Transcript: Protecting Our Planet: Europe’s Climate Agenda

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Thank you very much, David, for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

MR. IGNATIUS: So, let’s begin by the question that’s been haunting us for months, which is whether with the war in Ukraine and Russian weaponization of energy, Europe is going to be facing a cold winter this year with the possibility of rationing. Tell us how that looks. There’s been some encouraging news, mild fall weather, gas storage sites seem to be filled, some reduction in demand. Are you more hopeful now that that Europe can get through this winter without real disruption?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Thank you very much. And indeed, I think we have done a lot to prepare for this winter. We have done a lot collectively at the European level working with member states, working with the European Parliament, but also working with our–with our global the supply side, we have been reaching out to like the United States suppliers but also Norway, other countries in our that are suppliers of energy and have been working with them to store new supplies, additional supplies to the replace the Russian gas that has essentially been taken off the global market.

So, as you probably know, before the war, we received about 40 percent of our gas supply from Russia, and most of that was via pipeline. Russia has disrupted a lot of those flows. And we have responded by REPowerEU, saying we need to step out of this dependence from Russia. And so a lot of gas, a lot of fossil gas has been taken out of the global market and we have needed to replace supply.

So, we have worked on the supply side to get additional supplies, we have also–or alternative supplies. We have also worked on the demand side, essentially by taking measures to reduce our demand across the European Union by energy savings, by fuel switch, by process of . And we have taken–put in place measures to achieve that, and again jointly at European level.

Then, we have taken measures to be more secure. And that’s primarily storage that you mentioned. We’ve put in place a regulatory framework that requires all storage owners to fill their storage before winter, and we’re above 95 percent of storage filling, so really very, very high record level also compared to normal years.

And then we’ve taken measures. We’ve made suggestions to try to get the market to function optimally within the European Union. That is both to address infrastructure bottlenecks–we have had essentially fossil gas flows or natural gas flows going from east to west within our–in our internal infrastructure, and so some of that has to be adapted to and aligned with the new flows that come from other sources–in particular, of course, LNG, and again, a lot of that from the U.S. The U.S. was already our largest LNG supplier, but has very, very significantly increased supplies to the European Union over this year since the beginning of the war. So we’ve done I think what we can as we go into this winter, and in a fairly good place. That doesn’t mean it’s without risks or without challenges. It will be a challenging winter. But I think we have done as much as we can in terms of–in terms of preparing for that.

The other thing we have done–and I think this is critical to underline and it aligns with the–with the climate focus is, of course, to make sure that all these emergency measures are aligned with our green transition. So, we step up, we accelerate renewables, we have measures to put in place more heat pumps, more photovoltaic on rooftops, more energy efficiency investments and measures. So that is, of course, a critical point of our energy security as well as of our sustainability.

I think a bigger challenge than these coming months and this winter will actually be the winter ’23-’24, because we see that the global energy markets and the global gas markets in particular remain somewhat imbalanced. There is a higher demand than supply, and so there will be–there will be challenges there be significant levels of Russian gas supply, there will be challenges in filling our storages as we get into the next filling season in March/April in 2023.

MR. IGNATIUS: So, Madam Director General, let me just ask you to put all those elements together. Here it is the end of November. What is your level of confidence that Europe will, in fact, get through this winter without a significant disruption in energy supplies? Would you–would you put that, you know, towards 90 percent? Something lower? Give us a sense.

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Well, I think I’m not sure I would like to put on a percentage because we are in a–in a very challenging set of circumstances. There’s a war. There’s a war going on in Europe. It’s a war in our neighborhood. It’s a war that Russia is waging against Ukraine in Ukraine, it there’s also weaponization of energy, weaponization of gas, using gas Europe and other countries in this–the European Union and other countries in this region. And so there are, of course, a number of unknowns. You saw recently, this autumn, there were sabotage; there were attacks on two pipeline systems in the European Union, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. And so there are things that can happen that we of course need to prepare ourselves for and try to avoid, limit the risks. But it makes it difficult, I find, to put a percentage on anything.

I think what is critical is that we identify the risks, that we take measures to mitigate those risks, and then we take measures to be prepared. And then the most important thing of all I think within Europe is that we are united, that we work together for common solutions, and that we have the right provisions in place so that we know that countries across Europe will be ready to help each other. For example, we now have a neighboring country, not in the European Union but Moldova in a very tricky situation as regards security of supply in energy supply. And we are of course doing what we can.

Similarly, the Russian energy–sorry, Ukraine has been under attack by Russia, and we are doing what we can to help make sure that Ukraine has the energy infrastructure, the different pieces that they have lost in their system that have been destroyed by Russia in the Ukrainian system. So, it’s a European-wide solidarity to help make sure everyone is ready for this winter and for the challenges that lie ahead.

MR. IGNATIUS: And I want to just ask you to return to the question of what happens next year, assuming that things will muddle through, if you will, this winter, the challenges of next year. Under your REPowerEU plan, do you think you can really substitute out alternative sources for Russian energy so that in the coming winter a year from now Europe will not be vulnerable to Russian energy pressure at all?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Well, I think it’s interesting when we first launched the idea of REPowerEU earlier this year, I think there were questions is it really possible with this 40 percent dependence on Russian fossil and Russian gas that we had. I think there were many questions. Well, what are you going to do? This is not possible. It’s not possible within the speed that you have in mind. And the reality now is that the supply of Russian gas into our system this month was about 7 percent compared to a normal of 40 percent. And so actually these changes, this transition has happened very, very swiftly. It’s been driven by markets. So, we’ve seen the reduction of supply from Russia, and we’ve seen the increase of supply from other suppliers, more trustable, viable partners that we’ve been working with over the years and including the U.S. as I mentioned. And that has helped us replace the Russian gas to a large extent not fully, but to quite a significant extent.

As I also mentioned, we have, of course, invested into new infrastructure. So, we have had to invest very quickly into infrastructure to increase our imports of LNG. But also, as I mentioned in these alternative sources, renewable sources, including, for example, biomethane, which is the same molecular structure as fossil gas, and which can therefore fairly quickly come in place when we can set up that–those investments and those facilities.

So, our assessment based on what are the alternatives, what can be done is that we can get quite far. But we cannot reach it, we cannot achieve it–and this is absolutely critical–without reducing our demand. We need energy savings. We need energy efficiency. If we are to keep our demand as high as it has been, it is going to be very, very difficult. So, some of the replacement effect has to be reduction of demand, energy savings, energy efficiency, and that has to be the first measure really across the board.

And what we see in those sectors is we have quite a strong regulatory framework within the European Union, and a lot has happened in terms of investments, available technologies to lower consumption. And we can do more of that. We can into that. It serves the purpose of–obviously, of lowering our greenhouse gas emissions lowering the energy bill for households and for businesses, and it helps keep people warm if you have a well-insulated home and if you have in place the necessary measures. So, I want to underline the importance of demand reduction, energy efficiency, and energy in terms of how do we reach our REPowerEU and become independent from Russian supplies.

MR. IGNATIUS: Let me ask you about another part of the energy puzzle dealing with Russia and the war in Ukraine, and that’s the proposal from the Biden administration for price caps on Russian oil. There have been press reports that the EU is prepared to accept price caps in the range of $65 to $70 a barrel is what I read most recently. But you begin to see economists now joining President Zelensky of Ukraine saying, no, energy prices are falling. That doesn’t do us enough good. Zelensky’s proposed a cap as low as $30 a barrel, which would really squeeze Russia. What do you think about proposals for a lower cap?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Well, since negotiations, are ongoing and discussions are ongoing within the European Union about level of a cap, I would not want to engage in those discussions here. That really is–there’s an ongoing decision-making taking place on that. What I can say on oil is we have, of course, already put in place sanctions on a lot of the Russian energy supply. We have put in place sanctions on pipeline oil already to the European–or on oil, sorry, to the European Union. We’ve put in place sanctions on coal. We’ve put in place sanctions on energy technologies. And so this is clearly a critical sector for Russia. It has been a critical supply for us, as I mentioned, and in different energy vectors, different energy carriers. [Audio distortion] measures we place in those sectors are really very critical also for the war effort, and in terms of our support for Ukraine.

But as regards to the level of the oil price cap, as I said, that’s currently under discussion. So, I wouldn’t want to try to intervene in that discussion from here.

MR. IGNATIUS: Without asking you to name a specific price target, I’d just ask the general question is there a price that would be so low, a price cap, that it would have a strong risk of leading Russia just to pull its oil deliveries entirely from the market?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: I think–I think we need obviously to integrate and analyze, well, what is the likely impact of . At the same time–I think at the same time, I would not dare speculate what the Russian action would be. I think we’ve seen so far that we have not–that that is difficult to predict. So, I think we have to be prepared for any response, for any measure, and be ready to–be ready for that, essentially. So again, I think it’s about risk assessment, risk awareness, but also our own preparedness, and then our own ability to work with like-minded partners, to work with reliable partners the long-term energy and climate partnerships that are needed for us all to go through the green energy transition in a way that is both secure, affordable, but sustainable as well in terms of the climate and the environment.

MR. IGNATIUS: Let me take a question from a member of our audience. John Guillemin from Massachusetts asks about reducing demand. And here’s his question: Has there been a coordinated effort across all EU member states to activate citizens and get them to reduce energy consumption. During this time of conflict when energy security has been weaponized, isn’t there a need for a large civic defense style mobilization, like we saw in the U.S. during World War II?

What do you think about that mobilization beyond simply encouraging demand reduction, a real mobilization?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: I think that’s a really good question and a very, very good way of looking at it. We are in a war and so we do need to–we need to stand together. We need to do what is necessary. And we actually launched in spring already a campaign for energy savings. We did it with the help of the International Energy Agency, giving very concrete piece and very specific advice to citizens about what can you do to reduce your energy consumption overall, what can you do to reduce the oil consumption, the gas consumption, the electricity consumption.

In addition to that, we have passed regulation both on reducing electricity demand and reducing gas demand, so there are clear requirements in place. And we have updated this campaign and then member state level are making campaign and putting in place measures. And these measures can be from supporting the installment of photovoltaic on rooftops we can either help you with your electricity bill or we can–we can help you with the installment of these alternative measures to have clean and green supply. But I think this notion of civic engagement and really standing together is a very, very good one, and I think we are going to need to take it further to really get that of common action in order for us to be ready. And again, it’s this winter but it’s also beyond that. We don’t know how long Russia’s war in Ukraine will go on and we need to make sure that we can–that we can both support Ukraine but also sustain our own energy requirements and keep people warm during the winter.

MR. IGNATIUS: Let’s talk a little bit about Europe’s energy relationship with the United States. The numbers show that Europe now gets as much natural gas–more natural gas from the United States than from Russia. That’s a startling change. Can the U.S. play a significantly bigger role as we look towards a year from now the goal of real European independence from Russia as a supplier, how much more should the U.S. be doing to make available LNG, other necessary parts of that transition?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: As you’re saying, the U.S. has become our largest energy supplier, our largest LNG supplier. It’s very, very impressive what has happened this year already. We started with very close cooperation between President Biden and our president, Ursula von der Leyen, earlier this year and then a very, very close support to secure additional supplies.

I think more can be done. First, as you also–as your question is suggesting in terms of LNG supplies, I think there’s still scope for more. There’s capacity for more. But that of course requires export capacity and investments into that but also the necessary procedures to go through so that the infrastructure is available. So I think more LNG supplies is something that would be in the interest I think of both sides of the Atlantic.

We would also see room for close cooperation in the development of common global energy strategies. We already have very close conversations on critical raw materials, which is necessary, of course, for the clean energy transition. So I think there’s a number of areas where we can work more closely together. We’ve seen it this year . I think generally if you look at the challenges we’re facing globally–and here I’m thinking obviously about the challenges in the energy sector, from the energy markets, but also more generally–it is important to develop these reliable partnerships, work with trusted partners, and to look at how can these partnerships really work going into the future. So, it’s about LNG today, but it is also about green hydrogen for the future, about . There’s a lot of scope for close cooperation there.

MR. IGNATIUS: So, I want to ask you about an area of energy cooperation that’s gotten a little bit bumpy since the passage of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which includes many provisions involving energy, subsidies for energy. There’s been growing criticism from Europe about what some Europeans argue are unfair trade practices that are embodied in that act. The buy American provisions for electric vehicles are an example of that. The German economy minister said recently that he saw these American provisions as a trade war. I want to ask you if you can help us sort out the issues that are involved here. As the leading European energy overseer, regulator, what’s your judgment about what’s in this bill? What do you think needs to be examined because of unfair consequences for Europe?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: [Audio distortion] in terms of the energy–

MR. IGNATIUS: We’re having trouble, as the audience, I’m sure, is aware, of getting Director General Jørgensen. We’re going to try to reconnect and get a better connection so we can hear her answers to these questions. So just hold on for a minute. We’ll be right back.

MR. IGNATIUS: Madam Director General, I’m glad we have you back with I hope a more reliable connection. So, I want to just ask you to speak a little bit that to the question of the transition that you mentioned earlier to less dependence on carbon fuels. Decarbonization is central to your broad strategy in Europe. How’s that going? Is the war in Ukraine impeding that? Is it a neutral factor? Just give us your assessment of how that whole part of the energy transformation is working?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Well, I think the war in Ukraine and the global energy crisis, if anything, are incentives, both economic incentives but also political incentives to accelerate the green energy transition and make the changes in our system that are necessary. So relies on energy efficiency, renewable energies, and then of course, also on replacing the Russian energy sources with other supplies. But it really aligns with that climate agenda, with that green new transition agenda.

And with the very, very high energy prices, there is an increased very significant incentive to be more efficient to save on energies, as we talked about, but also to move to renewables as quickly as possible.

In addition to those economic incentives, we are doing what we can on the regulatory side. So we are–have stepped up our targets. We have very specific targets for how many renewables in our system by 2030 and how much energy efficiency, and we are now stepping those up and working with member states and with the European Parliament to get that done. So, we have a regulatory agenda that supports that overall market-driven driven pressure for the energy transition.

It’s clear that we can be more secure, we can be more resilient, if we have more in our system, because that can reduce the dependence on imported fossil in particular on Russian fossil energy. So those agendas are really aligned. And we have this principle, it says–it goes without saying but it’s important sometimes to remind yourself that we have to make sure that even when we act in an emergency, even when we take urgent measures, we have to make sure that that aligns completely with our strategic objective neutrality in 2050. So that’s what we check. For every measure we take, we’re going to check, well, does this work also in the context of the climate crisis, which is running in parallel to the energy crisis.

MR. IGNATIUS: In the remaining several minutes that we have, I want to ask you about COP27, which ended last week in Egypt. You were at COP27. I want to ask you your scorecard. Let me just read what your colleague, the EU’s climate chief Frans Timmermans said: Too many parties are not ready to make more progress today in the fight against the climate crisis. What we have in front of us is not enough of a step forward for people and the planet.

Would you share that judgment, that frustration that came through in his comment?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Well, I think he very clearly expressed the European position–and that was a position expressed also by European Union member states, by ministers–that on the one hand, it was good to see progress on loss and damage, and I think the progress on loss and damage our ability to take action there was very much driven by the European Union, but also the European Union working with partners to make the–to make the change.

And then is disappointment that we could not take it further when it comes to mitigation, that we could not take it further when it comes to the energy transition, being more clear on fossil, being more clear on the need to face down, and be more clear on us all needing to do more on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

So, on those aspects all looking forward to the next COP in 2023 to see, well, how can we–how can we step up that agenda, which is absolutely critical for us to address the climate crisis. So, there were outcomes that were welcome, that were important. But as you quoted Frans Timmermans as saying, there was also things missing, and it is disappointing from our perspective that we take it further together.

MR. IGNATIUS: So as a last question, Madam Director General, what would you specifically recommend to get the world back on track, closer to being on track to meet the Paris Accord pledge to reduce significantly global emissions by 2030 and keep the level of global warming at a, we hope, tolerable level? What specific things do you think need to be done?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Well, I think we need to make the investments where transition. We need to make the investments into our energy systems to improve them. We need to make investments into renewable energy. We need to make investments into energy efficiency. But we also need to make sure that the fossil energy that we do consume–and we do consume fossil energy–will be part of our energy system for the coming decades. So, we need to make sure that that is as clean as possible. So, we have taken measures to reduce methane emissions, for example, from the production to act on that and to lower methane emissions. So, we need the investments. We need to make sure that the energy we use is as clean and green as possible. We need to lower our reduction–reduce our consumption sorry.

And then we need to work with global partners to help others come on–follow that pathway or walk on that pathway to take the necessary measures, and what we do in that regard is to develop partnerships with others partnerships on green hydrogen, partnerships where we invest in some of the energy infrastructure, energy system changes that are necessary also in the Global South, where it can be difficult to attract investments. So, I think global partnerships is another critical aspect of making the change that is necessary both for the energy transition and for the climate transition.

MR. IGNATIUS: Speaking of the Global South, the president of the African Development Bank, Akinwumi Adesina, said at COP, and I’m going to quote him, “Africa needs gas. We want to make sure we have access to electricity. We don’t want to become the museum of poverty in the world.” How would you answer that statement, which got significant support from other Global South delegates?

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Well, I think these global partnerships are part of the answer. We have entered into just energy transition–just energy transition partnerships with a number of countries exactly with that in mind, to look at how can you–how can you work together, how can we benefit from parts of the world to help make that transition happen.

The green energy transition and the necessary transition for climate offers a lot of opportunities, but of course, also very specific challenges. So, to give you one example, we have regions that have been relying on coal. We have a just transition program to help those regions transition out to help create other jobs in those regions so that jobs, so we help people on the reskilling. We help look at, well, what are the growth opportunities, what is the potential in those regions.

And with the just energy transition partnerships with partners we can do something similar and look at how do we make sure this transition happens, but also that it happens in a just way, in a fair way, and so that we have as many benefits as possible also at local level. And I think that local level benefit is as critical as the global level benefits we see of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and of improving our overall climate globally.

MR. IGNATIUS: So, Ditte Juul Jørgensen, thank you so much. This is such an important topic, and your comments were helpful and to the point. We hope you’ll come back and talk about them with us again. Thanks for joining us.

MS. JUUL JØRGENSEN: Thank you very much for having invited me. Thank you for your time.

MR. IGNATIUS: So, please join us for our other programming. To check out what we have coming up on Washington Post dot live–go to WashingtonPostLive.com and register for the programs. We look forward to seeing you soon. Thanks very much for joining us today.