This morning, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the EU’s sixth ‘sanctions package’ against Russia. The proposed measures include banning Russian media from broadcasting in Europe and disconnecting more Russian banks from the SWIFT payment system.
However, by the far the most consequential measure announced was a complete embargo on Russian oil.
“We will make sure,” von der Leyen explained, “that we phase out Russian oil in an orderly fashion.” Specifically, crude oil imports are to be phased out “within six months”, while imports of refined products will stop “by the end of the year” – so that’s the end of October for crude oil and the end of December for refined products.
Although von der Leyen didn’t mention any exemptions, an “EU source” told Reuters that Hungary and Slovakia – two countries that are heavily dependent on Russian oil – will have until the end of 2023 to phase out imports. (Slovakia currently gets 96% of its crude oil from Russia.)
Does this far-reaching policy make sense? Perhaps. But there are several potential downsides that need to be factored in.
First, given the proposed timeframe, it won’t have much impact on the war itself – unless the fighting continues past the end of 2022. In my podcast debate with Konstantin Kisin, he argued the only realistic goal for sanctions is reducing Russia’s capacity to wage war (prompting a withdrawal or fomenting regime change simply aren’t on the cards.)
So even if you believe sanctions are the right approach (something of which I’m sceptical), an embargo that’s phased in over six to eight months isn’t going to have much impact.
The stated reasons for this extended timeframe were twofold: allowing EU countries to “secure alternative supply routes”, and minimising “the impact on the global market” (i.e., making sure the price of oil doesn’t skyrocket). Of course, by the same token, it leaves Russia with plenty of time to find alternative buyers.
Second, in the short-term – and perhaps the medium-term as well – Europeans will have to pay more for oil. As von der Leyen herself noted, “it will not be easy”. Even if phasing in the embargo reduces “the impact on the global market”, it won’t eliminate that impact entirely; the price of oil is still going to rise.
As a result, until the EU phases out Russian oil completely, it will be sending Russia more money per barrel. So in the short term, Russia may not be any worse-off: it will be selling fewer units of oil at a higher per-unit cost. (Even the BBC’s economics correspondent acknowledged this.)
Third, it’s not clear that alternative suppliers of oil are any more ‘moral’ than Russia – as I argued in a recent article. If the EU buys less oil from Russia, it’s going to have to buy more from Saudi Arabia – a country that’s been bombing Yemen for the last seven years. (More than 8,600 civilians have been killed in Saudi air strikes.)
Nobody has yet explained why it’s unacceptable to fund ‘Russia’s war machine’ but it is acceptable to fund ‘Saudi Arabia’s war machine’.
And just as the EU’s dependence on Russian oil has given Russia sway in Europe, so being dependent on Middle Eastern oil will give the Middle East more influence over European affairs. Is being beholden to the gulf monarchies so much better than being beholden to Russia?
As with arming Ukraine, halting imports of Russian oil may be the right approach. But there needs to be a substantive debate before von der Leyen’s proposals become law.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Courts seem to exist primarily to provide income for the legal profession and satisfaction to the political profession.
With the summary provided it is difficult to understand why Simberg should only have been fined $1,000 in comparison to Steyn’s $1 million.
If Mann’s lawyers intentionally deceived the court, have they been arrested? Has Mann been charged with perjury?
Good luck to Mark Steyn and I hope he gets all his legal costs back, and more, and that his health steadily improves.
Courts seem to exist primarily to provide income for the legal profession.
I recall the tale of the 2 lawyers in a case concerning a contested will. Bumping into each other in the court’s toilets, one of them said: “Let’s spin this out for a few more weeks; after all, if we settle now, the money will only be frittered away by the beneficiaries”
That was exactly the case with my late grandfather’s estate. He had intended to leave equal provision to his stepson, son, and daughter, but the daughter chose to dispute her step-brother’s entitlement to an equal share. The case rumbled on, to no-one’s benefit other than the lawyers, with the legal costs being deducted from an already modest estate.
My daughter is a lawyer. I had hoped she would pursue something more honourable such as used car salesman, traffic warden or pole dancer – but no such luck.
Or estate agent?
I once saw a painting of two farmers arguing over a cow, one pulling at its horns, the other at its tail, with a lawyer sitting on a stool between them milking it. Sums them up.
Good news.
Mark Steyn one of life’s most intelligent Good Guys
This case should now start to crumble the rest of project Climate fear !!
The Climate Con. Mann is no scientist. To rephrase what the judge wrote – Mann is a liar and a charlatan.
Steyn was taken to court, not on the ‘science’, but in comparing Mann to a child predator. The case had zero to do with ‘science’.
That Mann lied is of no surprise at all. That seems to be what ‘the science’ is – an industry of liars, thieves, self promoters, totalitarians and self worshippers.
TheScience™
Roger Pielke Jr, The Honest Broker’s take…
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/in-bad-faith
“…A Washington DC court sanctions climate scientist Michael Mann and his lawyers for misconduct extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.”
New administration in Washington, new verdict. Justice seen to be done.
The times they are a changin’.
Even back in the 17C the approval of the legal profession was not high. I present Dick the Butcher from Henry VI Part II who advised, “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers”. A tad extreme, I agree, but a useful first step in the general push to improve our society.
Agreed. Also to note that in Shakespeare’s time, “lawyers” meant lawmakers, i.e. politicians.
Are lawyers over-represented in the UK House of Commons, at the expense of engineers and scientists? Judging from the “debate” over the Climate Change Bill, I would not be surprised if some backbencher were to introduce a Bill To Repeal The Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to Save The Planet. (As today is International π Day, we could reflect on the 1897 attempt in Indiana to “adjust” the values of π.)
And he also blocked Steyn on X when he got news of the 5K fine, reduced from around 1 million.
Protestors storm the BBC amid anger over funding to Syria, with the persecution and murder of Christians and other minorities like the Alawites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cd0sFtooj8
Mann said “….. research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled”.
He hit the nail on the head but not in the way he intended.
One of the funniest distortions was when Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down (the age of some lake sediments went the wrong way). That is, owing to a silly slip, a slide was presented upside down at some conference of The Climate Faithful, yet the obvious blunder was downplayed. The joke is easily understood by non climate scientists. Perhaps Macavity Mann has finally been nailed to the crime scene!
Apperently there is no comment from Gavin Schmitt on his Real Climate blog which was one of Mann’s cheerleaders.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Perhaps he’s writing a detailed explanation of why he supported a lemon.
It would seem that Mann is a serial liar. I’ve just checked the Guardian and can’t find anything about this, however I did quickly find an article there about Mann winning the original $1m. They mention the hockey stick but nothing about it being discredited.
Perhaps an aspiring poet could pen something on deniers v liars in the style of The Great McGonagall.
The image of Michael Mann makes my foot itch.
Perhaps now we will see an end to Mann made climate change.
I wouldn’t be so sure. The Minnesotans thought the Mann era was over in 2011, yet he’s still around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Here is some commentary on the original Mann defamation claim. https://junkscience.com/michael-mann-defamed-or-defined-by-hide-the-decline/
There is far more behind this article than a defamation suit. One starting point might be YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World – and its part in Mann’s downfall.