es.euronews.com
EU Imports More LNG Than Pipeline Gas in Q1 2025
During the first quarter of 2025, the EU imported 8.4 million tons of LNG and 8.2 million tons of pipeline gas, marking a significant shift driven by the war in Ukraine and the subsequent diversification of energy sources; however, LNG presents higher costs and environmental concerns.
- What are the immediate economic and geopolitical consequences of the EU's increased reliance on LNG imports?
- In the first quarter of 2025, the EU imported more liquefied natural gas (LNG) than pipeline gas for the first time: 8.4 million tons of LNG versus 8.2 million tons of pipeline gas. This represents a 12% surge in LNG imports compared to Q1 2024, and a 45% increase in spending to €5.3 billion.
- How do the environmental impacts of LNG compare to pipeline gas, and what measures are being considered to mitigate these impacts?
- This shift is due to increased LNG regasification facilities in several EU countries following the 2022 Ukraine war, reducing reliance on Russian pipeline gas. However, LNG has higher initial costs and a 33% larger carbon footprint than coal, according to Cornell University, and 67% larger than pipeline gas according to the IEA.
- What are the long-term implications of the EU's energy diversification strategy, considering both supply security and environmental sustainability?
- The EU's increased reliance on LNG, while offering short-term market flexibility and geopolitical resilience, presents long-term environmental challenges. While the IEA suggests emissions could be reduced by 60%, the EU aims to end all Russian energy imports by 2027, diversifying its sources to countries like Norway, Azerbaijan, and Algeria, and pursuing domestic extraction projects.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the increased LNG imports as a necessary response to geopolitical circumstances, emphasizing the EU's vulnerability following the reduction of Russian gas supplies. This framing might unintentionally downplay the environmental costs associated with LNG, which are presented later in the article with less emphasis. The headline, while neutral, could benefit from more explicitly mentioning the environmental trade-offs.
Language Bias
The article generally maintains a neutral tone. However, phrases such as "the dark side of LNG" and describing the environmental impact as "questionable" introduce a slightly negative connotation. These could be replaced with more neutral phrasing, such as "environmental considerations of LNG" and "the environmental impact of LNG is a subject of debate.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the EU's shift to LNG and the geopolitical reasons behind it, but omits discussion of potential alternatives to natural gas altogether, such as renewable energy sources. While acknowledging the environmental concerns of LNG, the article doesn't delve into the comparative environmental impact of these alternatives or the potential for investment in them. This omission could leave the reader with a limited understanding of the broader energy landscape and available solutions.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the choice as primarily between pipeline gas (historically from Russia) and LNG. While acknowledging other suppliers like Norway, Azerbaijan, and Algeria, it doesn't explore the potential for a more diversified energy portfolio including renewables. This simplifies a complex energy transition.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the significantly higher carbon footprint of LNG compared to pipeline gas, contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions and negatively impacting climate action goals. A Cornell University study quantified LNG