back against the green agenda. Is the real issue with climate action a matter of flawed implementation?

Our population is polarised. Some view the green transition as both a competitive advantage and a moral imperative. Others feel that their livelihoods and welfare are under threat.

As decision makers, it is our responsibility to ensure that we turn these considerations into action. Achieving our climate goals is far cheaper than the alternative.

President Emmanuel Macron visited Greenland last week and firmly stated that the territory is neither for sale nor up for grabs. As a Dane, how did you react to that declaration?

Speaking both as a Commissioner and as a Dane, I can say it was a deeply appreciated political gesture and a strong display of solidarity. Seeing President Macron in Greenland, and hearing the people of Nuuk call out “Vive la France” from the streets—something I never imagined witnessing—was truly remarkable. 

It’s European solidarity.