Europe is locking itself in to US LNG

Environmental tradeoffs and shale gas

• Europe restricts domestic shale gas/fracking for environmental reasons yet imports US LNG largely sourced from shale, which some see as hypocritical pollution offshoring.
• Others argue this is rational: local groundwater/earthquake risks are avoided; once extracted, gas is identical, so only location of damage changes.
• Similar criticisms arise about Western reliance on China and Southeast Asia for “dirty” manufacturing, rare earths, batteries, and even plastic “recycling,” with disagreement over whether this is exploitation or domestic policy failure in those countries.
• Biomass (notably imported wood pellets) is highlighted as the EU’s largest “renewable,” likened to a partial reversion to wood burning.

How dependent is Europe on US LNG?

• Several commenters say “lock-in” is overstated: current EU gas comes mainly from Norway, Algeria, and others; US LNG is roughly mid‑teens to high‑20s percent depending on dataset.
• Canada is discussed as an emerging supplier; internal Canadian politics (Quebec, environment, lack of demand until 2022) have slowed LNG export development.
• Some argue Europe underuses existing LNG terminals and that demand will fall with efficiency and renewables, making 20‑year LNG commitments risky.

Nord Stream sabotage debates

• Long subthread over who blew up Nord Stream: many now accept investigations pointing to a Ukrainian-linked operation; others still suspect the US or regional actors, citing Biden’s prewar rhetoric and strategic incentives.
• Technical feasibility of 80m dives is debated; experienced divers say it’s challenging but well within modern tech-diving and special-forces capabilities.
• Disagreement over strategic benefit: some say it removed Russian leverage; others note flows were already off and argue the main effect was to weaken EU bargaining power and push it toward expensive LNG.

Role of gas vs renewables and nuclear

• Strong pushback against “renewables solve everything”: gas is described as a “necessary evil” for balancing intermittent wind/solar and providing grid flexibility and inertia.
• Nuclear is viewed by some as essential “green” baseload; others see it as economically dead due to high capex, slow builds, and poor fit with highly variable renewables.
• Batteries are seen as excellent for fast response and local stability but, at current costs and scale, insufficient alone to replace seasonal and multi-week gas flexibility, especially in northern winters.

Industrial and chemical dependence on gas

• Multiple commenters stress that even with 100% renewable electricity, natural gas (or substitutes) is needed as feedstock for chemicals, fertilizers, and high-temperature industrial heat.
• German chemical manufacturing is cited as already running at decades‑low capacity because of high gas prices.

Economics of LNG, storage, and demand response

• Critics of grid‑scale batteries emphasize cost, material requirements, and limited duration versus hydro reservoirs or underground gas storage; they see batteries as an added system cost rather than generation.
• Others point to rapidly falling LiFePO₄ and sodium battery prices, large UK/California projects, and argue that at retail or with price volatility, storage is already economical in many use cases.
• Demand-side response (shifting data centers, EV charging, some industry to when power is cheap) is promoted as a much cheaper flexibility resource, but skeptics note capital sits idle and many loads (factories, data centers, residential heating) can’t be easily time‑shifted without major economic impact.

US–EU geopolitical and economic tensions

• One camp argues Europe’s “cushy” lifestyle rests on US military protection, tech dominance, and now energy, creating structural dependence and limiting EU strategic autonomy.
• Others contest this, saying the relationship is more balanced and that blaming EU social systems ignores benefits to US industry and finance.
• There is concern that tying energy security to US LNG is risky under an erratic US administration that uses tariffs and threats politically; some think recent EU LNG pledges are largely symbolic concessions to placate Washington.

Ongoing Russian energy flows

• Several commenters note Europe has not truly “escaped” Russian energy: imports of Russian LNG and oil continue directly and via intermediaries (e.g., Turkey, India), though at reduced shares.
• Shared data show Russia’s portion of EU gas and oil has fallen sharply but remains non‑trivial, complicating the narrative of complete independence.