Archives: Blogs

Tell the MEPs: cut hydrogen and gas pipelines from the EU priority energy infrastructure list

Categories

Fossil FuelsDemocracyClimate

70 civil society organisations call Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to vote against the Projects of Common Interest (PCI) and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMI) list. This list includes over 100 hydrogen-related projects, giving them fast-track permits and access to billions in public subsidies. Most of these projects will rely on hydrogen made from fossil gas, keeping Europe dependent on gas and diverting resources from the renewable energy transition. They also urge the Commission to immediately draw up a new list containing only electricity projects

Press release here

Open letter here

Full text:

Dear Members of the European Parliament,

We are writing to you ahead of the 26 March 2026 plenary of the European Parliament concerning the objection to the Delegated Regulation on the second Union list of Projects of Common (PCIs) and Mutual Interest (PMIs)

This vote is your only opportunity to express your opinion and decide on the allocation of fast-track permits and access to generous public subsidies to more than a hundred hydrogen infrastructure projects. We call on you to vote against the second PCI and PMI list in its current form, and to urge the Commission to immediately draw up a new list containing only electricity projects.

If the current PCI and PMI list is adopted, the EU will aggravate its dependency on  imported fossil gas.

First of all, this PCI/PMI list includes two fossil gas pipeline projects that contradict the European Union’s climate and energy objectives. The “Melita” pipeline and the “EastMed” pipeline, so called “hydrogen ready”, are receiving money meant for the energy transition without credible renewable hydrogen in sight – risking creating a fossil lock-in or stranded assets, a mistake already made by the EU with its gas infrastructure system.

Secondly, the second PCI/PMI list includes more than 100 hydrogen and electrolyser projects, over 50 of which are pipelines that will most likely transport fossil-based hydrogen since no renewable hydrogen is available for them. While the Commission boasts that hydrogen PCI/PMI projects will catalyse decarbonisation, their necessity is little more than speculation and many of them will make no meaningful contribution to cutting emissions. Fossil-based hydrogen, whether with or without carbon capture, produces significant greenhouse gas emissions – sometimes more than by using fossil gas directly. 

The total investment required for the proposed hydrogen projects exceeds 80 billion euros, not including the massive investments and substantial subsidies needed to build supply and generate demand for hydrogen. The two-fold increase in the number of hydrogen PCI and PMI projects from the first to the second list diverts capacity and funding away from the electrification of Europe and locks us into costly and unnecessary infrastructure.

The European Union doesn’t need a cross-continent hydrogen network. Hydrogen, even when made with renewable energy, is an energy-intensive, inefficient and expensive energy carrier and its use should be restricted to niche, hard-to-abate sectors. It will be hard enough for the EU to replace current fossil-based hydrogen use even without expanding it to other sectors. ACER in 2024 warned that current hydrogen network plans are built on “aspirations rather than concrete market needs”, increasing the risk of overinvestment and underused infrastructure – stranded assets – that citizens will ultimately pay for. 

H2Med is an example of an unnecessary project with likely significant environmental impacts. It intends to transport hydrogen produced in the Iberian Peninsula to central Europe and includes an offshore section known as BarMar. The BarMar section would link Barcelona and Marseille, crossing the Mediterranean Sea at depths of up to 1,750 meters below sea level. However, this route runs through the Gulf of León, one of the areas with the highest levels of marine biodiversity in the Mediterranean.

The selection process for this second PCI/PMI list was riddled with procedural errors and based on flawed evidence.

ACER, in its recent 2025 opinion, questioned the credibility and robustness of the process. It underlined that many of the concerns raised in its 2023 opinion, when it concluded that it was unable to assess the consistent application of the TEN-E regulation criteria and the cost-benefit analysis across all projects, remain valid, particularly regarding the selection process, the identification of infrastructure needs, and the methodologies used to assess projects.

The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) concluded in 2024 that the ten-year network development plan (TYNDP) process, which preceded the second PCI and PMI list, failed to adequately reflect the transformational changes and rapid emission reductions required to meet the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality and resilience targets. To address these persistent weaknesses, the ESABCC urged that priority be systematically given to full decarbonisation, energy efficiency, and infrastructure resilience, with a clear shift toward rapid and widespread electrification and demand-side flexibility.

The EU does not have the capacity to produce enough renewable hydrogen, and importing enough is unrealistic 

The fossil fuel lobby, led by ENTSO-G, is using green hydrogen as a Trojan horse to continue to rely on fossil-fuel based hydrogen combined with failed technologies like carbon capture and storage (blue hydrogen).

The European Union won’t have the capacity to produce enough renewable hydrogen for this network project for decades, if ever. RepowerEU set a first objective for producing 10 million tonnes of green hydrogen domestically by 2030, as well as importing the same again. This projection has been widely criticized since its publication, as it was not based on any scientific evidence or building on credible demand scenarios, leading the European Court of Auditors to call for a “reality check”. Recent research from trade association Hydrogen Europe shows that the EU is set to miss its 2030 green hydrogen production and import targets by more than 90%. 

The idea that the EU can simply import its way out of the problem has been well refuted. In late 2025, more than 140 civil society organizations declared this ambition as unrealistic from a cost perspective, energy intensive, and fuelling a neo-colonial and extractivist model. Importing hydrogen over long distances – renewable or otherwise – is economically unviable now and in the future decades. It requires large public subsidies and massive investments in new infrastructure. As a result, importing renewable hydrogen may cost up to twice as much as previously anticipated.

The EU’s green hydrogen import strategy risks significant social and economic harm in Global South producing countries.

Export-oriented hydrogen projects compete for water with local populations’ needs, often without communities’ free, prior, and informed consent. Renewable energy infrastructure buildout for hydrogen production will most likely prioritize  EU demand over local energy access, creating few decent jobs while disrupting agriculture and livelihoods. Financial risks, via loans and guarantees, may be shifted to already indebted governments. 

The best example of this is the South H2 Corridor, a 3,300 km pipeline designed to transport hydrogen from North Africa to Germany via Italy and Austria, by repurposing existing gas infrastructure. Serious social and environmental risks may occur if the development of the South H2 Corridor proceeds: land grabbing projects from local communities, debt distress, increased water scarcity within the exporting region, local instability and resource diversion from public services.

For all these reasons, we ask you, members of the European Parliament, to vote against the second PCI and PMI list. 

Respectfully,

The undersigned organisations

Initial signatories: 

CEE Bankwatch Network
Corporate Europe Observatory
Food & Water Action Europe
ReCommon

Additional signatories: 

2Celsius
Aarhus center in BiH
Advocates for the Future
Andy Gheorghiu Consulting
ATTAC Togo
Bankwatch Romania Association
Bond Beter Leefmilieu
Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe
Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment & Mgt (CECIC)
Centre for Transport and Energy
Centre tricontinental – CETRI
Clean Air Action Group
Coordinadora Ecoloxista Asturies
Corner House
Counter Balance
Debt Observatory in Globalisation (ODG)
Earth Ethics, Inc.
Ecologistas en Acción
Ecologistas Zamora
Ecologistes en Acció de Catalunya
Economic & Social Justice Trust
Estonian Green Movement
European Environmental Bureau
Fossilfri Fremtid, Denmark
Fracking Free Clare
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Malta
Friends of the Earth Spain
Fuel Poverty Action
Gas No Es Solución
Grandmothers Act to Save the Planet (GASP)
Green Liberty
Greenpeace European Unit
Hawkmoth
Initiative Bonne Gouvernance des ressources naturelles au Kivu
JA! Justica Ambienatl
Just Finance International
Leave it in the Ground Initiative
Les Amis de la Terre – Belgique asbl
Les Amis de la Terre France
Linha Vermelha
Magamba Network/ Kick Polluters Out
Mesa de la Ría de Huelva
Mission Possible
Mothers Rise Up
National Society of Conservationists – Friends of the Earth Hungary
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Oil Change International
Platform
Polish Green Network
PowerShift e.V.
Priatelia Zeme-CEPA
Rete Legalità per il Clima
Sisonke Climate Justice Project
Society for Women and Youth Affairs (SWAYA)
Stay Grounded
StopH2med.org
Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczne EKO-UNIA, Poland
Synergie des Jeunes pour le Développement et les Droits Humains
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
TRAFFED RD.CONGO
Umoja Kwa Haki Ya Tabianch Initiative LTD
United for Climate Justice
Urgewald
Workshop for All Beings
Za Zemiata – Friends of the Earth Bulgaria

 

The war in Iran: Another global crisis justifying the urgent need for an energy transition

Categories

LNGJusticeFossil Fuels

“History teaches, but has no pupils”, as Antonio Gramsci famously said. It seems that the EU and the world have not learned the lessons of the recent and less recent past. 

The weaponization of energy is a long-standing reality of global politics. From the 1973 oil crisis to Russia’s manipulation of gas supplies to the EU, starting well before the full invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and more recently, the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and mounting threats over Greenland’s strategic resources, oil and gas have repeatedly been used as tools of geopolitical pressure. The large-scale attack launched by the U.S. and Israel on Iran on February 28 and the subsequent Iranian counterattacks have not only created what is primarily a devastating humanitarian crisis, but also shaken the global energy market and shattered the illusion of a liberalized and globalized market.

At the centre of this new shock lies the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, through which about 20 percent of globally traded oil and liquified ‘natural’ gas (LNG) normally pass. Disruptions to this route reverberate instantly across global markets. Its closure has already led to the halting of both oil and LNG exports, sending immediate shockwaves through global markets. In Europe, despite importing less than 10 percent of its gas from the Gulf, fossil gas prices have skyrocketed, almost doubling since the start of the conflict. 

In particular, soaring energy prices threaten to deepen the cost-of-living crisis, hitting the most vulnerable households first. Meanwhile, President Trump has said that the rise in oil prices is “a very small price to pay for security and peace.”

Winners and Losers in a Fragmented Energy Market

While Israel’s objectives in this war appear clear, to weaken and neutralize its regional adversaries, the motivation of the U.S. is less straightforward, as many analysts note that ultimate goals have shifted, dragging on far beyond the initial expectations of a quick strike. One thing, however, is already evident: The U.S. fossil fuel industry stands to gain. 

With LNG exports to Qatar disrupted by instability in the Gulf, U.S. producers are well-positioned to fill part of the gap. According to the latest estimates, the U.S. LNG industry may achieve $20 billion in monthly windfall profits. Nearly 15 percent of U.S. LNG volumes remain uncontracted and can therefore be sold at higher prices on volatile spot markets.

This dynamic not only boosts short-term profits but also strengthens the political narrative used to justify new LNG export terminals and expanded fossil fuel infrastructure. All this while U.S. citizens are also facing significant increases in the cost of oil and gas, making it even more obvious, as if it were needed, that the only ones profiting are fossil fuel companies. 

All this while Russia, hit by EU sanctions, sees its energy profits rise. Recent estimates indicate that Russia has collected $7 billion in fossil fuel revenues since U.S. and Israeli strikes led to the shutdown of gas and oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz. This not only allows Russia to further finance the war in Ukraine, but also gives Putin an opportunity to highlight what he portrays as the unreliability of LNG as a primary energy source, framing it as a precarious alternative to Russian pipeline gas. 

Yet, paradoxically, the same crisis could accelerate renewable energy deployment. Countries without abundant fossil fuel resources, such as those in the EU, may have no choice but to invest faster in clean energy. But even here, the path is fraught. Access to renewable technologies may become more competitive and expensive as supply chains fragment and inflation rises. In countries rich in fossil fuels, like the U.S., investments are likely to continue favouring fossil energy, while resource-rich nations such as Argentina may double-down on fracked gas LNG production for export. 

If this latest conflict does accelerate the push for renewables, it also risks sparking a fierce scramble for the technologies and materials needed to deploy it. In such a scenario, poorer nations are likely to be left at a disadvantage, struggling to access the clean technologies they need while wealthier countries secure the lion’s share. The result could be a renewable energy transition that replicates the fossil fuel model of unequal resource distribution, undermining fair and just development.

Beyond Gas: Ending Europe’s Fossil Fuel Dependency

For Europe, this geopolitical turmoil reinforces an uncomfortable truth: as long as the EU remains dependent on fossil gas, it will remain exposed to global crises. 

The surge in fossil fuel prices following the US and Israeli strikes on Iran underscores, once again, the urgent need to phase out fossil gas. 

The EU can no longer afford to tie its ‘energy security’ to volatile global markets, where every crisis ends up hitting the most vulnerable citizens first. At the same time, Europe continues to rely on LNG imports while externalizing impacts onto local communities living near extraction sites and LNG infrastructure. Furthermore, the longer the energy transition is delayed, the more costly it will ultimately be for everyone. 

Ending this dependence will not come through the diversification of imports, as some continue to suggest, nor through the extraction of fossil fuels within Europe. It will only come through electrification. 

The legislation passed during the previous mandate and the European Green Deal offered a promising starting point. The focus on critical raw materials, the first funding mechanisms for a fair and just transition, the regulations needed to progressively phase out fossil fuels where alternatives exist, and efforts to build a fairer and more resilient electricity system all pointed in the right direction.

However, today’s political and regulatory debate appears to be moving in the opposite direction. The EU is facing a wave of deregulation that is undermining several pillars of the EU Green Deal, largely driven by pressure from the fossil fuel industry. Yet this horrific war sends an unmistakable signal: Europe cannot keep looking to the past. Instead, it must accelerate the renewable transition, continue reducing gas demand, invest in homegrown renewable energy, and support community-led approaches such as energy communities. 

***

END

 

Beyond Gas Conference 2025: Connecting Anti-Gas Fights Across Borders

Categories

JusticeFossil FuelsClimate

Beyond Gas Conference 2025 in Brussels (Belgium)

In the last week of November, in Brussels, the 2025 Beyond Gas Conference brought together 50 activists, researchers, environmentalists, and campaigners for two days of fruitful discussions. Co-hosted with Fossil Free Politics (FFP) and Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), it addressed a pan-European context where deregulation prioritizes economic interests over people interests, underscoring the need to counter fossil fuel lobbying against a fossil gas phase-out.

Day 1: Mapping Gas Dependency

The first day examined global gas trends, followed by country-specific insights from Central Eastern Europe, Spain, Argentina, Canada, and beyond. Participants shared contexts and challenges tied to gas reliance.

The day continued with a session on the political landscape highlighting shifts in 2024 and 2025: a right-leaning EU Commission and far-right gains in Member States are weakening the climate agenda. Discussions covered impacts on gas phase-out efforts and activist spaces, with exchanges on responses and best practices.

Following up, Fossil Free Politics, rooted in the  Beyond Gas Network, presented its ongoing campaigns and key successes. FFP facilitated talks on national-level deregulation trends in climate policy, helping participants analyze different patterns, predict future risks, and share best practices to safeguard previous victories.

The day wrapped up with collaborative sessions where participants brainstormed and outlined potential joint campaigns, laying groundwork for day 2!

Day 2: Strategies and joint campaigning

Day two focused on joint campaigning and strategies. It began with a session titled “The fossil economy escapes hatches – where is gas hiding?”, which went beyond high-profile targets like LNG terminals and major pipelines. Participants examined subtler aspects of the gas industry, including ‘certified’ gas initiatives, hydrogen blending proposals, expansion in the petrochemical industry, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies: All false tactics that sustain fossil gas expansion under different guises.

This was followed by a session on best practices and advice for engaging private sector actors, particularly banks and insurance companies that finance gas infrastructure. These financial actors are essential to project viability, and the group reviewed real-world examples of campaigns that successfully applied pressure, resulting in slowed development, funding withdrawals, or outright project cancellations. 

Finally, the afternoon opened-up to over 20 participant-driven open spaces, self-organized sessions ranging from strategic discussions and theoretical reflection to the screening of socially engaged movies.

Looking Ahead: Civil Society’s Role in a Challenging Landscape

Marking the 9th edition of the Beyond Gas Conference in the Network’s 10th anniversary year, the meeting underscored the indispensable role of civil society in advancing the gas phase-out. With a deteriorating political climate, rising social tensions, and a resurgence in fossil gas promotion by industry actors, the gathering highlighted ongoing hurdles while affirming the value of cross-border coordination, solidarity, and knowledge exchange. Fossil fuel actors are stronger than ever. But we are proud to be united in this difficult time.

See you next year for the 10th edition, continuing to push for a gas-free Europe.

Civil Society Letter: No Fossil Hydrogen in PCI/PMI Projects

Categories

Fossil FuelsClimate

Over 100 hydrogen-related projects are being considered for Projects of Common Interest (PCI) and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMI) status, giving them fast-track permits and access to billions in public subsidies. Most of these projects will rely on hydrogen made from fossil gas, keeping Europe dependent on gas and diverting resources from the renewable energy transition.

Old gas pipelines are being rebranded as “hydrogen-ready,” while renewable energy and electrification are left underfunded. This isn’t just a policy issue: it’s about locking us into dirty energy for decades.

More than 30 civil society groups are calling on EU decision-makers to exclude fossil-based hydrogen projects from the PCI/PMI list and to prioritise renewable energy and direct electrification instead.

Read the full letter here.

Seven Civil Society Organizations Respond Jointly to the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Big Plans for Hydrogen Infrastructure

199 large-scale hydrogen infrastructure projects have been submitted as candidates for the sought-after EU PCI/PMI list, the priority list for “Projects of Common and Mutual Interest”.

Once included on the list, PCIs and PMIs receive priority status; streamlined Environmental Impact Assessments and permitting procedures; and eligibility to apply for EU tax funding.

The fossil fuel industry submitted a majority of the projects. Most aim to transport fossil fuel-based hydrogen (or don’t exclude it).

Together with Linha Vermelha, Climate Action Network Europe, PowerShift e.V., Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the Polish Green Network, Workshop of all Beings and NOAH – Foe Denmark, Food & Water Action Europe submitted a response to the public consultation on these hydrogen projects.

You can find the response here: https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Joint_submission_H2-PCIs2025-1.pdf.

March 2025: A Powerful Month of Action Against the Transatlantic LNG Frenzy*

*Make some popcorn, lean back and enjoy the show: Many of the links below lead to empowering mini-videos – have a look!

March 2025 saw two fossil fuel industry events happen simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic. Both represented a ‘polluters party’, with oil and gas executives meeting to discuss expanding their dirty, deadly business model.

CERA week, often referred to as the ‘Super Bowl’ of fossil fuel conferences, happened in Houston, Texas; LNGCon, an exclusive conference uniting the LNG industry behind closed doors, took place in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

These conferences brought together the richest oil and gas companies and the worst extracting industries to shape our energy future – at the cost of a livable planet.

In a powerful show of connectivity and solidarity, groups and individuals from across the Americas and Europe united around these industry events to stand up against polluters’ plans that threaten our health, our economy and the livability of our planet..

It makes sense that Texas, home to a huge amount of fossil fuel infrastructure, and Europe, the primary market for U.S. LNG exports, became focal points of resistance against these fossil fuel gatherings. 

To show their disapproval, groups in Amsterdam held a full day of sessions on the dangers of gas, hosted a live-stream with a community member impacted by the U.S. fossil fuel industry, and projected a video featuring advocates voices on a giant wall. 

Simultaneously, Texas Campaign for the Environment helped organize a flurry of activities in Houston around CERA week, featuring powerful speeches, performances, and a long and colorful march with hundreds of people. These and further actions included exposing climate villains in many creative ways.

Mutual support through live-streams and solidarity videos showed that the fight against LNG and the need to protect our future spans across the Atlantic and the world.

Also in Texas, NRDC and Conexiones Climáticas held a panel at the famous South by Southwest (SXSW) festival, titled “Wall Street, Big Oil and their Planet-Destroying Love Affair.” The discussion highlighted the threat that LNG export infrastructure such as Saguaro LNG poses for marine life – especially whales.

Beyond Texas and Amsterdam, so much more happened with protectors in Germany, Belgium, Brazil, France and Spain – all saying NO to a dangerous LNG expansion. A few great examples:

  • Our own Food & Water Action Europe activities – jointly with Oil Change International and Fossil Free Politics – included an event in the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, as well as a mini film-festival on LNG.
  • Influencers, scientists and activists from Germany – the EU country most threatened by LNG build-out – spoke up against this costly, unneeded fossil fuel frenzy.
  • In Brazil, a big anti-gas rally took place during Carnival.
  • In France, screenings of LNG documentaries featured the impacts of the dirty fuel on communities in the U.S. Gulf South.
  • In Spain and Mexico, people reminded Santander Bank that it must not lend its financial support to a destructive LNG terminal in Mexico.

These ocean-spanning activities should be a wake-up call for everyone to stand up against greedy, reckless fossil fuel millionaires, and protect what we love: clean air, clean water, a healthy planet and a liveable future!