It’s true that Russia cutting energy supplies raised prices sharply due to low short-term elasticity of demand. But we should not forget that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was deliberately blown up, and officially no one knows who was behind it. With this supply route destroyed, Europe became more dependent on LNG imports, including from the U.S., which are much more expensive due to transport and liquefaction costs. This has clearly benefited American suppliers, who can now sell gas to Europe at higher prices.I agree that privatisation of utilities was a bad idea. However, none of that explains what is happening now. The current situation is a textbook economics case, and so are the possible measures in the toolbox, although the choice between them is political rather than economic. The story goes like this:
Russia cuts energy supplies to Europe. This raises prises a lot, because the price elasticity of demand for energy is low, and certainly in the short run. For the same reason, Russia also receives more for less gas.
However, Northstream 2 was never operational, so its destruction did not have any immediate effect on prices. But yes, LNG has benefited US and other suppliers. European countries have responded in part by reducing energy consumption by, e.g., home insulation and heatpumps, and by transitioning to renewable sources like wind and solar. This makes economic sense, and reduces CO2 emissions. For quite a while now prices are much lower than they were in the aftermath of the Russian invasion.It’s true that Russia cutting energy supplies raised prices sharply due to low short-term elasticity of demand. But we should not forget that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was deliberately blown up, and officially no one knows who was behind it. With this supply route destroyed, Europe became more dependent on LNG imports, including from the U.S., which are much more expensive due to transport and liquefaction costs. This has clearly benefited American suppliers, who can now sell gas to Europe at higher prices.
So why did you blow up that Nord Stream Two, when it wasn’t even in use? Why? To show off your strength? To prove who’s really in charge?However, Northstream 2 was never operational, so its destruction did not have any immediate effect on prices. But yes, LNG has benefited US and other suppliers. European countries have responded in part by reducing energy consumption by, e.g., home insulation and heatpumps, and by transitioning to renewable sources like wind and solar. This makes economic sense, and reduces CO2 emissions. For quite a while now prices are much lower than they were in the aftermath of the Russian invasion.
In our own case, we already had solar panels, and improved the insulation of our large detached house to the so called A++ level, together with a full electric heat pump and an induction cooker. We no longer use any natural gas, and our annual electricity consumption, including that for heating, is about 5500 kWh at about 0.25 euro per kWh (plus connection charges). So we have become largely independent from fluctuations in energy prices. When our old ICE car dies, we will get an EV, if only to benefit from the surplus in the Summer from our solar panels.
As for heat waves, we just had the second one of this Summer. Until recently we almost never had two heatwaves in one year, but this has become much more common in recent years. We still happily manage without airconditioning (max measured indoor temperature 25C), but in future we may have to get some blinds to keep the sun out a bit more.