Positive and Negative Security: A Consequentialist Approach to EU Gas Supply

Abstract

The paper differentiates between positive and negative security models, introducing important concepts of negative and positive security from new security studies to the energy domain. Negative gas security is understood as the ability to restore required gas flows and, as such, to deliver freedom from their loss. It is negative only in the sense that it is the outcome of remedying a crisis situation where some threatening development is stopped and its negative consequences minimized so that the gas flows can be restored to pre-crisis levels. Positive gas security entails innovatively managing these flows such that freedom towards acquiring the required volume of gas is strengthened. By advancing an argument for the consequentialist nature of gas security and exploring the notion of the negative and positive security in EU gas policy, this chapter offers critical insights into EU energy policy and the EU gas supply situation. The author criticizes the EU policy’s prevailing focus on technical aspects of gas security (where gas security is perceived as resulting first and foremost from aggregated systemic technicalities in the EU gas system such as physical infrastructure, market rules, network codes, technical standards, etc.) and on developing a negative security model while not adequately considering the role the individual user plays in the gas system and how gas consumers can create positive gas security for Europe. Here, added value enables energy consumers to exercise their liberty and tailor their energy security through their smart energy choices. This power affords them more welfare (since producing goods and services with energy-efficient solutions requires less energy) and freedom (since ability to act and enact gas security is brought closer to the consumer who becomes an active player instead of being a mere passive recipient of gas supply).

I would like to thank Kacper Szulecki, Dag Harald Claes, Ole Gunnar Austvik, Andreas Heinrich, Irina Kustova, Inga Ydersbond, the organisers and participants of the PhD-seminar at the University of Oslo (3.06.2015) and the Politologseminar at Lillehammer University College (6.03.2015) for their constructive comments on the previous drafts of this chapter. My greatest debt of gratitude goes to Lillehammer University College for providing me with the financial support necessary for the research involved in preparing this chapter, which is part of my doctoral dissertation Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) as an Energy Subregion and its Influence on EU policy-making on energy security. I would also like to thank the University of Oslo which provided me with the necessary infrastructure and access to online databases where I was a guest researcher in 2015. I must mention due thanks to Peter Burgess and Mark B. Salter—the organisers of Methods in Critical Security Studies course given by UiO-NTNU-PRIO Research School on Peace and Conflict (08.12.14–12.12.14)—for the comments on the early draft of this paper and for enriching conversations about critical approaches to security studies. I would also like to thank for the training in energy security studies that I received from Michael Bradshaw at the course Global Energy Dilemmas: Energy Security, Globalization and Climate Change (Oslo Summer School in Comparative Social Science Studies at the University of Oslo, Norway 23.07.12–27.07.12) and from the Florence School of Regulation, Summer School in Energy Policy and EU Law at the European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre, for Advanced Studies (18.06.12–22.06.12). I would like to thank the organisers of the course Philosophy of Science and Research Ethics given at Lillehammer University College (03.01.12–31.05.12). My gratitude also goes to Matthew Landry and Michael Marcoux for help with proofreading and editing language usage in this chapter.