Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Saviour or Villain?: Natural gas and the fear of energy shortage in Sweden 1967-1991
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, History of Science, Technology and Environment.
2013 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The Nord Stream pipeline, inaugurated in 2011, stretches from Russia through the Baltic Sea down to German shores providing Western Europe with one more import route for natural gas from Russia. The decision by the Swedish government to allow this Russian-German pipeline to pass over Swedish sea territory was lively debated and this debate can be said to have highlighted Swedish (mostly negative) attitudes towards its great eastern neighbour as well as toward natural gas as an energy resource. Some have claimed that the reason for Sweden’s negative view of the pipeline project has to do with a lingering Swedish fear of the Russians, a heritage from the Swedish-Russian wars in the 16th and 17th centuries (Savic, 2012). The Swedish relation to both natural gas and to Russia/the Soviet Union, however, is quite a complicated one deserving to be examined more closely.

During more than 20 years, between 1967 and 1991 Swedish actors tried in different ways to secure a natural gas import contract with the Soviet Union. At that time, the fear was not so much the Russians as the possibility of energy shortage found at the core of much energy policy in the 20th century. Alongside this fear of energy shortage was a fear of entering into a strong energy dependence. Natural gas was one way to counter the energy shortage, but it was also a particularly risky energy source, since the material and organisational structure of a gas pipeline leads to a quite rigid, long term commitment.

In this context, natural gas was pointed out as both savior and villain, and in my paper I will examine how the actors navigated between these two extremes. Was natural gas as an energy source considered more risky than other sources? Were certain actors considered more dangerous to enter into agreement with than others? How did these attitudes change over time? Exploring the actors’ hopes and fears in regards to natural gas, as well as the contexts that shaped them, might shed a different light on Swedish energy policy in the end of the 20th century as well as on the view of Swedish-Soviet relations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013.
National Category
History of Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-137185OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-137185DiVA: diva2:678174
Conference
ESEH 2013 Circulating Natures: Water-Food-Energy; Seventh Biennial Conference of the European Society for Environmental History, August 21 – 24 Munich, Germany
Note

QC 20140203

Available from: 2013-12-11 Created: 2013-12-11 Last updated: 2014-02-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Åberg, Anna
By organisation
History of Science, Technology and Environment
History of Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 102 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf