It's Pollinator Week! All gifts will be matched $2-to-$1 — this week only!


DONATE NOW

x
DONATE

Blog Categories: climate crisis

How Europe Can Rapidly Reduce Methane Emissions and Phase Out Fossil Fuels

Categories

Fossil Fuels

READ THE MANIFESTO (FULL VERSION HERE | SUMMARY VERSION HERE) AND SIGN NOW!

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is having a dramatic impact on the lives of millions, exacerbating the energy price crisis and the energy precarity problem for households across Europe.

However, Europe’s attempts to help end the war by weaning itself off Russian energy imports must not contradict the necessary and urgent need to transition away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels. In this context, the European Commission’s REPowerEU plan fails to effectively break with dirty energy sources of the past and risks overlooking the powerful role that methane emissions play in exacerbating climate change.

Fossil fuel emissions are responsible for global warming, and methane along with carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are cooking our planet, and our home, to above melting point.

Methane, in particular, has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) that is 84-86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. It is the main component of fossil gas and its concentration in the atmosphere is nearly three times greater than pre-industrial levels. In 2021 alone, energy-related methane emissions rose globally by nearly 5% and it is totally our fault!

To keep global heating below 1.5°C, in line with the Paris Agreement, slashing methane emissions in the short-term is vital but is not enough. Addressing methane emissions does not make fossil gas and oil clean, and it must not divert from a long-term target that phases out fossil fuels altogether.

This is why we call on decision-makers to drastically improve the European Commission’s Methane Regulation proposal in order to deliver a fossil free European Union by 2035 at the latest. The Regulation must include a reference to the implementation of clear and concrete plans to phase-out fossil fuels, as expressly asked by the European Parliament in its INI Report on the EU Methane Strategy. The plans must take into account national circumstances, raising ambition where possible and be transposed into national climate strategies as well as explicitly recalled in other legislative proposals to deliver a methane emissions reduction at the root source.

The Methane Manifesto is now open for signatures by individuals, civil society organizations, national and European decision-makers, scientists and academics(check the button below). Show us your support and help us spread the word! 

Sign the Manifesto

LNG – Der Flüssige Weg ins Klimachaos

Categories

Fossil Fuels

 

Hier geht’s zum LNG-Papier (Deutsch).

‘Liquefied Natural Gas’ (LNG) – Flüssigerdgas steht im Rampenlicht. Die Kosten für fossiles Gas steigen seit 2021 und die furchtbare Invasion der Ukraine durch russische Streitkräfte zwingt Regierungen sich mit der Frage zu befassen, wie die Abhängigkeit Europas von fossilen Energieträgern aus Russland beendet werden kann. Zusammen mit der Notwendigkeit so schnell wie möglich von fossilen Brennstoffen wegzukommen, um die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels zu begrenzen und die globale Erwärmung unter 1,5°C zu halten, haben diese Realitäten Aufregung um LNG erzeugt. Was jedoch ist LNG und warum ist es wichtig? Das vorliegende Papier ist als Warnung davor zu verstehen, was die Ausbreitung von LNG als vermeintliche Lösung für Fragen der Energiesicherheit in Europa anrichten könnte. Es wird zehn Hauptargumente anführen, die die zahlreichen Probleme aufzeigen, die LNG mit sich bringt.

Lesen Sie hier das LNG-Papier auf Deutsch

MEPs fail to end Europe’s fossil fuel dependency, locking Europe into further gas volatility

Categories

Fossil Fuels

BRUSSELS, 9TH MARCH 2022 – Today, Members of the European Parliament voted to approve a list of priority energy projects, including 30 cross-border gas mega projects

Most MEPs voted in favour of the so-called fifth Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list, giving the 30 cross-border gas infrastructure projects faster permitting procedures and the opportunity to access EU public funds [1].  

Eilidh Robb, Fossil Fuel Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe commented: 

“Today MEPs have voted to pour yet more public money into fossil fuel infrastructure that will lock households into a dirty energy system that people and planet simply cannot afford.  Parliamentarians have failed to break the cycle of destruction and to speed-up the transition we desperately need away from fossil fuels and to warm homes and clean, secure, renewable energy.”

Frida Kieninger, Director of EU Affairs at Food & Water Action Europe states: 

“The dark times we live in show clearer than ever that Europe’s fossil fuel dependence brings harm, energy poverty and insecurity. The answer to this must not be creating more fossil gas dependence through 30 massive fossil gas pipelines and LNG projects worth €13 billion. The answer must be putting all possible support behind 100% renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

***

Notes to Editor: 

Please note that MEPs were asked whether or not they wanted to vote in support of the motion of rejection, or against the motion of rejection.This means that a + vote is a vote to reject the 5th PCI list and a – is a vote to accept the 5th PCI list as it stands.

 

[1] 5th PCI List Plenary Vote Resolution B9-0137/2022: 696 total votes, 497 against the motion for rejection, 177 in support of the motion for rejection, 22 abstained. 

4th PCI List Plenary Vote Resolution B9-0091/2020: 648 total votes, 443 against the motion for rejection, 169 in support of the motion for rejection, 36 abstained. 

 

Relevant Links: 

Motion for Rejection of 5th PCI List 

5th Projects of Common Interest List 

FAQ on Rejecting the 5th PCI List

 

Contact:
Eilidh Robb (EN) +32 (0) 493 93 50 79, [email protected]

Frida Kieninger (EN, DE, ES, FR) +32 (0) 487 24 99 05, [email protected] 

EU COMMISSION SLAMMED FOR BACKING GAS MEGAPROJECTS DURING COP26

Categories

Fossil Fuels

New list of 30 priority energy projects worth €13 billion a danger to climate and people say NGOs

***

Brussels, 10 November 2021 – Environmentalists have slammed as “dangerous and dirty” a European Commission decision, due to be presented to MEPs tomorrow, to back 30 fossil gas mega-projects worth €13 billion.[1] Even as international climate talks continue in Glasgow – where Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said “it is our duty to act now” – the new edition of the Commission’s list of priority energy infrastructure developments sees EU backing given to mega-projects that lock Europe into fossil fuel dependency and exacerbate climate change.[2]

This fifth edition of the “projects of common interest” (PCI) list lends EU support to controversial gas projects like the EastMed pipeline, the Baltic Pipe, Gdansk LNG, and the Cyprus2EU LNG terminal. Projects featured on the list gain fast-track permitting privileges and the opportunity to receive EU funding via its Connecting Europe Facility.

The Commission had promised to deliver a list in line with the European Green Deal with less room for gas projects. Yet rather than stopping subsidies for fossil fuels, this fresh list will see renewed support and taxpayers’ money given to unnecessary and climate-damaging fossil fuels for the next two years and potentially much longer.[3]

The list also comes as Europe faces a gas price crisis, caused in part by over-reliance on unreliable gas, which is expected to tip millions of people into fuel poverty this winter.[4]

Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said:
“This list is a dangerous and dirty disgrace. Continuing to back fossil gas is completely out of step with the reality of the climate emergency already devastating lives around the world. Gas is holding people hostage to fuel poverty this winter – building yet more gas pipelines will only exacerbate the problem. Billions of euros have already been wasted when this cash is needed now for rolling out clean, renewable solutions and efficient warm buildings.”[5]

The PCI list process has been challenged by NGOs as lacking in transparency – with multiple EU Ombudsman enquiries [6] questioning the Commission’s decision making process, and an influential role for gas transmission companies in drawing up the list.[7]

Frida Kieninger, campaign officer at Food & Water Action said:
“We’re in the middle of a gas crisis and UN climate talks, yet the Commission’s ‘priority’ today is to increase reliance on fossil gas! These mega gas projects serve the interests of fossil fuel corporations, not the common interest of Europeans. The whole process has lacked transparency and independent oversight, with the fossil fuel industry even given a core role in the decision.”

Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Action Europe are calling on the European Parliament to reject this list of gas projects. They call on the Parliament and Council to deliver a revised Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) regulation – the EU law that governs the PCI list – that is free from fossil fuels.[8] And they call for a firewall to prevent fossil fuel lobbyists influencing climate decision-making.

Frida Kieninger continued:
“The next energy infrastructure law needs to finally end support for fossil fuel projects and remove fossil lobbyists from the privileged role they currently enjoy.”

***

For more information, contact:

Frida Kieninger, senior campaigner, Food & Water Action Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)487 249 905

Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)489 598984

Robbie Blake, communications team, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)491 290096

***

NOTES

[1] The PCI list was shared with Food & Water Action Europe and is available here https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/European-Commission-5th-PCI-list.pdf

The NGO also calculated the number of fossil gas projects on the list and their value based on ENTSOG data in https://www.entsog.eu/tyndp#entsog-ten-year-network-development-plan-2020

[2] Earlier this year the International Energy Agency found that, to have a chance of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees, no new fossil investments must take place, and existing use of fossil fuels must be phased out. https://www.iea.org/news/pathway-to-critical-and-formidable-goal-of-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-is-narrow-but-brings-huge-benefits

[3] Since 2013, the EU has poured nearly €5 billion of taxpayers’ money into expanding Europe’s network of gas pipelines and import terminals. https://www.globalwitness.org/wastedgascash/

40 percent, or €1.5 billion, of the Connecting Europe Facility’s funds have been awarded to fossil gas projects. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/how-gas-lobby-infiltrates-eu/

[4] https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/22/energy-prices-are-skyrocketing-it-s-game-over-for-gas-view

[5] €440 million of EU taxpayers’ money has been wasted on PCI gas projects which have been or are likely to be cancelled. https://www.globalwitness.org/wastedgascash/

[6] EU Ombudsman case on sustainability assessment for gas projects on the current List of Projects of Common Interest: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/135095 ; EU Ombudsman case on assessing the sustainability of gas projects on the list of ‘projects of regional significance’ of the ‘Energy Community’ https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/opening-summary/en/140685 ; Complaint to EU Ombudsman regarding the sustainability assessment criteria in the fifth Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWAE_FOEE_GW_Fifth-PCI-List-Complaint_22072021.pdf

[7] On The Inside: How the gas lobby infiltrates EU decision making https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/how-gas-lobby-infiltrates-eu/

[8] The Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) regulation which governs the PCI list, is currently being revised – prompted in part by the inclusion of controversial gas projects in the Commission’s previous 2019 PCI list.

The Commission framed its proposed reforms as a way to exclude gas projects from future PCI lists and align with the goals of the EU Green Deal. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2020)824&lang=en

Yet both the EU Council and Parliament have proposed loopholes that would still leave considerable room for gas projects on future editions of the priority list. Specifically, the Parliament put forward a “grandfathering” clause that would allow all projects on the fourth and fifth list to continue to apply for PCI status, while the Council proposed derogations for the Melita Pipeline and EastMed. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/meps-fail-to-end-support-for-climate-damaging-gas/

MEPs Approve Methane Report – Highlighting Dangers of Fracking and Need to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Today, the European Parliament adopted its own-initiative report on an EU methane strategy, which calls for regulatory measures and clear targets to reduce methane emissions across all sectors in line with the Paris Agreement. But the report falls short in several key areas.

While MEPs highlight in the report that “fossil fuels have no long-term role in the Union’s energy mix”, it is missing a clear deadline for a phase-out. Considering that the EU imports more than 80% of the oil and gas it consumes, the upcoming rules have to cover the whole supply chain in both the energy and petrochemical sectors. MEPs backed measures across the supply chain, but failed to stress that we have to implement those measures immediately. 

“Decision-makers must ensure that methane mitigation is not abused as an opportunity for greenwashing practices by oil and gas companies. Reducing methane emissions can bring real climate benefits in the short-term, but it must happen within a clear time frame to phase-out fossil gas, consisting mainly of methane, by 2035,” said Enrico Donda, gas campaigner at Food & Water Action Europe.

Another concern arises on who would pay for tackling emissions. The position of the Parliament affirms that investments undertaken by infrastructure operators “should be recognised within the scope of regulated activities”. Once activities are recognised as “regulated” their costs can be passed on via gas tariffs to consumers. The risk is therefore that an increase in gas tariffs will lead to an additional burden to low-income households.

“With raging gas prices across the EU exacerbating energy precarity, measures to reduce methane must fully reflect the polluter pays principle. It would be cynical towards consumers to subsidise activities to fix and detect leaks while fossil fuel companies can sell more gas and wrongly claim it is ‘sustainable’ or ‘clean’”, continued Enrico Donda.    

The Parliament report takes a sufficiently bold approach on other occasions. MEPs reiterate that the EU should not authorize “new hydraulic fracturing operations in the EU and to halt all existing operations” (1). It also rightfully calls production and transport of liquefied fossil gas (LNG) “extremely inefficient”.

By the end of this year, the EU Commission will present legislative proposals on measures to tackle methane emissions. These will include mandatory monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), leak detection and repair (LDAR) programmes and measures on routine venting and flaring (RVF).

The EU Parliament position on methane raises key points that the Commission should consider when dealing with this climate-wrecking greenhouse gas, such as a clear reference to cooperate with Member States to phase-out all fossil fuels, a halt to fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure expansion and the link to the petrochemical sector. 

—

Notes to the editor:

  1. An increasing amount of fossil gas is imported into Europe from the US, a majority of which is extracted via hydraulic fracturing. In Q2 2021, all LNG imports amounted to 24 bcm, with the US being the biggest supplier of LNG to Europe. The European Commission gas market report is available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/quarterly_report_on_european_gas_markets_q2_2021_final.pdf

 

  • The text adopted today by the EU Parliament is an own initiative report by MEP Maria Spyraki (EPP, Greece) – please note that for the section on agriculture  some changes have been proposed by MEPs 
  • Agriculture and energy sectors are the major sources of human-driven methane emissions, accounting respectively to almost 50% and 19% of total EU emissions, according to the EU Commission. Note that these percentages may not be accurate since there is no constant monitoring and the EU Commission relies on outdated data. The EU Commission proposal expected by the end of this year in the context of the second wave of the fit-for-55 package will focus on energy-related methane emissions. 
  • Methane (CH4) is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which has an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. It is 86 times more climate polluting than CO2 over a 20-year period. 

Proposed gas projects for EU support would emit as much carbon as Germany’s coal fleet each year

Categories

Fossil Fuels

 

FOOD & WATER ACTION EUROPE, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE, GLOBAL WITNESS

 

26 July 2021, Brussels – Three climate NGOs have filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman over the European Commission’s repeated failure to properly assess the climate impact of fossil gas projects seeking political and financial support from the EU. This means gas infrastructure projects with significant impacts on accelerating global warming stand to benefit from favoured treatment.

Food & Water Action Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe and Global Witness say that the Commission’s revised methodology for deciding which fossil gas pipelines and terminals will earn the status of “projects of common interest” (PCI) does not include a credible sustainability assessment. PCI status means a project is treated as high priority, enjoys fast-tracked planning and can receive significant public funding.

This updated methodology, published last month, means that even if a gas project fails the sustainability test, it will not automatically be removed from the PCI list. Moreover, the analysis does not take into account methane leakage from infrastructure but methane leakage from Europe’s fossil fuel infrastructure accounts for some 2% of the EU’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. The methodology only considers carbon savings when compared to coal, which artificially inflates the alleged savings. The NGOs are also critical of a lack of transparency over project assessment (as previously noted by the Ombudsman), making it impossible to know how or why a project was approved.

Analysis by Global Witness has shown just how catastrophic it would be for the planet; additional emissions from proposed gas projects would total at least 213 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year – equivalent to the emissions of Germany’s fleet of coal plants in 2018.

Frida Kieninger, Senior Campaigner with Food & Water Europe said: 

“With climate catastrophe knocking at Europe’s doors and flooding our towns, it is appalling that once again the Commission is ignoring science and proposing a farcical process overlooking the climate impacts of the fossil gas projects it will support.”

“This means dozens of climate-damaging, not to mention unnecessary, gas pipelines and terminals could receive favoured treatment from the EU. Instead of pumping more public cash into fossil fuels, the EU should be fighting to phase them out to protect our climate.”

The complaint comes after the EU Ombudsman already censured the EU Commission for a “suboptimal” sustainability process for assessing gas projects that failed to take into account climate risks. The Commission promised it would take several steps to improve its criteria for assessing PCI projects and the Ombudsman indicated that this should include both carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

The European Commission is expected to publish its final draft fifth list of PCI projects in November, which will then go to MEPs and EU governments for approval or rejection. A Global Witness analysis of the previous four PCI lists showed that at least €440 million of EU taxpayer money has been wasted on projects that either have or are likely to fail.

Notes to editor:

[1] Link to sustainability methodology: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/3ba59f7e-2e01-46d0-9683-a72b39b6decf/library/8248eebd-2590-44b1-b1c8-01bcb01ea7af?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC

[2] For all calculations, citations, and methodologies used to determine carbon emissions, see Global Witness, EU Proposed 5th PCI List – Possible CO2 Emissions, 25 June 2021, available at https://gwitness.org/5th_PCIList_Carbon_Emissions.

[3] European Ombudsman (10 February 2020). Decision in case 1991/2019/KR on the European Commission’s action concerning sustainability assessment for gas projects on the current List of Projects of Common Interest. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/135095

[4] Global Witness (2021) EU companies burn fossil gas and taxpayer cash

Available at: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/eu-companies-burn-fossil-gas-and-taxpayer-cash/

[5] Methane leakage quantities and proportions https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2019