The Shannon LNG terminal proposed for Ballylongford, Co. Kerry has received political and business support as a potential source of jobs for this rural area. However, the climate impact of the LNG terminal, which would import climate-hostile and environmentally destructive fracked gas from the US, has called the terminal’s acceptability into serious doubt. Furthermore, the proposed terminal would lock Ireland into fossil fuel use right at the moment when the country needs to transition to renewable energies. Can the desire to provide employment to the South- West of Ireland be reconciled with the burning need to move away from fossil fuel extraction, production and consumption?
Blog Categories: climate crisis
Vote tarnishes credibility of European Green Deal
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE, FOOD & WATER EUROPE
Brussels – MEPs on the European Parliament’s Energy Committee (ITRE) have failed to reject the EU’s list of priority energy projects in a vote today, despite it containing dozens of new harmful fossil fuel projects incompatible with the Paris climate agreement.
The Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list identifies the highest priority energy infrastructure projects to be built in Europe and which become eligible for EU funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). But this fourth iteration of the PCI list has come under harsh criticism from both MEPs and civil society for the 55+ fossil gas projects on the list [1] – including mega pipelines and terminals to import fracked gas. Constructing these projects would put the climate neutrality goals of the European Green Deal in jeopardy. The list also includes a number of other energy infrastructure projects.
Frida Kieninger from Food & Water Europe said:
“All this new infrastructure for more fossil gas comes on top of Europe’s well-diversified gas network. Fossil gas is today’s biggest contributor to CO2 emission growth and is incompatible with the fossil free future promised in the European Green Deal. More unnecessary gas infrastructure will become a stranded asset, and consumers and the climate will pay the price.”
In exchanges of views with the Commission on the PCI list in October 2019, MEPs criticised the EU Commission for lack of sustainability and climate assessment for the PCI projects, the financial risks associated with creating infrastructure that could become potential ‘stranded assets’, and the incompatibility of the list current EU energy legislation with the Paris Agreement. [2]
Despite these concerns, climate-conscious MEPs in the Renew and S&D groups were unable to convince their colleagues to reject the PCI list. The motion, put forward by Green MEP Marie Toussaint and co-signed by Green, Renew and GUE MEPs, called for a rejection of the entire PCI list, and demanded a rapid revision of the TEN-E regulation which underlies the PCI process [3]. But the motion was today defeated by 54 votes to 17. [4]
84 civil society groups have signed an open letter calling on MEPs to reject the fossil gas PCI list [5]. Many of the signatory organisations are fighting specific gas projects that are being imposed on their local communities, such as the Krk LNG terminal in Croatia, the Shannon LNG terminal in Ireland and the EastMed pipeline, which is facing opposition in Cyprus, Greece, Italy and beyond the EU in Israel.
It is likely that a motion to reject the list will be put to the whole Parliament for plenary votes in February.
Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said:
“There can be no truly Green Deal with more fossil gas. It’s now up to all MEPs to reject this vast list of mega-pipelines and other new fossil fuel projects – they are not compatible with the climate emergency and tarnish the credibility of any European Green Deal.”
***
For more information, contact:
Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)489 598984
Frida Kieninger, Food & Water Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0) 2893 1045, (+32) (0)487 249 905
Robbie Blake, Communications team, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)2 893 1010
***
[1] The 4th PCI list contains 32 clusters of gas projects. Many of these clusters contain several different projects that were counted as separate pieces of infrastructure in previous PCI lists. When these clusters are separated out, there are 55 gas projects on the 4th PCI list.
[2] The ITRE Committee engaged in two exchanges of views on the PCI list in 2019. The first took place on 17 October with Claus Dieter Borchardt of DG ENER, the second on 5th December with Commissioner Simson.
[3] The PCI list process is laid out in the TEN-E Regulation https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R0347. This regulation dates from 2013 and does not consider climate commitments such as the Paris Agreement, the EU’s 2030 decarbonisation targets and the European Green Deal. The TEN-E Regulation does not require any climate impact assessment of PCI projects. The European Commission has pledged to review the TEN-E legislation by the end of 2020. However, any potential revision of the legislation will take place after the selection process for the next fifth PCI list has begun.
[4] The PCI list is a delegated act. The list is set by the European Commission, after which both the Parliament and the Council have the option to reject the list in its entirety. MEPs can only reject the list in its entirety; they may not reject only the fossil fuel projects, or object to individual projects on the list.
[5] Over 80 Civil Society Organisations spoke out in support of a rejection of the gas projects in the list:https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CSO-letter-PCI.pdf
EU Commission accused of breaking Climate laws on very day President announces European Green Deal
The future for new fracking gas terminals across Europe at risk once again
Brussels — Representatives from NGO’s in Europe and the United States have formally accused the EU Commission of breaking its own rules when it approved support for fracked gas import terminals across Europe. The groups have formally requested a review of the decision from the Director General Commissioner of Energy over concerns that the construction on new gas infrastructure to facilitate trade deals with the United States would wreak havoc on the global climate.
The list of supported projects, known as the Projects of Common Interest (PCI) were approved by the EU Commission in October following an assessment that failed to consider climate or sustainability impacts. If approved by the European Parliament the supported projects which include the controversial Shannon Liquefied National Gas LNG project in Co. Kerry in Ireland would become eligible for significant funding, and are given priority in fast track planning and licensing processes.
The Trans-Atlantic group of NGOs’ appeal raised the accusation that Trade Considerations for the importation of US fracked gas, as agreed by Presidents Trump and Juncker in July 2018, are dominating over considerations of climate change in the European Commission, forcing European Commission staff to turn a blind eye to the disastrous climate impacts of establishing new markets for American fracked gas.
“Increasing scientific evidence about the negative climate role of fossil gas and the need for a swift phase-out show that biased EU subsidies for fossil gas projects will result in dire consequences for the environment and Europe’s economy“, says Andy Gheorghiu, policy advisor for Food & Water Europe.
“The failure to properly address the sustainability and climate impacts of proposed fossil gas Projects of Common Interest is a fatal flaw in the current (and past) lists and represents a breach of crucial European environmental/climate law/legislation, for example Article 11 TFEU, Article 191 TFEU and Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”
The latest peer-reviewed research on fracking for gas notes that methane is a greenhouse gas almost 90 times more powerful than carbon-dioxide over a 20 year period and that shale gas development in North America is the single largest driver of this increase in methane, accounting for one-third of the increase in global emissions from all sources.
The appeal comes on the very day that President Ursula Von der Leyen announced the adoption of the European Green Deal. How the Commission deals with the carbon leakage and non-territorial emissions of US fracked gas imports into Europe on a massive scale which leave a carbon footprint 44% greater than that of coal will quickly reveal whether the European Green Deal is to signal real actions or just aspirations.
Eddie Mitchell, Communities for the Environment First commented,
“We hear a lot rhetoric from the Commission about sustainable development and climate mitigation. Unofficial trade agreements between the Commission and the U.S do not take precedence over the rule of law in Europe. The credibility of the PCI process is at stake. If trade wins over climate we all loose. What does the European Commission stand for?”
Kate Ruddock, Friends of the Earth Ireland commented,
“How can we trust an institution when it does not even follow its own rules. The failure to assess the climate and sustainability impacts of major energy infrastructure projects is unacceptable and must be corrected before MEP’s vote on whether or not to approve the entire list of projects at the European Parliament in February.”
NOTES
[1] The request for the internal review was lodged by Irish NGO’s Friends of the Earth and Communities for the Environment First, by the European NGO Food and Water Europe and the American NGO Food and Water Watch.
[2] The Projects of Common Interest List is published by the European Commission every two years and contains energy infrastructure projects that are considered to contribute to the security, affordability, competitiveness and sustainability of Europe’s energy supply. The projects on the list are entitled to special priority in planning processes and are eligible to apply for EU funding. The 2019 list contains many electricity projects that can be relevant for the energy transition, as well as fossil gas and even oil infrastructure projects. Previous PCI lists contained over 100 projects directly linked to the importing and transportation of fossil gas. The 4th iteration of the PCI list was published by the European Commission in October this year. It contains over 55 fossil gas projects, including 5 Liquified Natural Gas terminals. Members of the European Parliament must approve or reject the list in its entirety the coming months (Jan-Feb).
Brussels — A coalition of international climate activist groups released a letter today demanding that the Port of Cork cancel its arrangement with NextDecade to build fracked gas infrastructure in the Cork harbour.
The letter — which was signed by groups such as Food & Water Europe, 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Better Path Coalition, Oil Change International, Food & Water Action, Not Here Not Anywhere, FracTracker Alliance, Extinction Rebellion Ireland, Environment Texas, Cork Climate Action — points out that approving fossil fuel projects that will last for decades is incompatible with global efforts to combat the climate crisis. The lifespan of a project like Cork LNG is at least 30 years, which would increase Ireland’s dependence on fossil fuels and slow the development of renewable energy projects.
NextDecade plans to build a floating gas storage unit and a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal import terminal. The fracked gas would originate in the United States, where fracking has been linked to an array of health problems and water contamination.
Methane emissions at every point of the fracking process are tied to the overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis. New LNG exports will spur additional fracking, as 80% of the increased exports from the United States will come from new fracked wells. Recent research shows that this gas is 40% more damaging to the climate than coal.
The Cork facility is one of two currently proposed highly controversial LNG import terminals in Ireland.
In 2017, the Republic of Ireland banned fracking on health and environmental grounds. A growing international movement is pressuring the Irish government to block fracked gas projects as well, citing the ongoing concerns about the impact of the drilling on local communities.
Contact:
Andy Gheorghiu, Policy advisor, Food & Water Europe, email: [email protected], mobile: +49 160 20 30 974
Election year move still leaves important questions
Brussels — It was a shocking reversal in British politics: Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party unveiled a halt to fracking in the UK with a policy that would essentially stop fracking in England. The move was similar to the Scottish government’s announcement in October that it would not support fracking there.
It’s nonetheless hard to overstate the shift in England. Prime Minister Johnson, as the Guardian noted, had previously called fracking “glorious news for humanity,” and had called on the country to “leave no stone unturned, or unfracked.” But with elections looming, the Tories were the only major party hanging on to support an issue that had become decidedly unpopular. Johnson clearly wanted to keep fracking out of the electoral debate.
So for many observers, the decision smacked of desperate politics. The government justified its position with a new study by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) pointing to “unacceptable” earthquake risks associated with drilling, and will not allow fracking “until compelling new evidence” shows that it can be done in a “safe and sustainable way.”
Since there is no safe and sustainable way to frack–in the UK or anywhere else–this would seem to spell the end of fracking in the UK. However, fracking company Cuadrilla has already announced that it will provide the oil and gas regulators with new data to address the concerns of communities near active fracking sites, with the hopes that the moratorium can be lifted.
Several important questions concerning the nitty-gritty details of this temporarily moratorium remain. That’s why UK’s anti-fracking campaigners are treating the current situation with caution.
Definition of fracking— what might still be allowed?
While activists took the government’s sudden announcement as a good sign, there are questions about specifically which processes are covered by the moratorium. Would acidization be covered by the current moratorium? Can fracking companies get around the moratorium by using less water? What will happen with the existing licenses of companies like Cuadrilla or plastic producer Ineos, which owns the majority of shale licenses in England and Scotland? It remains unclear how the new UK government will deal with such matters.
Importing fracked gas
A freeze or ban on drilling could merely shift fossil fuel companies to rely on imports— meaning that more fracking in other places around the world, including areas in the United States like Pennsylvania and Ohio. The US already exports LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) to the UK.
On top of that, petrochemical giant Ineos has established an additional trans-atlantic supply chain of fracked “wet gas” (ie ethane, propane and butane) from Pennsylvania that it uses for the production of virgin plastic at Grangemouth, Scotland. Neither the moratorium in England nor in Scotland will affect these existing supply chains. As long as they exist (and even expand), the question remains how long it will take until someone asks the question again if it isn’t “safer, more sustainable and cheaper” to frack the hydrocarbons in the UK.
The UK government calls its new policy an “effective moratorium,” which means in the short term it is “unlikely to approve future Hydraulic Fracture Plans unless new evidence is presented.” The government added that it will “not be taking forward proposed planning reforms in relation to shale gas,” and has “a presumption against issuing any further Hydraulic Fracturing Consents.”
But at the same time–and in very same statement— Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Andrea Leadson also sent this message: “The Government continues to recognise the importance of natural gas as a source of secure and affordable energy as we aim to reach net zero emissions by 2050.”
A full, comprehensive ban cannot see fossil fuels as having a role in the country’s energy future. And until that vision is realized, the movement to ban fracking still has work to do.
Fracking is too bad even for Boris; US political leaders must follow suit
The Guardian is reporting tomorrow that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will announce a formal, immediate ban on fracking.
Drilling companies have targeted several UK sites for years, but a series of earthquakes have recently stalled operations. All along, intense local opposition movements have blocked drilling sites and pressured lawmakers across the country.
Johnson had been a vocal proponent of drilling, and his Conservative Party was the only major political party that still supported fracking.
In response to this news, Food & Water Europe and Food & Water Action executive director Wenonah Hauter issued the following statement:
“This monumental victory is a huge win for the movement to protect our water and our climate future, and it happened only because committed activists lobbied political leaders and put their bodies on the line. It is a testament to the power of bold, uncompromised climate action in the face of immense political and legal obstacles.
“The biggest loser here is Ineos billionaire CEO Jim Ratcliffe, whose business model seeks to deliver petrochemical pollution, plastics proliferation and planetary destruction. It was Ineos that sought to frack the UK, and they have been stopped by a determined activist movement.
“The bottom line: If fracking is so bad that even Boris Johnson had to say no, there is no excuse for political leaders and presidential candidates in the United States to be any less ambitious. For the sake of clean air, clean water and a safe climate, fracking must be banned everywhere.”