The theme of energy security has become an important subject for diplomacy, and a serious analysis of energy security must start from the reality that energy has several dimensions. Paul Kennedy specified in his work entitled The rise and fall of the great powers, as early as 1987, that the “four A’s”: availability, accessibility, affordability and economic and social acceptability. In the specialized literature we often encounter references to these dimensions of energy security, which unequivocally indicates that it cannot be reduced to the simple existence of the resource.
Availability takes into account the access that a state has to oil, gas, electricity, or other forms of energy, to the physical existence of energy resources. When we refer to accessibility, we refer to the real possibility of reaching those resources through infrastructures, pipelines, LNG terminals, interconnections, electrical networks, ports, maritime routes, etc. Even if a state has resources, if it does not have the necessary infrastructure, they cannot be used efficiently. Affordability is also of equal importance, which can create social instability if it is very high, which was observed in the energy price crisis in Europe. High bills affect households, companies and public budgets, which indicates the social dimension of energy security, because it is not enough for energy to exist, it must be accessible to the population and the economy.
Last but not least, another dimension of energy security is economic and/or social acceptability, which has become increasingly important in the context of climate change. An energy source can be secure in terms of supply, but environmentally problematic, such as coal, which can provide autonomy to some states, but produces high emissions and environmental costs. Nuclear energy also produces low carbon emissions, but raises issues related to safety, waste and public acceptance, and renewables are clean, but depend on weather conditions and the ability of networks to integrate variable production.
From the above, it can be concluded that there is no perfect energy source, which is where one of the central tensions of contemporary energy security arises. Each option has advantages and vulnerabilities. Oil is energy dense and easy to transport, but geopolitically sensitive. Gas is flexible and less polluting than coal, but creates dependencies on pipelines and suppliers. Renewable energy reduces dependence on fossil fuels, but introduces storage, grid and raw material problems. Nuclear energy offers stability, but requires large investments, long construction times and public trust.
Given the several arguments presented, it follows that energy security cannot be achieved through a single solution, it depends on the capacity of a state to ensure a balanced energy mix, resilient infrastructures, to create coherent public policies and to anticipate crises. Realistically, energy security is more a management of vulnerabilities than a perfect state.
Few are those states that can ensure their energy mix from their own resources. That is why international negotiations play an essential role in identifying dialogue partners, an area in which diplomacy has the open field to perform, being a fundamental instrument for promoting foreign policy. On the other hand, foreign policy is the result of internal negotiations between state institutions, their needs and interests, which must have as their main objective the national interest, and in this case energy security.
The concept also has a series of limits and ambiguities, and ensuring the energy security of a state requires the inclusion of the theme as an essential objective of state policies, both in domestic and foreign policy.
In its evolution, the concept of energy security has diversified its semantics, reaching the point where, depending on the actor using it, it can have multiple valences. In this sense, the same measure may be justified simultaneously by economic, climatic, geopolitical and social arguments, all of which are included under the label of energy security. the concept risks no longer being a well-defined category, but rather a very flexible political instrument rather than a clearly defined category.
For example, one government may support the exploitation of natural gas invoking the need for energy independence, while another may argue exactly the opposite and may present the abandonment of fossil fuels as a condition for long-term security. A similar logic can be found in the case of nuclear energy, which is considered by some states as a strategic solution for stability and emission reduction, while other states view it as a vulnerability related to safety, costs and radioactive waste.
These multiple valences explain why energy debates become very quickly politicized. The way a country’s energy security is ensured simultaneously influences its economy, standard of living, industrial competitiveness and foreign policy. When energy crises occur, almost any government decision becomes controversial. This is very clearly seen in Europe in recent years, where discussions about price caps, subsidies, nuclear energy or the phasing out of coal have produced considerable political and social tensions.
In an objective analysis, the gap between discourse and reality must also be taken into account. Energy independence is almost impossible to achieve, as the ever-deepening interdependencies cannot be completely eliminated. Today, very few modern economies can function completely in energy isolation. Even countries that produce large amounts of energy depend on critical technologies, infrastructure, external markets or raw materials. This is precisely why the idea of total energy independence is often more of a political slogan than a realistic goal.
Another critical aspect concerns the relationship between energy security and the free market. In recent decades, there has been a belief that globalized energy markets will automatically produce stability and efficiency, but recent crises have shown that strictly economic logic is not enough in the energy sector. States have intervened massively in the economy through subsidies, price interventions, support schemes and strategic investments. In practice, energy has once again become a state issue, not just a market issue.
However, the ultimate beneficiary of energy security, which is the population, should not be eliminated from the analysis. In reality, for many people, energy insecurity means exorbitant bills, insufficiently heated homes (to save money) or social vulnerability. For this reason, the concept should be discussed more in connection with the problem of poverty, and not only in geopolitical or strategic terms.
Digital infrastructure is increasingly present in all economic and social sectors, including those that ensure modern energy security. Electricity grids, pipelines, power plants and distribution systems are increasingly dependent on information technologies and automated systems. This reality creates new vulnerabilities, especially in the face of cyber-attacks. In recent years, there have been multiple warnings about the possibility of attacks on critical energy infrastructures, and many states already treat cybersecurity as an integral part of energy security.
Contradictions frequently arise between the current dimensions of the concept of Energy Security. An economically advantageous solution can create strategic vulnerabilities. A beneficial measure for the climate can produce high social costs. A policy oriented towards autonomy can affect economic competitiveness. Therefore, energy security cannot be reduced to a simple formula or a single political direction.
In conclusion, one of the greatest challenges of the future will be precisely the simultaneous management of all these dimensions: geopolitical, economic, technological, social and climatic.
