European CSO statement responding to the DOE’s 2024 LNG Export Study: ‘Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports’

Categories

MethaneLNGJusticeFossil FuelsDemocracyClimate

US LNG exports harm the environment and communities across the full supply chain while fueling devastating global warming. No envisaged LNG export and import capacity expansion is needed on either side of the Atlantic from an energy security point of view, nor does it contribute in a positive way to economic benefits for the people and the country. Instead of being in the public interest, they serve the orgiastic profit greed of polluting companies and reckless individuals. This needs to end!

We request the current and future US DOE to deny all (pending and future) authorizations for US LNG exports and lay out further reasoning for this in our letter.

Read the letter signed by 78 groups from Europe and beyond here.

Hundreds Talk Solutions at Anti-Summit as Fossil Industry meets at Dirty LNG Gathering in Berlin

Categories

VictoryMethaneLNGJusticeFossil Fuels

Mid-December this year saw a moment of powerful strengthening for the German movement against polluting fossil gas and liquified ‘natural’ gas (LNG): Around seven hundred of activists, climate protectors and campaigners met in Berlin to collaborate, strategize or support each other’s struggles. 

They were not the only ones gathering. Just next to Berlin’s famous ‘Brandenburger Tor,’ in a fancy luxury hotel, the world’s biggest polluters, government representatives and lobbyists met at the World LNG Summit to discuss how to prolong the future of one of the dirtiest fossil fuels. 

The Panels

Civil society united at a vibrant Counter Summit just as polluters schmoozed and conspired on how to forge further dirty deals: how to greenwash emissions-heavy fossil gas, and how to get away with disregarding blatant human rights violations linked to LNG.

One of the Counter Summit’s highlights was two international panels with some extraordinary panelists. They included: 

  • James Hiatt from ‘For a Better Bayou’ at the Texas-Louisiana border, a region heavily affected and polluted by fossil gas and petrochemical industries which supply Europe with gas and petrochemical products 
  • Mika Schachenmayr, from Fridays For Future Berlin, who reminded the audience that numerous concrete steps to finally start the ambitious gas phase-out are here and ready today 
  • Mima Holt, from the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council, who highlighted that the American climate movement is ready to fight damaging LNG export plans despite a looming second Trump presidency 
  • Hereditary Chief Na’Moks from the Wet’suwet’en nation and Jesse Stoeppler, deputy chief of the Hagwilget First Nation and co–executive director of the Skeena Watershed Conservation, who warned about the extreme military brutality Indigenous tribes in what they call ‘so-called Canada’ are facing when protecting their land from fossil gas pipelines 
  • Svitlana Romanko, from the Ukrainian organization Razom We Stand, who illustrated how continued Russian LNG imports into Europe fill Putin’s war coffers
  • Sara Ribeiro, from the Brazilian NGO Arayara, who told the crowd about the threats and destruction the Amazon rainforest and our climate faces due to oil and gas plans in the region 
  • Claudia Campero, from Conexiones Climaticas, who described how LNG projects threaten whales and the ‘Aquarium of the World’ in the Gulf of California
  • and Sascha Müller-Kränner, managing director at German Environmental Action (DUH), one of the biggest German NGO fighting LNG build-out, who denounced Germany’s ‘LNG Acceleration Law’ which helps disregarding a proper Environmental Impact Assessment and permitting procedures, and leads to an unchecked, dangerous creation of LNG overcapacity in Germany. 

Also German State Secretary Stefan Wenzel was part of the panel and responded to quite a bit of criticism from the audience. Despite being part of the Green party in Germany, which is currently in the German government coalition, Wenzel has largely promoted the country’s reckless LNG infrastructure expansion.

While hot discussions in heated rooms took place, activists braved temperatures around the freezing point in different parts of Berlin, protesting peacefully with their presence and bodies against the fossil fuel industry summit which gambles with our future for the sole purpose of amassing corporate power and profit.

Actions and Marches

They gathered for sit-ins and covered the summit venue with green paint to show the unacceptable greenwashing of dirty fossil LNG that took place there. They organized banner-drops and projections with anti-gas slogans on the hotel facade. On 10 December, hundreds gathered close to the luxury Adlon Hotel to march against the Summit, together forming a yellow ‘X’ (a symbol of anti-nuclear, coal and fossil resistance in Germany) and booing the fossil fuel corporations TotalEnergies and Venture Global, who received an “anti-award” for being the worst participants of the summit (although the choice was a hard one).

You Can’t Steal Our Future!

The message was clear: Civil society has solutions for the climate crisis that are not only feasible, but a clear alternative to the industry’s false fossil solutions. It was also made clear that the people don’t accept dirty deal-making behind closed doors, deals that accelerate human rights violations and climate collapse. Heavily protected by police, passing thorough security checks and certainly following media reporting on the many civil disobedience actions all around them, the gas industry executives certainly heard what protesters were telling them: You and the fossil fuels you sell belong to the past. You are not welcome here. We’re here, we’re loud, and you can’t steal our future!

This Was the 2024 Beyond Gas Conference in Gdańsk, Poland

Categories

MethaneLNGJusticeFossil FuelsClimate

Conference report
by Daniela Maksin

On the last weekend of October in Poland’s northern port city of Gdańsk, the 2024 Beyond Gas Conference brought together a vibrant network of activists, environmentalists, and campaigners. Representatives from across Europe and far beyond joined creative and analytical forces to discuss strategies for combating fossil gas expansion, and enabling a transition towards genuine sustainable energy solutions. The event, held over four days, featured skill-sharing sessions, storytelling exercises, open spaces, and a photo stunt. By emphasizing collaboration, and solidarity, the conference aimed to challenge systemic reliance on fossil fuels and advocate for truly just and equitable alternatives.

Day 1: Addressing Root Causes

The discussion began with a focus on understanding the root causes of the climate crisis through an intersectional lens, acknowledging the interconnectedness of racism, capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, and imperialism. Conversations emphasized that meaningful climate action must address these systemic inequities, not continue to work within their constraints.

A powerful storytelling session illustrated the strength of building bridges between diverse activist communities, from Azeri political prisoner advocates to cultural leaders like artists and theater directors. Using this example of one campaign against oil and gas companies as a starting point, participants were able to reflect on the challenges of broadening campaign narratives, including the importance of addressing localized struggles rather than only abstract global warming concepts. Reflective exercises encouraged attendees to identify affected groups and potential allies outside their usual networks, fostering opportunities for future collaborations.

After hearing about participants’ experiences on the ground in Europe, the US, and Africa, we discussed the challenges posed by the current political situation, particularly when it comes to gas. We also raised some tough questions in the room, like how we should deal with the growing number of opponents, conservatives, and far-right decision-makers. 

Day 2: Collaboration and Campaign Strategies

Participants were further introduced to some more personal accounts from their peers, with powerful campaign presentations from Texas, Zimbabwe, Canada and several European countries, inspiring both confidence and reflection. One speaker detailed impactful efforts against major fossil fuel financiers, including lawsuits targeting greenwashing and campaigns challenging bank involvement in dangerous LNG projects. Another shed light on the threatening social dimensions of militarized construction of LNG terminals in Canada, particularly in an Indigenous context, stressing the need for international pressure to hold perceived climate leaders accountable.

Interactive sessions encouraged attendees to envision the outcomes of their efforts in 2025, focusing on political opportunities, coalition building, and shifting the narratives on gas and hydrogen. Breakout groups delved even deeper into critical issues such as LNG, gas infrastructure decommissioning, green and blue hydrogen project critiques, and alliances with gas workers and unions. By proposing an open format for these discussions, all participants were encouraged to move freely between topics that interested them.

Day 3: Building a Joint Direction

The third day highlighted the intersectionality of energy struggles with broader social justice issues. More success stories, looking closely at current global events and international tensions, underscored the potential for reciprocal solidarity between climate movements and social justice causes. Collectively, the cohort thought about strategies to overcome divisions within anti-gas forces and leverage international coalitions to create systemic change.

Timeline creation exercises emphasized the importance of structured planning while accommodating the realities of life’s unpredictability. Attendees also discussed upcoming global events, including the 2025 European Gas Conference in Bucharest, the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the counter World LNG Summit in Berlin, and preparations for important elections in 2025.

Closing Action: Solidarity Against the planned Gdańsk LNG facility

The conference culminated in a powerful collective photo stunt on the beach at Górki Zachodnie, a location reflecting the pressing environmental issues at stake. Activists gathered to oppose the proposed construction of a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) in the Gulf of Gdańsk, an project seen as a threat to local ecosystems, communities, and our global climate. Residents and activists of the surrounding districts have long voiced concerns about the terminal’s potential to devastate nature, disrupt recreational access, and exacerbate pollution in the region. By staging the action on this contested ground, participants sought to amplify the voices of these affected communities and draw national and international attention to the urgent need for alternative solutions.

The demonstration was organized by key environmental groups, including Greenpeace Polska, Food & Water Action Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe, Polska Zielona Sieć and Pracownia na rzecz Wszystkich Istot, who collaborated to make the protest both impactful and visually striking. Participants formed a massive “Stop Gas” sign visible from the air, with drone footage capturing the moment to spread their message to a broader audience. By leveraging such imagery, organizers hoped to not only influence public opinion but also pressure decision-makers to reconsider their support for the terminal.

Speakers at the action highlighted the terminal’s implications for Poland’s energy future, emphasizing that 80% of the country’s gas is imported, much of which is fracked gas from the U.S. . This dependence on external suppliers, they argued, undermines Poland’s energy security and locks the nation into a fossil fuel paradigm at a time when an urgent transition to renewables is needed. They called for redirecting resources toward truly clean, sustainable energy solutions, such as 100% clean energy and storage systems, efficiency improvements, and demand reductions. This encapsulated the conference’s core message: meaningful change begins when diverse voices unite to challenge the status quo and envision a better future.

Day 4: Key Takeaways and Next Steps

The final day of the conference allowed everyone to shape the space to meet their individual needs, whether that was a chance to relax and soak up the beauty of Gdańsk, revisit meaningful conversations, or deepen the discussions they had  throughout the previous days.

The 2024 Beyond Gas Conference reaffirmed the critical need for intersectional, transnational efforts to address the climate crisis. By focusing on root causes and fostering collaboration across diverse movements, participants left equipped with actionable insights and renewed resolve. Looking ahead, the conference set the stage for continued mobilization against LNG expansion, hydrogen greenwashing, and extractivist energy projects, while amplifying the voices of frontline communities most impacted by these issues.

People and Climate on the Line: Will the Next EU Commissioners Embrace a Fossil-Free Future?

Categories

Fossil FuelsDemocracyClimate

Fossil gas and the new EU Commission

With the confirmation hearings for the new commissioners-designate beginning this week, we are taking a closer look at the key candidates who could shape the EU’s climate and energy policies in the coming years if they are confirmed.

Starting today, commissioners-designate will face a grilling at the European Parliament, where they’ll have to tackle a series of questions about their backgrounds and outline their priorities for the roles they seek to assume. If the College of Commissioners receives a positive vote from the European Parliament following the hearings,  a new European Commission would begin on December 1.

We’re particularly keen to investigate three candidates: Dan Jørgensen (Energy and Housing), Wopke Hoekstra (Climate Action) and Teresa Ribera (Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition). 

The pressing questions we’re asking are: 

  • If these three are confirmed, what stance will they take on fossil gas, given their backgrounds?
  • Will they be more prone to listen to the fossil fuel industry, or will they genuinely strive to steer the EU towards a 100% clean energy transition?

Dan Jørgensen: Clean Energy Champion or Fossil Fuel Compromiser?

Dan Jørgensen, Denmark’s appointed EU Commissioner for Energy and Housing, is a seasoned politician from the Social Democrats. Jørgensen has previously held significant roles, including Minister for Climate, Energy and Public Utilities from 2019 to 2022, where he was instrumental in Denmark’s pledge to cut emissions by 70% by 2030. However, his approach to fossil gas has raised eyebrows and sparked debate.

While Jørgensen talks a good game about green transitions and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, his backing of the 115-km ‘Baltic Pipe’ gas pipeline, with a price tag of about $113 million, has left many scratching their heads. It’s hard not to see the irony: advocating for a cleaner future while simultaneously laying down infrastructure that extends fossil fuel use. As he prepares for confirmation, Jørgensen will need to demonstrate that he can prioritize a genuine transition to clean energy over short-term gains for the fossil fuel sector.

Skeletons in the Closet: Do Conflicts of Interest Shape Hoekstra’s Climate Decisions?

As Wopke Hoekstra awaits confirmation as the EU Climate Commissioner, his position on fossil gas is under intense scrutiny. His past positions with Shell and McKinsey — a management consultancy that counts major players in the fossil fuel sector among its clients, including some of the world’s largest oil and gas companieshave raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest

In his hearing before the European Parliament’s environment committee following his nomination to succeed Commissioner Frans Timmermans, Hoekstra stressed the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels, calling them “counterproductive for the EU’s energy transition” and declaring, “the sooner fossil fuels become history, the better.” Yet despite these statements, questions linger about his genuine commitment to moving the EU decisively away from fossil gas. 

In particular, some of Hoekstra’s positions have raised alarms – particularly his support for costly, unproven technologies that risk extending the lifespan of fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). Although he has affirmed that CCS is not a panacea for all our decarbonization problems, he has emphasized that “we cannot afford to leave CCS out of the equation, particularly for the hardest-to-abate sectors.” Hoekstra is also directly involved in the EU’s plans for a major expansion of CCS technology. The European Commission’s strategy envisions CO2 storage growing from nearly zero today to 280 million tonnes annually by 2040, and reaching 450 million tonnes by 2050.

Relying on ‘false solutions’ rather than committing to an accelerated fossil fuel phase-out risks becoming a dangerous distraction. If re-confirmed as the EU’s climate chief, Hoekstra’s appointment would serve as a stark reminder of the fossil fuel industry’s persistent influence within EU decision-making and the critical need for stronger safeguards against conflicts of interest.

Teresa Ribera: Hope for a Green Champion At EU level

Known for her expertise in environmental policy and commitment to renewable energy, Teresa Ribera’s appointment could signal a positive shift in the EU’s approach to fossil fuels and the clean energy transition. As Spain’s Minister for Ecological Transition, Ribera has been a vocal proponent of renewable energy sources and has criticized the fossil fuel industry’s lack of transparency on climate issues. Therefore, if confirmed as EU commissioner, Ribera is expected to prioritize the expansion of Europe’s electricity grid and the acceleration of renewable energy initiatives – although it will be crucial to ensure that this does not translate into support for fossil-based hydrogen and other false solutions.

In her role as Vice President for a Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition, it will be vital for Ribera to uphold her commitment to redirecting subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy. This approach not only seeks to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis but also confronts urgent climate and environmental challenges, ensuring that the ‘just’ in her title reflects a genuine commitment to equity and sustainability for all communities. 

A growing concern is that less progressive forces within the Commission, along with resistance from certain EU member states and a more conservative European Parliament, could exert undue influence. This could mean that real opportunities for transitioning away from fossil fuels –particularly fossil gas – may be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. 

World, EU, Brussels: 2024 EU Election Day 

Categories

MethaneLNGJusticeFossil FuelsDemocracyClimate

As the sun sets on the European Parliament in Brussels on 9 June, it is the same old stone and glass building as before, but the composition of its parliamentarians has changed. While the worst results could be avoided, there is not much to celebrate.

An hour earlier that evening, we had Belgian beers and crisps as we met near the Parliament with civil society allies, moaning at the results of the EU election slowly coming in one by one on television. Overall, there were losses for the Greens in most countries, while far-right parties all across Europe were rejoicing – parties which traditionally tended to sabotage green measures, questioned climate change or at least its urgency, and had many interests in common with the fossil fuel industry.

We share worried looks. It is likely that defending the EU Green Deal achievements and policies that protect Europeans from the worst impacts of climate change and pollution will be more difficult from now on, because some of our most important allies in the EU Parliament have not been re-elected. And the French, the Austrians and the Germans among us felt guilty, feeling responsible for their compatriots: French far-right Rassemblement National and Austrian far-right FPÖ parties got more votes than any other party in these countries, and German extreme-right AfD party came in second. 

Things don’t look much better in other countries, we learn, staring spellbound at the big screen revealing election result after election result.

The small silver lining is that pro European, pro democracy parties in the EU Parliament will remain the majority, and a right-wing majority could be avoided.

So in this moment, what can we do to avoid a feeling of disappointment and anxiety creep into our bodies? First we have to keep up the spirits!

We decide to join a singing flashmob, right at the stairs of the EU Parliament, the big square of the Parliament with gigantic election posters in front of us, and the reflection of the setting sun on the glassy, enormous parliament entrance behind us.

A few steps below us, a crowd of journalists and listeners gathers as we sing ‘Ode to Joy’ – the European anthem and ‘Bella Ciao’ to underline the fact that we are all determined to continue fighting for our future. And this is what we will do, we will fight for clean air and water and against polluters’ interests that are irreconcilable with liveable conditions on earth.

Once the songs are over, and the accordion and guitar stop, people move and go home. We stand in silence, watching the last rays of sun reflect from the Parliament building. But some energetic footsteps behind us make us turn around: The lead candidate of the Belgian left labor party PTB walks energetically towards the parliament’s entrance. His party won seats in the French-speaking part of Belgium and we assume he’s ready for a proper election party in the ‘holy halls’. He disappears into the building as quickly as he appeared, and we decided to leave.

But just seconds later, we almost bump into one of the most influential men in the EU Parliament: Manfred Weber from the center-right German CSU party, who was said to become Commission President in 2019. Although the elections confirmed his party as the biggest in the EU Parliament, there is no smile on his face, as he stiffly walks past us. Dawn is breaking over the square in front of the parliament now, and over the many bars surrounding it. We hear clamoring and move closer. There is the socialist Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, surrounded by a little crowd, talking at the top of his voice. He underlines what has been said in the days ahead of the elections: he pledges non-cooperation with the far-right, and wants to uphold the European Green Deal.

We are tired. Sometimes – probably most of the time, even – all things happen at once in Brussels.

We hop on our bikes and cycle home. Tomorrow is Monday and we are ready to start working and getting ready for a new legislative period ahead.

The EU’s Methane Regulation: Promises, Pitfalls, and Fossil Fuel Industry Pushback

Categories

Methane

On May 27, the EU Council gave its final approval to the much-anticipated EU regulation on methane emissions reduction in the energy sector. Expected to take effect by the end of June, this regulation targets methane emissions, an extremely potent greenhouse gas (GHG). The main component of fossil gas, methane, is a climate killer: If fossil gas leaks more than 3% of its methane content, it has a greater impact on the climate than coal.

While this legislation represents the EU’s first concerted effort to tackle methane emissions, both domestically and internationally, it falls short of needed action, particularly regarding fossil fuel import rules. Take a look at our analysis of the compromise agreement for further insights.

But after the adoption comes a new chapter fraught with challenges and uncertainties: implementation. The European Commission faces the task of clarifying several key aspects, including how to calculate the methane intensity of imported gas and establish “maximum methane intensity values” (i.e., an import standard). Additionally, it must determine the criteria for judging whether imported fossil fuels adhere to equivalent measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) standards as those in the EU. Questions also linger regarding data verification and potential penalties for non-compliance.

These uncertainties raise significant concerns, as they could provide opportunities for the fossil fuel industry to influence the text, given its track record of lobbying efforts to dilute the regulation. The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) has already signaled its discontent, hinting at efforts to push for greater ‘flexibility’ and potentially undermine the regulation.

As a senior policy officer of the IOGP put it, “I think we need to admit that such regulations are seldom perfect from day one, and there is always room for improvement. Swift action on these improvements is essential for companies, for upstream and downstream companies, to address methane emissions efficiently and proportionately.” The clear risk is that these “improvements” will ultimately benefit only the polluting oil and gas industries.

Even before the regulation’s final approval, the fossil fuel industry was vocal about prioritizing “energy security” over stringent environmental measures. This stance, notably amplified following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has served as a primary justification for the massive investments in Liquefied ‘Natural’ Gas (LNG), despite its detrimental climate impacts. This narrative has been a convenient tool to resist stronger regulations, as seen in a September 2023 letter to EU policymakers where IOGP lobbied to water down key aspects of the Methane Regulation and opposed including imported fossil fuels. This is particularly significant as the EU is one of the world’s largest fossil fuel consumers and importers, with the majority of its methane emissions linked to these imports. Yet, even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) made clear in a recent report that climate action is not impacting energy security negatively. Quite the opposite, the IMF research shows how selected climate protection measures will even reverse a decade of deterioration of Europe’s energy security situation.

A report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests that effective methane emissions regulations could prevent significant gas resources from being wasted through flaring and leaks along the supply chain. These measures could unlock an additional 210 billion cubic meters (bcm) of fossil gas for global markets, providing more immediate relief to energy security concerns than new investments in gas supply. All this would need to be strictly coupled with an ambitious fossil fuel phase out.

This is particularly important, as oil and gas companies may seize methane emission reduction initiatives as an opportunity to perpetuate the false narrative of fossil gas being a clean energy alternative. Shell, for instance, prominently features on its website a target to “maintain methane emissions intensity below 0.2% and achieve near-zero methane emissions by 2030,” aiming to become a “net-zero emissions energy business by 2050.” While cutting methane emissions is an essential short-term goal, it clearly appears that polluters see a strategy to keep their business alive for decades to come. Moreover, the methane regulation itself lacks foresight by failing to include any reference to a fossil fuel phase-out in the long-term. 

It is therefore crucial in the coming months to remain vigilant about the implementation of the regulation, which – despite its flaws and shortcomings – is likely to face continued attacks from the fossil fuel industry. Any further weakening of the text would be devastating news for both people and the planet, sending a grim signal regarding methane emission reduction efforts in other sectors as well. Particularly concerning is the agricultural sector, responsible for over 50% of methane emissions in the EU, where a long and arduous battle lies ahead.