Trump’s Fossil Fuel Push Meets a Legal Reality Check

By Felicity Bradstock - Feb 07, 2026

• A judge ruled the Department of Energy broke federal law by using a handpicked climate panel that rejected mainstream science.
• 
  
• The disputed report was used to justify rolling back cornerstone U.S. climate regulations, including limits on emissions.
• 
  
• Despite the ruling, the Trump administration is expected to keep using the report as it prioritizes oil, gas, and coal over clean energy.
• 
  

United States President Donald Trump pursued an electoral campaign that focused on fossil fuel expansion and the reining in of renewable energy projects. Trump has regularly dismissed climate science as fearmongering, suggesting that the U.S. does not need to expand its green energy and cleantech sectors; rather, the country should focus on pumping more oil and gas to boost energy security. However, a recent assessment suggests that Trump may have been misinformed when setting the U.S. energy agenda.

On 30th January, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) broke the law when Energy Secretary Chris Wright handpicked five researchers who reject the scientific consensus on climate change to write a report on global warming to inform national policy. The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 states that agencies are not permitted to recruit or rely on secret groups for policymaking.

The DoE issued the report, which rejected the urgency of addressing global warming, in July, without holding any public meetings. The report was later used by the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Lee Zeldin, to justify plans to rescind the endangerment finding. The finding, which was established by the Obama administration in 2009, declared carbon dioxide a public danger, giving the agency the legal basis to cap greenhouse gas emissions from major sources such as coal power plants and cars.

Judge William Young said that the DoE did not deny the fact that it had not held open meetings or established a Climate Working Group panel with a range of viewpoints, as the law requires. “These violations are now established as a matter of law,” Young determined in his 4-page decision. He said the Climate Working Group was established as a federal advisory committee to inform policy, and not, as the DoE claimed, merely “assembled to exchange facts or information.”

The Environmental Defence Fund’s senior attorney, Erin Murphy, who brought the lawsuit to the court’s attention, alongside the Union of Concerned Scientists – a national group of about 250 scientists and experts, said that the ruling undermines Trump’s efforts to scrap climate regulations. “It was powerful for the court to issue this order making it clear that this is a legal violation and not how the government should be approaching policy,” Murphy said.

Despite the favourable ruling, no order has been issued for the report to be rescinded. In a statement, the DoE said it was pleased that Judge Young had denied a request to prevent the agency from using the report or keeping it online.

A spokesperson for Secretary Wright, Ben Dietderich, said, “The activists behind this case have long misrepresented not just the actual state of climate science, but also the so-called scientific consensus.” Dietderich added, “They have likewise sought to silence scientists who have merely pointed out — as the Climate Working Group did in its report — that climate science is far from settled.”

In the DoE report, the Climate Working Group stated that carbon dioxide-induced global warming “might be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and that “aggressive mitigation policies” – such as those designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels – “could prove more detrimental than beneficial.”

Following the publication of the report last July, more than 85 scientists and climate experts denounced the group’s findings in a 459-page document, suggesting that the DoE report was full of errors and misrepresentations. “No one should doubt that human-caused climate change is real, is already producing potentially dangerous impacts, and that humanity is on track for a geologically enormous amount of warming,” the scientists wrote.

In his first year in office, President Trump has repeatedly referred to climate change policy, both in the U.S. and internationally, as a “green new scam”. Trump has also sought to water down the efforts of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the most far-reaching U.S. climate policy to date, as well as halt offshore wind development, and discourage investment in renewables and cleantech. Meanwhile, he has doubled down on efforts to increase oil and gas output, while reinvigorating the country’s coal industry.

In backtracking from the success of a green transition under former President Biden, in favour of fossil fuels, Trump has gone in the opposite direction to much of the rest of the world. As Europe continues to ramp up its renewable energy capacity, wind and solar energy provided more electricity in the European Union than fossil fuels for the first time in 2025. Meanwhile, emerging green energy powers, like the Middle East and Latin America, are making significant progress in reducing their reliance on fossil fuels. 

The recent ruling on the DoE’s climate report demonstrates just how much the Trump administration disregards the scientific consensus on climate change. Even though the judge ruled that the means of developing the report were unlawful, the DoE will keep its report online and is expected to continue using it to shape national policy, which could contribute to higher U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and a larger U.S. contribution to global warming.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

The Rapid Rise of Humanoid Robots

By Felicity Bradstock - Feb 07, 2026,

• Automakers are prioritizing long-term automation gains over current productivity limits of humanoid robots.
• 
  
• Tesla and Hyundai are among the leaders pushing humanoid robots into factories within the next few years.
• 
  
• Labor groups and experts warn that technical hurdles and employment disruptions remain significant risks.
• 
  

Several automakers are investing heavily in robots in a bid to further automate operations in the future. It does not seem to matter that the current generation of humanoid robots works at a slower pace than humans, as automakers still view these machines as more cost-efficient for their factories. While Elon Musk invests heavily in Tesla’s Optimus Robots, Hyundai has big plans for incorporating robots in its United States operations in the coming years.

A recent estimate by Barclays suggests that the current humanoid robot market has a value of between $2 billion and $3 billion, which is expected to grow to at least $40 billion by 2035, as AI-powered robots are deployed.

Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, recently announced that the firm’s long-awaited humanoid robot, Optimus, is nearing completion. Speaking at the World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos, Switzerland, in January, Musk said that Tesla plans to “make its Optimus robots available for sale to the public by the end of 2027.” He added, “My prediction is there will be more robots than people.”

Musk expects the robots to be highly reliable, safe, and functional by this time, and, therefore, capable of performing a diverse range of tasks. If successful, Tesla will be one of the few companies offering consumers general-purpose humanoid robots for the home, at a cost of between $20,000 and $30,000.

Tesla already has some Optimus units in operation at its facilities, capable of performing basic tasks. Musk expects these robots to be able to manage more complex tasks by the end of the year, thanks to the rapid speed at which they can learn. In January, Tesla announced that it plans to carry out data collection to train its humanoid robot at its Austin Gigafactory, to teach the Optimus how to operate in the Texas facility. The firm has already been collecting data and training Optimus prototypes in its Fremont facility in California for over a year.

However, experts say that mass-producing highly capable humanoid robots is extremely complicated, and many doubt that Tesla will meet its 2027 release deadline. It is one thing to have these robots performing monotonous tasks in just one space, but it is a very different thing to create a machine that can perform a wide range of tasks in the home. Due to the uncertainties around robot production, several investors are waiting for proof that Tesla can deploy this level of technology.

Tesla is not the only automaker with big plans for robots, with Korea’s Hyundai announcing plans to roll out humanoid robots at its U.S. plant by 2028. In January, Hyundai Motor Group presented Boston Dynamics' Atlas robot at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The firm said it aims to construct a factory capable of producing 30,000 robots a year by 2028 and to start deploying humanoid robots at its Georgia facility that same year.

The announcement sent Hyundai’s shares soaring. However, the company’s labour union is less enthusiastic about the move, suggesting that it will spur mass layoffs. The union accused Hyundai of putting its profits above its commitment to its workers. “Under no circumstances will workers welcome the plan, as the robot deployment will bring a huge employment shock,” a spokesperson stated. “The union warns that not a single robot can be deployed at worksites without an agreement between the union and management.”

Hyundai has defended the move by suggesting that robots can be tasked with operations that are dangerous for humans. However, as robots cost relatively little to maintain and do not require sick days, vacation time, rest, or lunch breaks, the potential cost reduction is clearly attractive.

In addition to contributing to mass layoffs, many are questioning the efficiency of using robots. The Chinese firm UBTech Robotics, one of the country’s leading robotics developers, recently admitted that its latest Walker S2 humanoids are capable of just 30 to 50 percent of a human worker’s productivity, suggesting that major advancements are needed to warrant the replacement of humans with robots in production lines and other operations.

Nevertheless, orders have increased in recent months, with Chinese electric vehicle makers, such as BYD and Foxconn, experimenting with offsetting labour shortages by using humanoid robots. “You can imagine … if Tesla has the advantage of deploying their own human robots into the manufacturing line, that means maybe BYD, they are staying behind,” explained UBTech’s chief brand officer, Michael Tam.

The age of the humanoid robot is coming, as several automakers in the United States and elsewhere invest in developing the capabilities of these bots. This could eventually lead to mass layoffs, as companies use the robots to perform simple or dangerous tasks in place of humans. However, significant technical advances must still be made to enhance efficiency and produce robots that are capable of carrying out a more diverse range of tasks.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Why Cutting Russia Out of India’s Oil Mix Won’t Be Easy

By Irina Slav - Feb 07, 2026

• India’s refiners rely on discounted Russian heavy crude that is difficult and costly to replace.
• 
  
• Switching to U.S. oil would raise costs and strain refinery operations.
• 
  
• Washington’s tougher stance marks a sharp reversal from the Biden-era tolerance of India’s Russian oil buying.

India imports 85% of the oil it consumes. A third of that comes from Russia—or used to come from Russia, until last November, when President Trump’s administration sanctioned the top exporters. Now, Washington is doubling down on cutting India’s oil link with Russia, but it may prove tricky for the world’s second-largest importer of oil.

“Even though India has reduced its purchase of crude oil from Russia in recent months, it is unlikely to cease all purchases immediately, which could be disruptive to India’s economic growth,” Moody’s said earlier this week in a note following the news that Washington and New Delhi had reached an agreement on a trade deal, to be signed officially in March.

President Trump announced the progress in the trade deal talks, saying the U.S. would reduce tariffs on Indian imports in exchange for a commitment on the part of New Delhi to stop buying crude oil from Russia and boost purchases of American oil instead, along with other goods and commodities.

Russia did not appear fazed by Trump’s plans. “We, along with all other international energy experts, are well aware that Russia is not the only supplier of oil and petroleum products to India. India has always purchased these products from other countries. Therefore, we see nothing new here,” Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesman, told media.

India’s The Hindu also quoted an energy expert from the National Energy Security Fund of Russia as noting the difference in the properties of U.S. crude and Russian crude. “The American shale oil they export is light grades, similar to gas condensate. Russia, on the other hand, supplies relatively heavy, sulfur-rich Urals. This means India will need to blend U.S. crude with other grades, which incurs additional costs, meaning a simple substitution won't be possible,” he said.

Cost is the key word when it comes to India and crude oil imports. It is the most likely reason that while President Trump has been celebrating India’s commitment to stop buying Russian oil on social media, India itself has been in no rush to either confirm that commitment or even comment on it. Instead, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on X that it had been “Wonderful to speak with my dear friend President Trump today. Delighted that Made in India products will now have a reduced tariff of 18%. Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of the 1.4 billion people of India for this wonderful announcement.”

That tariff reduction from 25% to 18% is contingent on India suspending purchases of Russian oil, and the omission of that part of the deal is telling. Before 2022, India imported meager volumes of Russian oil, at less than 100,000 barrels daily on average in 2021, per data from Vortex cited by the Wall Street Journal. By June 2022, that had gone up to 930,000 barrels daily. By July 2023, the average daily volume of Russian crude going into India had soared to 1.97 million barrels. In January this year, the average volume of Russian oil for India stood at 1.06 million barrels daily, per Vortexa—two months after the sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil went into effect.

The WSJ also points out the cost consideration. U.S. crude is more expensive for Indian buyers, not least because it takes longer to ship it all the way to India from the Gulf Coast. The publication cited Vortexa analysts as saying the switch would cost Indian refiners an additional $7 per barrel, which is unlikely to sit well with most of them. In further financial challenges, “Refiners are technically capable of operating without Urals, but a rapid disengagement would be commercially challenging and politically sensitive,” one Kpler analyst told the WSJ.

This is probably why Indian refiners looking for alternatives to Russian crude have been buying a lot of Middle Eastern oil, including from Iraq, the UAE, and even from  West Africa. Analysts point to Venezuelan crude as an alternative to Russia’s heavy, sour grades, but the rate of Venezuelan production and exports is insufficient to replace Russian barrels—especially at an acceptable price. Price has always been a top priority for Indian oil importers—and the previous U.S. administration utilized this in its plans to squeeze Russia’s oil income without causing a spike in prices.

The United States under Biden had zero problem with India becoming a major oil customer of Russia. In fact, the Biden admin asked India to step up its Russian oil purchases following Russia’s 2022 incursion into Ukraine and the consequent start of sanctions. As then Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Reuters back then, Russian oil “is going to be selling at bargain prices and we’re happy to have India get that bargain, or Africa, or China. It’s fine.” Two years later, it stopped being fine, and now, under Trump, it is anything but fine, even as negotiations with Moscow on the fate of Ukraine continue.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

The Iraqi Megaproject No One Thought Would Happen Is Racing To Completion

By Simon Watkins - Feb 10, 2026

• TotalEnergies’ $27 billion four-part megaproject in Iraq is 80%–95% complete across key components, with officials saying it is ahead of schedule and could unlock major oil production gains.
• 
  
• The centerpiece Common Seawater Supply Project (CSSP) could enable Iraq to dramatically raise output by sustaining reservoir pressure at major southern fields.
• 
  
• The gas-capture element would cut Iraq’s dependence on Iranian gas, curb flaring, revive the stalled Nebras petrochemicals project, and reduce Tehran’s geopolitical leverage

Progress on the key elements in TotalEnergies’ US$27 billion four-pronged project that will define Iraq’s oil and gas sector in the years to come ranges from 80% to 95% complete, according to reports from the country’s Oil Ministry. This runs from 80% finished on the rehabilitation work on the first Central Processing Facility -- expected to double production capacity from 60,000 to 120,000 barrels per day (bpd) -- to 95% finalised on the Artawi-PS1 export pipeline project. Overall, a senior source who works very closely with the Ministry exclusively told OilPrice.com over the weekend: “It [TotalEnergies] is doing exactly what it said it would, ahead of time in several respects, as it has been allowed to get on with the projects with almost none of the usual government interference.” He added: “If the rest of the work continues like this, then we are looking at potentially enormous gains in oil production in a relatively short time.”

Indeed it is, as the key element of TotalEnergies’ four-part plan -- the Common Seawater Supply Project (CSSP), has long held out the promise that Iraq could finally deliver on its full hydrocarbons potential and become one of the world’s top three oil producers -- second perhaps to the U.S. As analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order, the CSSP involves taking and treating seawater from the Persian Gulf and then transporting it via pipelines to oil production facilities in order to maintain pressure in oil reservoirs, which will optimise the longevity and output of the fields. The basic plan for the CSSP is that it will be used initially to supply around six million bpd of water to at least five southern Basra fields and one in Maysan Province, and then extended for use in further fields. Both the longstanding stalwart Iraqi fields of Kirkuk and Rumaila – the former beginning production in the 1920s and the latter in the 1950s, with both having produced around 80% of the country’s cumulative oil production – require major ongoing water injection. The reservoir pressure at the former dropped significantly after output of only around 5% of the oil in place (OIP), while Rumaila produced more than 25% of its OIP before water injection was required, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). This was because Rumaila’s main reservoir formation connects to a very large natural aquifer that has helped to push the oil out of the reservoir.

To reach and then sustain Iraq’s future crude oil production targets over any meaningful period, Iraq will have total water injection needs equating to around 2% of the combined average flows of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers or 6% of their combined flow during the low season, according to IEA figures. While withdrawals at these levels might look manageable, these water sources also have to continue to satisfy other end-use sectors, including the enormous agricultural sector. Informative in terms of the potential timeline for the completion of the CSSP is the case of Saudi Aramco’s Qurayyah Seawater Plant Expansion. The 2 million bpd expansion of an existing facility took nearly four years from the awarding of the front-end engineering, pro­curement and design contract – in May 2005 – to the time that water first began to flow in early 2009.

Progress at the CSSP has been less straightforward, to put it mildly. It was delayed for over a decade, as the U.S.’s ExxonMobil and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) battled it out for control of the pivotal infrastructure project until the U.S. firm finally withdrew over mounting concerns over the lack of transparency across all areas of the project outside its direct control. These are alluded to in the reports around that time from the highly-respected independent non-governmental organisation Transparency International (TI) in its ‘Corruption Perceptions Index’. The publication described Iraq as being: “Among the worst countries on corruption and governance indicators, with corruption risks exacerbated by lack of experience in the public administration, weak capacity to absorb the influx of aid money, sectarian issues and lack of political will for anti-corruption efforts.” TI added: “Massive embezzlement, procurement scams, money laundering, oil smuggling and widespread bureaucratic bribery that have led the country to the bottom of international corruption rankings, fuelled political violence and hampered effective state-building and service delivery.” It concluded: “Political interference in anti-corruption bodies and politicization of corruption issues, weak civil society, insecurity, lack of resources and incomplete legal provisions severely limit the government’s capacity to efficiently curb soaring corruption.” Due to the terms of the contract, CNPC automatically found itself in the driving seat of the CSSP, but also made little progress, leaving the door open for TotalEnergies to secure the contract as part of the wider US$27 billion four-pronged deal.

Given the progress being made across this deal, the scope for oil output gains is huge, and was made plain back in 2013, in the Integrated National Energy Strategy (INES). This analysed in detail three realistic forward oil production profiles for Iraq and what each would involve, as also detailed in my latest book. Specifically, the INES’ best-case scenario was for crude oil production capacity to increase to 13 million bpd (at that point, by 2017), peaking at around that level until 2023, and finally gradually declining to around 10 million bpd for a long-sustained period thereafter. The mid-range production scenario was for Iraq to reach 9 million bpd (at that point, by 2020), and the worst-case INES scenario was for production to reach 6 million bpd (at that point, by 2020). These numbers compare to the current Iraqi production of 4-4.2 million bpd.

The gas component of TotalEnergies’ four-pronged deal can also be regarded as critical to its long-term future, in that it directly impacts its ability to end its dependence on Iran for gas imports and electricity for its power grid. This provided Iran with longstanding leverage over Iraq, which it used to enable it to continue to export its own oil around the world disguised as Iraqi oil, as analysed in full in my latest book. Tehran was also able to use this leverage to allow it to build out extensive military proxies across its neighbour and to expand the influence of the Shia Crescent of Power. This was further leveraged as part of Iran’s plan to build a ‘land bridge’ that would run via Iraq all the way to the Mediterranean coast, which would then be used by Tehran to increase arms shipments to its militant proxies for use against Israel.

The gas part of TotalEnergies’ megadeal involves the collection and refining of associated natural gas that is currently burned off at the five southern Iraq oilfields of West Qurna 2, Majnoon, Tuba, Luhais, and Artawi. Comments from Iraq’s Oil Ministry last year highlighted that the plant involved in this process is expected to produce 300 million cubic feet of gas per day (mcf/d) and double that after a second phase of development. Former Iraqi Oil Minister, Ihsan Abdul Jabbar, also stated last year that the gas produced from this second TotalEnergies project in the south would help Iraq to cut its gas imports from Iran. Moreover, successfully capturing associated gas rather than flaring it will also allow Iraq to revive the also long-stalled US$11-billion Nebras petrochemicals project, which could be completed within five years and would generate estimated profits of up to US$100 billion for Iraq within its 35-year initial contract period.

Looking ahead, there appears to be every chance that TotalEnergies’ US$27 billion four-pronged energy project will be completed around the initial target year of 2028, provided that the French energy giant continues to do what it is doing. One key element of this is continuing to resists any attempts by various elements of the Iraqi establishment to muscle in on the tantalisingly enormous sums of money involved in the project to make themselves richer, at the expense of the greater good of their country. A strong case in point was TotalEnergies’ point-blank refusal to accept any involvement in the megadeal of a re-established Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). Widely known in the West as one of the most corrupt organisations to operate in any field anywhere in the world ever, INOC’s proposed participation in some form or another in the four projects was quickly vetoed by the French energy giant ‘due to the lack of clarity on the legal status of the company’. Subsequently, in October 2022, Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court invalidated the decision to re-establish the Iraqi National Oil Company on the basis that several of its founding clauses were in breach of the constitution.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com 

How a Snow Deficit in the Alps Will Put Europe’s Energy System Under Pressure

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Feb 12, 2026

• Europe’s gas storage levels have fallen sharply this winter, with stocks projected to drop to around 26% by the end of March.
• 
  
• Below-average snowfall in the Alps could curb hydropower generation in Austria and Italy, increasing gas-fired power demand.
• 
  
• Record LNG imports, led by the United States and Qatar, are expected to help Europe rebuild storage despite rising demand and the phase-out of Russian gas.
• 
  

Europe’s gas demand could rise even higher at the end of this winter, making it even more challenging to refill storage that has been depleting at the fastest pace in years.        

So far into 2026, snowfall and snow coverage in the Alps, which feed a large part of the hydropower generation in Austria and northern Italy, have been well below average, Reuters columnist Gavin Maguire notes. 

With potentially lower hydropower generation, if snowfall continues to be scarce, gas consumption in the power sector could rise to make up for the gap, Maguire argues. 

Hydropower Decline? 

Reduced hydropower generation could hit Austria and Italy, where this electricity source makes up a large part of the mix.

In Austria, hydropower plants account for more than 60% of electricity output. If we add to this wind, biomass, and solar, renewable power generation in Austria makes up more than three-quarters of the country’s total electricity production. Austria’s last coal-fired power plant was shut in 2020.

In Italy, hydropower accounts for 12% of total power generation, which is still being led by gas-fired power plants.

So far in 2026, gas power generation has jumped by 24% in Italy and 17% in Austria, per data from LSEG cited by Reuters’ Maguire. 

Much lower than average snow coverage – if it persists – could complicate Europe’s efforts to refill gas storage sites this summer. 

This winter, gas storage sites in Europe are draining at the fastest pace in five years, amid below-average winter temperatures that are driving heating and power demand higher. The faster rate of depletion suggests stocks would end this winter at their lowest level since 2022.

EU gas storage sites were estimated to be just 35% full as of February 10, according to data from Gas Infrastructure Europe.

Analysts forecast that EU gas storage would be only about 26% full by the end of March, when the winter season officially ends. 

EU Set for Record Gas Demand

End-of-winter supply in storage at the lowest in four years means that Europe will need very high imports in the shoulder seasons and the summer to replenish the stocks to adequate levels of 80-90% full storage by November 2026, as per the EU regulations.  

U.S. LNG exports are set for a rebound following the weather-related disruptions during the winter storm Fern at the end of January. 

Moreover, global LNG supply is expected to remain abundant and even tilt into excess later this year as new export projects in the top exporters, the United States and Qatar, come on stream. 

Thankfully for Europe, this supply wave is expected to continue until at least 2029 as the U.S. and Qatar boost export capacities. 

Europe is expected to import a record-high volume of LNG this year as stronger demand for replenishing storage sites, the phase-out of Russian supply, and continued pipeline exports to Ukraine will drive increased demand, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its Gas Market Report Q1 2026 last month.

After setting a record in 2025, European LNG imports are poised to reach a new all-time high of over 185 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2026, the agency noted. 

Europe’s LNG imports hit a record-high of more than 175 bcm in 2025, surging by 30%, or by 40 bcm, from 2024, the report found. Key factors in the record imports were stronger domestic demand, lower piped gas imports, and higher storage injections in April-October. 

As a result of the jump in LNG imports, the share of LNG in Europe’s primary natural gas supply surged from 30% in 2024 to 38% in 2025, the IEA noted.

Most of the incremental LNG supply to Europe came from the United States, which boosted deliveries to Europe by 60% year over year. 

This year, the phase-out of Russian gas, which the EU member states agreed on in December, will create an additional market for non-Russian LNG suppliers to the EU, the agency said. 

LNG Supply Growth to Help Europe’s Storage Refill 

In the quarterly report, the IEA also pointed out that a surge in global LNG supply is expected to play a key role in rebalancing global gas markets in 2026, leading to stronger demand growth after a slowdown last year.

The jump in supply, mostly from North America, is expected to reduce market pressures at a time of heightened geopolitical uncertainty, the IEA said. 

Global LNG supply growth is set to accelerate in 2026 to more than 7%, its fastest pace since 2019, the agency said, echoing expectations from other forecasters.

The constant growth of solar and wind power generation in Europe could offset some gas demand in the power sector. But if hydropower output in central and southern Europe falters due to a lack of snow, the acceleration of LNG supply growth would be welcome news for the EU’s efforts to refill gas storage sites after the end of this winter. 

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Europe's Clean Energy Push Creates New Geopolitical Risks

By Haley Zaremba - Feb 12, 2026

• Europe's decades-long dependence on Russian energy is being replaced by new, compounding threats to sovereignty from the United States' energy dominance and China's technological monopoly.
• 
  
• The rapid expansion of renewable resources and increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. have created new risks, including strain on power grids and potential systemic risk from the U.S. using energy for leverage.
• 
  
• To pursue energy independence, European leaders are intensifying the development of large-scale offshore wind projects in the North Sea to create a multi-nation connected grid.
• 
  

Europe is still suffering from the consequences of its decadeslong dependence on Russian energy imports. But as the bloc continues to wean itself off of Russian oil and gas, Europe is facing new and compounding energy dependence threats from the United States and China. European policymakers are in a tough spot, literally and figuratively sandwiched between a massive and high-stakes battle for global energy supremacy. 

When Russia illegally invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, Europe as a whole depended on the Russian producers for 40 percent of its natural gas. Setting and following sanctions on Russian energy and finding more reliable and responsible supply chains over the last four years has not been easy. Only last week, European leaders finally agreed to end imports of Russian gas to the bloc – but that total ban still won’t take effect until next year.

In the wake of these overnight embargoes on Russian energy, Europe has scrambled to intensify buildout of renewable resources. But this rapid expansion has led to major hiccups in the continent’s energy security, placing major strain on power grids and causing extreme volatility in electricity prices. To fill these gaps and shore up energy security over the past few years, Europe has eagerly increased its imports of liquefied natural gas from the United States. But now that decision, too, is seeming increasingly risky for European sovereignty and resilience. 

“Europe’s energy security is being redrawn by shifting global power plays – from America’s energy dominance to China’s technological monopoly,” the German Council on Foreign Relations warned in a memo published earlier this week. “Once considered tools of cooperation, energy resources and technologies are again being used for leverage.”

In general, global geopolitics are trending toward an era of protectionism and nationalist policy, with potentially disastrous results for net energy importers. And Europe, which has clung to a free-trade ethos, is at risk of being caught in the crossfire between the United States and China as the world’s two biggest economies pull in opposite directions – one toward being the world’s first electrostate and the other toward petro-dominance. And both want to ensure that the entire world follows suit. 

While the United States was once considered a safe lifeline away from the tyrannical and unstable energy powers of Russia and China, experts contend that those dynamics are rapidly changing. The Council expresses genuine concern that the United States will now do anything to ensure its own energy dominance – including but not limited to the aggressive annexation of Greenland – without a second thought for its European alliances. But the alternative, cozying up to China, isn’t sounding so great either. 

As a result, the Council contends that “Germany should begin to consider US energy dominance, alongside Russian fossil statecraft and Chinese technological consolidation, as a potential systemic risk.”

Trump’s aggression toward Greenland, in particular, has been a major pivot point for European leadership, pushing the continent to pursue energy independence with renewed vigor. Accordingly, nine countries with stakes in the North Sea have doubled down on the development of large-scale offshore wind projects that would include the development of a grid connected to multiple European nations. 

While this new agreement is focused on strengthening Europe’s energy independence, leaders say that it doesn’t signal a desire to end trade relations with the United States. EU energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen has said: “We are not against trading with the US — on the contrary. But we are of course aware — and this goes for all countries, not only the US — that we are not aiming at replacing one dependency with a new dependency. We want to grow our own energy and our strategy in the future is to become free of gas.”

In the meantime, Europe is also keen to develop more diverse suppliers and “mutually beneficial energy partnerships with like-minded partners eager to avoid asymmetrical and transactional dependencies,” according to the German Council on Foreign Relations. 

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com