Europe’s Green Transition Can Do More Than Cut Fossil Fuel Imports

Europe’s energy transition is also a question of security: how can a continent exposed to decisions made elsewhere strengthen its capacity to shape its own future?

The answer cannot be reduced to replacing imported fuels with domestic renewable electricity, although that is an important part of it. Security also depends on infrastructure, industrial capabilities, institutions and the knowledge needed to make informed choices.

At the IEP Bocconi Annual Event, our panel will explore what it means to build security from within, and how climate policy can contribute to that objective while keeping energy affordable and maintaining public support throughout a demanding process of economic transformation.

Autonomy and Self-Sufficiency

A useful starting point is to distinguish autonomy from self-sufficiency.

Europe does not need to produce everything it consumes to exercise meaningful control over its energy future. Nor would withdrawing from international exchange necessarily make it more resilient.

The relevant question is which dependencies are manageable, which create unacceptable vulnerabilities, and which forms of cooperation expand Europe’s options. Diversification matters, but so do the ability to substitute technologies, maintain infrastructure, respond to disruptions and negotiate with suppliers.

Strategic autonomy should therefore be understood as the capacity to make and sustain choices, including under conditions that Europe cannot determine for itself.

This distinction is particularly important when comparing fossil fuels with clean technologies. Dependence on a continuous flow of imported fuel differs from dependence on imported equipment that, once installed, can generate electricity for years.

Both can create vulnerabilities, but their implications for security are not identical. The challenge for policymakers is to identify where a disruption would cause lasting damage, and where stockpiles, recycling, alternative suppliers or technological innovation could provide a credible response.

Yet the transition will not strengthen security simply because its technologies offer that possibility. Its benefits depend on the systems into which those technologies are introduced.

Electricity networks, storage, demand flexibility and connections across borders influence whether additional renewable generation translates into reliable and affordable supply. So do permitting procedures, market rules and the coordination of investment.

This raises a practical question for the panel: where are the constraints that most urgently require collective action? Answering it means looking beyond individual projects to the institutions and incentives that determine whether the energy system functions coherently as a whole over time.

The Costs of the Transition

A second question concerns the distribution of costs and benefits. A transition that improves aggregate security can still leave particular households, communities or firms facing higher costs and greater uncertainty.

Those differences cannot be dismissed as temporary obstacles to an otherwise desirable outcome. They shape political support and the credibility of long-term commitments.

If people cannot access cleaner technologies, finance improvements to their homes or understand how policies affect their bills, promises of future benefits may carry little weight. Affordability and participation must therefore be part of the transition design, rather than measures added after resistance has emerged.

Industrial policy presents a related challenge. Supporting European capabilities may be justified where they contribute to innovation, resilience or the ability to deploy and maintain essential technologies. But domestic production is not automatically a good use of public resources, and protection can raise the cost of decarbonisation.

The difficult task is to distinguish strategic investment from support that preserves uncompetitive activities without delivering wider benefits. Which capabilities must Europe retain, which should it develop with partners, and where should it rely on competitive international markets? Clear objectives and mechanisms for reviewing results are essential if these choices are to remain credible.

Underlying these questions is a less visible requirement: a broader and more widely distributed base of knowledge.

A shared understanding of energy issues is itself a resource for security. Citizens need to be able to assess claims about costs, reliability and dependence, and to understand the choices that affect their bills and communities.

This does not require everyone to become an energy expert. It requires accessible information, basic familiarity with how energy systems work, and a public debate that makes trade-offs explicit. Without that foundation, even sound policies can struggle to gain support, while misleading promises can escape scrutiny.

This knowledge must also extend across the institutions responsible for shaping the transition. Public administrations need the expertise to evaluate proposals, local authorities to plan infrastructure, and elected representatives to scrutinise decisions whose consequences will last for decades.

Where commercial interests or international partners’ priorities diverge from public objectives, the capacity to assess evidence independently becomes particularly valuable. Investing in education, public expertise and transparent information therefore strengthens Europe’s ability both to plan ahead and to build democratic support for its choices.

The central issue for our discussion is therefore how to turn the energy transition into a durable capacity for collective action. What combination of investment, cooperation and institutional development would give Europe greater freedom to pursue its climate and security objectives? And how can that freedom be made tangible for the people whose support the transition requires?

Building security from within should mean strengthening the material, intellectual and democratic foundations of European choices. The measure of success is not simply fewer imports, but a greater ability to respond to disruption, distribute opportunities and sustain a credible direction through changing circumstances.

IEP Bocconi does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

If you want to stay up-to-date with the initiative of the Institute for European Policymaking@Bocconi University, subscribe to our monthly NEWSLETTER here.