Gas vs Environmental Concerns: Who Wins? (Baltics)

Poland and Lithuania may celebrate their first victory. This week the European Parliament voted with a big majority to recommend that the European Commission appoint an independent auditor to evaluate the environmental consequences of the Nord Stream gas pipeline construction before the work begins. Even though the parliament’s recommendation is non-binding, it has the support of the so-called New Europe states that are actively asserting themselves on the European political scene, so the chances are that the recommendation will be closely studied by the commission. The document also demands that alternative routes for the gas pipeline are discussed and compensations for possible environmental damage to the Baltic Sea are set.

Based on the information provided by the activists from the Baltic States, particularly Lithuania, the European Parliament points out that numerous toxic waste and dud bombs left on the bottom of the Baltic Sea during WWII could be disturbed by the construction of the Russian-German pipeline, which would be dangerous for the environment of the sea and the countries that surround it.
The Russian gas giant Gazprom and its partners in the Nord Stream venture have announced that all the necessary environmental studies have already been made and there is absolutely no reason to worry about possible damages that may result from construction. Then again, Gazprom is known for telling half-truths, so there may be merit in calling in truly independent experts.

And while they demanded that an expert evaluation of the project be made and different routes considered, the members of the European Parliament could not deny the fact that the European Union needs this project because it adds to its energy security. The proposed pipeline bypasses such transit states as Ukraine, Belarus and Poland, none of which are on particular good terms with their big bear of a neighbor. Bypassing the transit states does mean greater security of supplies, because there is no one between the supplier (Gazprom) and the buyer (its European partners). Also, in the future the pipeline can be used to transport the gas from Gazprom’s northern offshore fields, which are still a long way from being developed. So, the Europeans have to choose between two things: energy security and environmental concerns neatly packaged together with some political aspirations. The ideal solution would be to reconcile them, by guaranteeing energy security while simultaneously removing any existing concerns about the project’s safety, but that solution needs willing participation from both parties to the problem.

In the meantime there is little doubt in my mind that following the decision by the European Parliament, Gazprom will engage all of its lobbying potential to put a stop to the parliament’s motion. Numerous reports will be produced, claiming that the Baltic Sea route is better for the pipeline than any alternative land-based one. Environmental studies will be unearthed that will show the complete safety of the proposed construction. Gazprom can even engage in the tactic of “You are the ones who need our gas, not the other way around.”

Moscow News