1) the capacity should exist for the EU to be energy independent
2) capacity that cannot be attained need not be supplied by only a single source
3) peaceful countries exist in great amounts but we would consider them either too far to be serviceable without impact to the planet (importing/shipping fuel from Australia or the USA); or we would consider ourselves to be exploiting people (Africa).
It's not that I care, but you should be downvoting spam, not people who have different takes. I'm also puzzled how is it a strawman if I was quoting it.
> 1) the capacity should exist for the EU to be energy independent
Please show it then and I'll go to Brussels myself and inform them about it.
> 2) capacity that cannot be attained need not be supplied by only a single source
Maybe instead of downvoting, you should read things first, I used plural 'countries'.
> 3) peaceful countries exist in great amounts but we would consider them either too far to be serviceable without impact to the planet
I'm sure there is also plenty of gas in the Solar system, yet somehow it might as well not exist from our point of view.
> the USA
I said peaceful, countries that are constantly at war with other countries don't count as peaceful.
> or we would consider ourselves to be exploiting people (Africa).
The reason Europe does not buy gas from Africa is because of wars and high terrorism, it would be a nightmare to secure it, even in the Baltic terrorists can blow pipelines up. I also find it curious that you would consider buying energy from Africa exploitation.
1) the capacity should exist for the EU to be energy independent
2) capacity that cannot be attained need not be supplied by only a single source
3) peaceful countries exist in great amounts but we would consider them either too far to be serviceable without impact to the planet (importing/shipping fuel from Australia or the USA); or we would consider ourselves to be exploiting people (Africa).