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


DONATE NOW

x
DONATE

Blog Categories: Europe

Fracking – Coming To Your Doorstep

Categories

LNGFossil FuelsClimate

One eighth of total EU gas consumption in 2022 is estimated to be fracked U.S. gas.

Imports of US gas into the EU represent 23% of the fossil gas consumption in the 11 EU LNG importer countries, and 14% of total EU27 gas consumption – and almost all of it is fracked. Fracking is a disaster for our climate and for communities affected by the brutal drilling method. Europe must swiftly move off all fossil gas for a safe liveable future.

  • 12% of the gas running in pipelines in the EU could be fracked US gas
  • Shipments of US gas to the EU have increased by 150% between 2021 & 2022
  • The biggest fracked US gas importer in 2022 was France, followed by Spain and The Netherlands
  • Europe’s gigantic LNG infrastructure build out plans do not match supply and will not provide real energy security

Read the full briefing here.

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

New survey of fossil gas companies shows gas industry climate strategies are business as usual

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Brussels, 18 May 2022 – There is no doubt that meeting global climate goals will require a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. This task – already a monumental challenge – is complicated by the fact that the fossil gas industry is advancing  false solutions that seem primarily designed to preserve their  business models.

A new market survey from two German NGOs, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and urgewald, reveals a shocking lack of knowledge among fossil gas companies about their own methane emissions, and massive inconsistencies in industry climate strategies that rely on pseudo-solutions such as fossil hydrogen to extend fossil gas use.

While all 12 responding companies proclaim a desire to become climate neutral by 2050 at the latest, there is little to no awareness that fossil gas consumption needs to be radically reduced in the short-term, and that the power and heating sectors must shift to clean alternatives. Instead of credible plans to move out of fossil gas, company climate strategies present measures such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and gradual replacement with green and low-carbon gases as ways to make gas “clean” in the long term. Many are even planning to shift from coal to fossil gas as part of their climate strategies.

The industry is pinning particularly high hopes  on hydrogen, which is a risky bet. Available hydrogen quantities will be too limited for a large-scale use, and using hydrogen for heat and power generation is among the most inefficient uses of the fuel.

Four companies are also actively pursuing fossil hydrogen, such as ‘blue’ or ‘turquoise’ hydrogen, which is linked to the extraction and processing of fossil gas. 1.7 GW of total blue hydrogen capacity is already in the pipeline among surveyed companies. Fossil hydrogen plans are industry’s smokescreen for more fossil fuel use, to the detriment of the planet, climate and people. While turquoise hydrogen is still in the experimental stages and highly expensive, studies show that blue hydrogen produced from fossil fuels may be more climate-damaging than burning coal or fossil gas. The CCS technology associated with blue hydrogen production, which promises to capture fugitive CO2 emissions, is not only expensive and inefficient, but it is also unable to effectively stop methane leaks and requires huge amounts of electricity.

The survey indicates that nine companies have plans to expand their electrolysis capacity, up to 10GW by 2030, but only two companies will focus on 100% renewable-based hydrogen projects. Only green hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water and using electricity from renewable sources has a real climate benefit. However, its application needs to be limited to priority uses, and not the “blending” projects where small amounts of green hydrogen are injected into existing fossil gas pipelines. Such plans would only maintain operational the fossil gas network.

That very fossil gas network represents a key climate problem. Methane is the main component of fossil gas and a super-potent greenhouse gas (GHG). Methane leakages occur along the entire fossil gas value chain, including during fossil hydrogen production, and the survey shows that companies do not control these emissions effectively. Only four of the surveyed companies were able to provide details on detected methane leaks from their own infrastructure, while leak detection and repair campaigns are conducted at most annually, if at all.

Although climate science is clear about the need to transition away from fossil fuels altogether, only two companies have set a clear timeline for phasing out fossil gas by 2040. Additionally, none of the fossil fuel producing companies surveyed envisages targets to halt extraction activities. This is in clear disagreement with the latest IPCC report on mitigation of climate change, which reminds us that greenhouse gas emissions need to peak before 2025 to limit global warming below 1.5°C.

As the EU is under pressure to cut Russian energy imports, the fossil industry is desperate to keep fossil gas in the future energy mix. Fossil companies distract people by investing in pseudo-solutions, while they leave the door open to fossil gas after 2030 and 2035. This is further encouraged by some Member States, such as Germany, which are ready to implement new projects to transport blue hydrogen and are pursuing massive LNG expansion plans.

It is clearly not enough to rely on voluntary industry commitments to achieve the kinds of pollution reductions that are necessary. Strong government regulations are needed to prevent the global phase-out of coal from leading to the increased use of fossil gas and to ensure that energy companies comply with the Paris climate target rather than undermining it by betting on fig-leaf solutions.

—
Contact:

Enrico Donda, [email protected]
Julian Schwartzkopff, [email protected]

 

EU Methane Regulation – the lack of ambition will fail climate goals

Categories

Fossil Fuels

15th DECEMBER 2021

BRUSSELS: Methane emissions resulting from the petrochemical industry’s extraction and production of coal, gas and oil are responsible for 25 per cent of overall global warming – but a new Methane Regulation unveiled today by the European Commission is a half-hearted step back from EU climate goals.

Campaigners from the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Brussels- based Food & Water Action Europe (FWAE) and Berlin-based Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) warned the Regulation is letting fossil fuel imports off the hook.

Methane emissions are 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide and tackling the energy sector has been identified as the most cost effective way of reducing them.

The Commission’s Regulation puts in place a framework with obligations on measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), leak detection and repair (LDAR) and a ban on routine venting and flaring (BRVF) of gases, which are the three main pillars of effective methane emissions mitigation.

Despite numerous calls from European policymakers and recommendations from leading NGOs, the Regulation lacks a key element – extending the framework to all oil, gas and coal consumed in the EU, imports included, and to the petrochemical sector.

The EU imports more than 80 per cent of the fossil gas, 90 per cent of the crude oil and 40 per cent of the coal it consumes, long after methane has been emitted outside EU borders.

EIA Climate Campaigner Kim O’Dowd said: “The Commission is hiding behind excuses. With this regulation, the EU will continue to drive global methane emissions in other countries, turning a blind eye to its role.

“In the context of the Global Methane Pledge to take action on these emissions –launched and adopted by the US, EU and others at the UN CoP26 climate change summit in November – the EU should be irreproachable, but this proposal sends completely the wrong message, effectively saying it’s okay for the EU and other countries to pledge and pontificate at the podium and then dally and dither at home.”

Any methane reduction initiative not linked to a phase-out of fossil fuels falls dangerously short of the necessary climate action. In October, MEPs asked, in a resolution on the EU strategy to reduce methane emissions, to phase-out all fossil fuels as soon as possible, but today’s proposal ignores the Parliament’s position.

As a major importer of fossil gas and oil, the EU must work on cutting methane emissions along the whole supply chain and, in the meantime, implement phase-out plans to get rid of oil, fossil gas and coal.

There is no way the EU can cut methane emissions fast enough and promote a sustainable energy transition while still investing in climate-harming fossil fuels.

Fossil gas consists almost entirely of methane, pollutes air and water with numerous hazardous substances and contributes to environmental destruction on top of inherently leading to methane emissions. While cutting methane emissions is important to reduce the climate impact of fossil fuels, it risks being used to support false sustainability claims by the oil and gas companies.

Food & Water Action Europe Campaigner Enrico Donda said: “Fossil gas, even with reduced methane emissions, is neither clean nor a ‘bridge fuel’ and the Commission proposal fails to make this clear. All gas infrastructure is prone to leaks and a serious methane law should stop the development of new fossil gas infrastructure such as pipelines and LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) terminals, used to reception and unload gas from the cargo shipped mainly from the US, Qatar and Russia”.

The European Parliament must now protect the ambition it showed in its own initiative report on the Methane Strategy, which called for extending the framework across the supply chain and to the petrochemical sector.

Members of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union now have the opportunity to improve the proposal.

Pictures. Monday 13 Dec, local anti-gas activists TegenGas and the Gastivists Collective projected slogans and infrared images of methane leakage from around Europe to criticize the lack of ambition in EU methane Regulation. More high-quality images here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums/72157720207985773

CONTACTS FOR MEDIA

  • Tim Grabiel, EIA Senior Lawyer, timgrabiel[at]eia-international.org
  • Enrico Donda, FWAE Gas Campaigner, edonda[at]fweurope.org
  • Paul Newman, EIA Senior Press & Communications Officer, press[at]eia-international.org
  • Neal Huddon-Cossar, [email protected], +39 345 44 70 749

 

EDITORS’ NOTES

  1. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) investigates and campaigns against environmental crime and abuses. Our undercover investigations expose transnational wildlife crime, with a focus on elephants, pangolins and tigers, and forest crimes such as illegal logging and deforestation for cash crops such as palm oil; we work to safeguard global marine ecosystems by tackling plastic pollution, exposing illegal fishing and seeking an end to all whaling; and we address the threat of global warming by campaigning to curtail powerful refrigerant greenhouse gases and exposing related criminal trade.
  2. Food & Water Action Europe (FWAE) is the European programme of Food & Water Watch, a non-profit organisation based in the US. FWAE works to create a healthy future for generations to come – a world where all people have the resources they need, including wholesome food, clean water and sustainable energy. We campaign for a 100 per cent sustainable energy transition, this implies ending EU and national fossil fuels subsidies and drastically cutting GHG emissions. This requires organising people from all over the world to engaging in a large movement with the political power to make our democratic process work for us all.
  3. Environmental Action Germany (Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.- DUH) was founded in 1975. The organisation is politically independent, recognised as a non-profit organisation, entitled to bring legal action and it campaigns mainly on a national and European level. Environmental Action Germany supports all sustainable ways of life and economic systems that respect ecological boundaries. At the same time, the organisation fights for the preservation of biological diversity and the protection of natural assets as well as for climate protection. DUH is convinced that only energy supplies based on efficiency and regenerative energies, sustainable mobility, the respectful handling of our natural resources and the avoidance of waste will secure life on our planet.

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