European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suggesting replacing Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) with U.S. exports in a phone conversation with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Nov. 8.

Von der Leyen spoke with Trump three days after his victory in the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Replacing Europe’s supplies of Russian LNG was “one of the topics” the two leaders discussed, von der Leyen told reporters in Budapest.

. . .

The European Union imposed its first major restrictions on Russian gas, including LNG, in its 14th sanctions package in June. Russia still remains Europe’s second-largest importer of LNG, after the U.S.

MBFC
Archive

  • macniel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Good move. But a better move would be to reduce reliance on LNG all together.

    • timestatic@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      You can work on both at the same time, but you can’t abandon gas from one to the other second

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      You’re talking about a pro-fossil fuel, anti-climate change administration.

      I’m only surprised this is something negative for Putin.

    • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      I find super funny that they tried to impose sanctions to something we are 100% depending on. And instead of, you know, fixing the problem of dependency, they’ll switch to a different dealer.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        The dependency was massively reduced just in 2022 post invasion, but you can’t just go cold turkey.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        We didn’t really stop importing Russian gas, there’s still long-term contracts if e.g. Austria refused to accept Russian gas they’d still have to pay for it. Situation is different with Germany as there Russia broke the contract, stopped deliveries even though Germany was paying, so the country got out of the long-term contract for free.

        When it comes to self-sanctioning have a look at Russia sanctioning European food exports. Not that the Faroese would ever complain, of course, they’re selling tons of fish to Russia right now who can blame them their yearly GDP is like three patriot batteries.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    So, Trump just keeps on winning? How about getting rid of the gas dependency altogether? I feel like people are just making one poor choice after the other these days.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It’s simply a strategic move to cater to Trump’s ego.

      It’s actually genius. Make Trump look good, tie US closer to Europe while unshackling from Russia.

      Appealing to Trump’s ego is the only way allies will survive. And if Trump ever leaves office, it’s still good news if Dems get back in.

      The actual logistical process of getting away from LNG is probably more monumental than is feasible in the near-term.

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Appealing to Trump’s ego is the only way allies will survive.

        Very bold of you to assume that the only way “allies will survive” is by the grace of the US. Shit Americans say.

          • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’m American, but I try not to say shit like that because it’s not true.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              That in no way precludes one from being a tanky, but let’s explore:

              • As if their defense wasn’t heavily reliant upon the US umbrella and budget that dwarfs their capability
              • As if we didn’t bail them the fuck out in WWII.
              • As if this very fucking action by the EU isn’t proof of that, itself.

              God, I can’t believe you actually got me defending our own military industrial complex. But hey, I really hope you prove me wrong for their sake.

    • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because replacing a heating system with a different one is expensive and a lot of pensioniers can’t afford this.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      How about getting rid of the gas dependency altogether?

      Already in the works, though for the time being (until fusion) Europe will be dependent on imports for energy and chemical feedstock but in the future that’s going to be ammonia (aka transportable hydrogen) from e.g. Canada and Namibia, produced by gigantic amounts of new solar and wind installations.

      Also even though fusion is slated to finally arrive in the 2030s (Max Planck is now getting into commercialisation so yes it’s serious) it’s probably going to be a while before it’s price-competetive with renewables from places really suited for renewables, especially when we’re not talking raw electricity but stuff that can be transported more easily. So those investments abroad won’t be instant write-offs.