Blog Categories: fossil fuels

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

Environmental groups challenge EU support for 30 fossil gas projects

Categories

Fossil Fuels

ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth Europe, Food & Water Action Europe and CEE Bankwatch Network are starting legal action to end support to 30 EU-backed proposed gas projects. They say the EU Commission has given these climate-destructive projects VIP status, in contradiction of its legal obligations.

  • Four environmental groups are starting legal action against the EU’s gas infrastructure priority list.
  • The organisations deem the inclusion of 30 proposed gas projects on the list unlawful and say the EU Commission breached its own climate and energy laws when approving the list. 
  • The cost of all the gas projects amounts to €13 billion. Their collective CO2 and methane output have not been calculated by the Commission or project owners but can be expected to be sky-high.

Every other year, the EU Commission draws up a list of priority energy infrastructure projects deemed beneficial to the whole bloc. Infrastructure on the “Projects of Common Interest” list gain fast-tracked permits and eligibility for EU funds.

Billions of euros are bound to be wasted on 30 major pieces of gas infrastructure like the EastMed pipeline – a €7 billion, 1,900km gas pipeline that will connect Eastern Mediterranean offshore gas fields from Israel and Cyprus to Italy via Greece.

The groups have been able to commence legal action through a request for internal review – a mechanism now open for use by NGOs and the public after a major reform of EU access to justice laws last year.

The four organisations request the EU Commission to review the decision that approved the PCI list and gave 30 proposed gas projects priority status. If the Commission refuses to amend its decision, the organisations will be able to ask the Court of Justice of the EU to rule.

ClientEarth lawyer Guillermo Ramo said: “This list amounts to a VIP pass for fossil gas in Europe, when we should be talking about its phase-out. The Commission did not consider the impact of methane emissions derived from gas infrastructure projects – in spite of evidence that these are substantial. That’s unlawful as it directly clashes with the EU’s own climate laws and its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement.”

Methane is the main component of fossil gas, with a global warming potential over 85 times higher than that of CO2 over 20 years. Yet, its impact when planning gas infrastructure is not taken into account. 

The environmental organisations argue the EU’s decision to support gas infrastructure puts the EU’s climate and energy goals under threat. Experts have clearly said no new gas or other fossil fuel developments should be built if we are to limit warming within 1.5C. The list also comes as Europe faces a gas price crisis, caused in part by over-reliance on price-volatile gas.

Despite this, the EU Commission’s REPowerEU strategy plans to unleash another €10 billion in new fossil gas infrastructure.

Some studies point out that the EU can end imports of all Russian fossil gas by 2025 – two years earlier than the European Commission’s current target of 2027 – without building new gas infrastructure or delaying the phase-out of coal.

Natasa Ioannou, climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth Cyprus said: “The EastMed pipeline is a disaster for communities and the climate. It is not in the interests of local people in the region who will bear the costs of fossil fuel lock-in, and the harm to the ecologically-sensitive Mediterranean Sea. All along the route of the EastMed pipeline people are saying no to new fossil fuel infrastructure and yes to climate justice and to peace. EU funding must focus on supporting projects that implement just, fair, safe, and renewable energy solutions.”

The European Commission now has up to 22 weeks to reply. The end result could be a judgement clarifying how the EU should take the climate impacts of infrastructure into account.

Notes to editors

What is the Projects of Common Interest list?

In November 2021, the EU Commission published a list of priority energy infrastructure – as it does every two years – which includes 30 fossil gas infrastructure projects. This list entered into force in April 2022.

  • These projects can receive streamlined environmental impact assessment, a fast-tracked permitting procedure and are eligible for EU funding.
  • They are aimed at facilitating gas transport, storage or import. They include pipelines and LNG terminals such as the EastMed pipeline, the Melita Transgas pipeline, the Cyprus LNG import terminal, the Baltic Pipe, the Poseidon pipeline, etc.
  • The cost of all gas projects on the list is estimated at €13 billion. But this doesn’t include the cost on nature, human health and climate.

The list is governed by the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) Regulation which was revised recently. Despite initial intentions to get rid of fossil fuel projects in TEN-E, the EU Council and Parliament have proposed loopholes that would still leave considerable room for gas projects on future editions of the priority list. The process of establishing the list has been repeatedly criticised for lack of transparency and for being heavily influenced by vested fossil gas industry interests.

What is the legal procedure used in this case?

ClientEarth has fought a decade-long battle to improve access to justice rights at EU level. In 2021, a landmark reform of EU access to justice laws was approved. This has lifted the main barriers preventing NGOs and people from challenging environmental wrongdoings in court.

Environmental NGOs now have the right to ask EU institutions and bodies – in this case the European Commission – to review one of their own decisions for contravening EU law related to the environment. The Commission must officially reply to such a request within 16 weeks, a deadline that can be extended up to 22 weeks. If the claimants find that the Commission’s reply does not fix the legal violation, the claimants can sue the Commission in the Court of Justice of the European Union.

What are the climate impacts of gas and methane?

Gas extraction and transportation not only emits huge amounts of CO2, it is also a big emitter of potent and poisonous greenhouse gas methane. The drilling and extraction of gas from wells and its transit through pipelines results in emissions of methane – its primary component, which is a whopping 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in storing heat over 20 years. Beyond climate, methane also has devastating impacts on human health – via air pollution – and ecosystems.

Both the IEA and the IPCC have clearly said no new oil and gas extraction projects  should be built if we are to keep warming within 1.5C. Additionally, a recent study found that nearly half of existing fossil fuel production sites need to be shut down early if 1.5C is to be achieved.

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 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/192587475@N02/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.

EU energy ministers decide to extend subsidies for fossil fuels in the revised energy infrastructure legislation stranding EU’s climate objectives and the European Green Deal

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Brussels, 11 June 2021 – Europe’s energy ministers have decided to extend subsidies for  fossil gas in today’s approval of the Energy Council’s position for the revision of the energy infrastructure legislation (TEN-E) – a move highly criticised by climate groups and which is not in line with  EU’s climate targets.

Despite its stated intent to stop funding fossil gas infrastructure, the Council’s TEN-E revision contains an extraordinary loophole. As climate organisations recently warned, this means that fossil gas pipelines could be retrofitted to transport an undefined mix of fossil gas and hydrogen, known as blending, over the next nine years Financial support from the EU however would stop in 2027.

While 11 countries spoke out clearly against new gas projects, the final compromise was that  pipelines and import terminals would carry a “blend” of these gasses. However, with no definition of what percentages of each gas could be transported and given the substantially higher costs of producing and transporting hydrogen, it is likely that fossil gas will continue to dominate new projects. Moreover there are no provisions for the blended hydrogen to be sourced from renewable hydrogen only.

“Today, energy ministers decided to perpetuate climate-damaging fossil gas use. The nine year transition period during which existing gas infrastructure can be upgraded to carry hydrogen blends is totally at odds with an already well oversupplied European gas grid and the recent IEA Net Zero Report which gave a red card to fossil gas infrastructure extension. Today politics have not contributed to bringing the  EU closer to the Paris Agreement goal  to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C,” said Esther Bollendorff, Senior Gas Policy Advisor at CAN Europe.

Furthermore, the Council’s proposal also includes support for a new generation of energy infrastructure, which at first glance looks promising: transporting hydrogen and making existing infrastructure “smart”. But a closer look reveals a disappointing truth. The proposal would allow for projects that support fossil fuel infrastructure and so-called “smart gas grids” under the auspices of “low carbon” gasses. An undefined term that in reality includes a plurality of gasses regardless of their climate impact. If such projects are allowed, it would seriously undermine the EU’s ability to meet its climate objective to accomplish at least 55% net emission reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.

The Council’s TEN-E revision also undermines the EU’s efforts to fight the climate emergency by continuing to support two large fossil gas infrastructure projects. On one hand, the EastMed project, an unabashed, €6 billion effort to provide the EU with a new source of fossil gas Europe cannot use. If operating at full capacity – 20 billion cubic metres of gas per year – the pipeline’s gas would, when burned, emit as much carbon dioxide as Europe’s current worst polluter, the Bełchatów coal-fired power plant in Poland. On the other hand, the Melita pipeline would keep Malta hooked on gas, with the capacity of transporting an immense 2 billion cubic metres of gas per year to a country with a population of only 500,000.

“We are in a climate emergency. There is no room for new support for fossil gas infrastructure, without exception. It’s hard to see how either the EastMed and Melita pipelines fit into this crucial analysis It’s now down to MEPs to step in and bring a halt to more subsidies for fossil fuel projects – no exceptions, no loopholes,” said Frida Kieninger, Senior Campaigner at Food & Water Action Europe.

Lastly, fossil gas companies that profit from EU gas infrastructure policy and subsidies will continue to hold sway over key energy decisions. Despite some Member States concerns, under the Council’s proposal gas lobbyists – operating through the trade body ENTSOG – would have the power to forecast how much energy Europe needs and to assess and prioritise new infrastructure projects. Like suggestions made by the European Commission, the Council’s proposal continues to grant companies considerable influence rather than handing powers to an independent body which the climate NGO community have called for. Ultimately, the EU cannot wean itself from fossil fuels while this conflict of interest lies at the heart of its decisions on energy infrastructure policy.

“The Council is again letting the fox guard the henhouse siding with fossil gas companies by proposing that they continue to define Europe’s gas policies. If the EU is serious about meeting its climate targets it must remove this conflict of interest, and start listening to science over profiteers of the crisis,” said  Gligor Radečić, Gas Campaigner at Bankwatch.

The Council was badly divided in its decision, with multiple countries abstaining in protest, and “no” votes from Austria, Luxembourg, Germany and Spain, leaving the Council’s position weaker as the text now enters negotiations with the European Parliament. MEPs in the Energy Committee are due to vote on 15 July. The three-way negotiations, known as trilogues, between Commission, EU governments and MEPs could start immediately. Alternatively they may be delayed until after all MEPs have voted on the Parliament’s position in plenary, which is likely to take place in September.

—ENDS—

EU Ombudswoman Acknowledges Commission’s Climate Failures

Heavily subsidized fossil gas projects lack real  climate impacts analysis

Brussels, 19 November 2020

In a final decision published today, the EU Ombudswoman confirmed that since 2013 the EU Commission has failed to conduct adequate climate/sustainability assessments for the fossil gas projects on the Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list.

Initially the EU Commission ignored any climate impacts of PCI projects and in 2019 the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG) was tasked with including a sustainability assessment in its cost/benefit analysis that they had been doing since 2013. Unfortunately, ENTSOG’s proposed approach was based on the assumption that all gas projects would automatically show only positive benefits towards CO2 mitigation, erroneously claiming a shift from coal to gas would be good for the climate, ignoring negative impacts, such as increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

In February, the EU Ombudswoman opened an official inquiry into the failure of the European Commission to consider the climate impacts of subsidized projects on the PCI list, some of which are directly linked to imported fracked gas from the United States. The inquiry is a direct result of an official complaint filed with the Ombudsman on October 29 of last year by Andy Gheorghiu, Policy Advisor for Food & Water Europe, an environmental NGO based in Brussels.

Despite the increasing pressure on the European Commission to avoid additional fossil fuel infrastructure, it adopted the Delegated Act establishing the fourth list of PCI projects – ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence about the negative climate impacts of fossil gas, and instead relying on this flawed analysis from ENTSOG to justify more fossil fuel infrastructure.

With today’s decision the EU Ombudswoman confirms core points of the complaint, stating that “the sustainability of gas projects that were included on the fourth PCI list (and previous lists) has not been sufficiently taken into account,” and that “the Ombudsman finds it regrettable that the Commission did not attempt at an earlier stage to improve the available data and the analytical methodologies applied, so that a ranking of candidate gas PCIs based on their sustainability would have been possible”.

In its assessment, the Ombudswoman also notes that the EU’s objectives concerning climate change targets and sustainability have gained urgency with the increasing awareness of the accelerating climate crisis and concludes: “As the Commission is working on improving the methodology and data collection for assessing the sustainability of candidate gas projects for the PCI-list, the European Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified at this point.”

The work on PCIs is coordinated by regional groups, dedicated to each type of energy infrastructure. The 5th PCI process already kicked-off with a meeting of TEN-E cross-regional groups on electricity, gas, smart grids and CO2 thematic areas on November 17, 2020  – with ENTSOG entering centre stage again.. The final EU Parliament’s vote on the next PCI list is expected to happen by the End of 2021.

In response to this decision, the complainant Andy Gheorghiu states:

“The Ombudswoman clearly confirms the lack of crucial climate assessments of highly subsidized fossil fuel projects for all PCI lists so far.The Commission must walk the talk and truly deliver on real climate analysis in the next list. Unfortunately, the Commission still plans to work with ENTSOG, whose biased assessment is at the very heart of the problem. A more rigorous and independent sustainability test is necessary for future PCI’s.”

***

For more information contact:

Andy Gheorghiu, Policy advisor, Food & Water Action Europe

Tel. +49 160 20 30 974, email [email protected]

Official complaint

Letter of the EU Ombudswoman

Assessment/Conclusion of the EU Ombudswoman