In the European Union section, two policy options stand out. One is timid and allows Europe to be reasonably sure of success if it plays it safe and seeks self-sufficiency. The other is more bold but it has the potential of establishing Europe as a leader in twenty-first century energy.

The objectives of the two options are the same — achieve energy independence (especially of Russia), reduce costs and protect the environment. The way to get there can be very different though.

Marinko Bobic, Lorenzo Nannetti and Ralph Schoellhammer were the main contributors to the “Play It Safe” option. They write that Europe should invest in clean energy sources and shale gas while implementing policies aimed at energy conservation. “Investing in environmentally friendly technology may provide a chance for countries such as Spain and Greece to grow out of their financial problems in the mid to long term,” they add.

It will be an expensive undertaking for governments though. “Benefits would only be felt in the long term.” If shale proves to be shallow, the continent has only proven green energy, including wind, at its disposal (environmentalists would oppose more nuclear) which is heavily subsidized. In the worst case, the authors point out, it would drive Europe back into Russia’s arms.

Gabor Bolgar and Daniel Kowalski, both Wikistrat researchers, have an alternative: “Playing Catch up.” They point out that Europe has shale gas reserves that are as large as America’s but that European fracking technology is outdated. “By attracting foreign capital and expertise, the European Union can speed up its learning curve,” they write. “Investors will be attracted by significantly higher gas prices in Europe, if EU regulations allow their operations.”

I’m instinctively drawn to this option because it relies on markets not government. Unfortunately, the majority of the European populace doesn’t share my enthusiasm for market forces so, “key for a European fracking boom is to convince the public that potential economic gains outweigh environmental concerns.” Good luck!

France has already banned fracking. Eastern European countries including Poland the Ukraine are leading the way which isn’t surprising given their reliance on Russian gas imports.

If Russia loses this critical wedge, “it may become more antagonistic toward Europe and turn to other means in order to stop it from becoming insignificant,” write Bolgar and Kowalski.

They’re also worried that because the process of harmonizing regulation across the European Union is so protracted, “investors might be hesitating given different regulations in different countries.” I’m not convinced. Regulatory competition between countries is a good thing. There’s a role for the EU if projects cross borders but national governments should be quite capable of keeping out of the way.

In Russia today, it’s also the downtrodden that are attracted the ideologies — communism and nationalism — that promise a return to the good old days that really weren’t. Putin tells them that economic integration across the former Soviet empire is the solution. He champions freer trade and economic modernization. This, he says, will curb migration from neighboring states and improve the lot of ordinary Russians at the same time.

He’s probably right but it sounds an awful lot like the europhile promises of politicians who see the duel specter of populism and protectionism rise in Europe at a time of crisis. They’re not succeeding and probably won’t until the continent experiences growth and prosperity again.

Click here to read the whole thing.

Barely half a day into the simulation, some interesting scenarios have already been raised. Among them, “Mexico takes the lead in North America’s fracking boom.” Did you know Mexico is estimated to posses the fourth largest shale gas resources in the world? James Bosworth, who’s a Wikistrat Contributing Analyst, did and he suggests that if there isn’t the political will to push ahead with shale gas exploitation in the United States, Mexican imports could prove a win-win for both. America gets the energy it needs while avoiding the immediate environmental consequences; Mexico takes the business.

South of the border, there may be less popular resistance to unorthodox energy production but up north, there is considerable opposition to tar sand exploitation.

Teale Phelps Bondaroff, who is another Contributing Analyst with Wikistrat and specialized in radical and terrorist movements, predicts that the opposition in Canada will not be able to outweigh the industrial lobby though. “Many of these groups are disorganized and ad hoc and often criticized for advocating ‘not in my back yard’ issues,” he writes.

That may be true but I do think they have an impact. Consider President Barack Obama’s recent refusal to permit construction of the Keystone XL pipeline which would have carried oil from the Alberta tar sands to Houston, Texas. Part of that may have been to call the Republicans’ bluff for the heck of it but he is pouring billions into subsidies for solar and wind energy at the same time. Who knows? I may get to see a scenario about that, too!

Social issues were a big item in the most recent ABC News debate as well where Governor Mitt Romney was asked whether he’d allow states to ban contraception. Is this an issue? Are there any states planning to ban contraception? Not really, unless if you’re very suspicious of pro-life legislation.

In any event, these aren’t the issues that voters list as their priorities for the next election. They care about jobs, the deficit, regulation. Why are ABC and CNN trying to make this about personal and social issues? I understand they’re hoping for a bit of sensation during their debates but millions of people are watching anyway! The audiences who show up to watch these debates live certainly don’t seem very appreciative of this line of questioning.

And then they have commentators on air complaining about how Republicans like to talk about social issues so much! They don’t. (Except Rick Santorum.) The media does.