Archives: Blogs

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 companies — have 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.

 

Manifesto For The 2024 EU Elections

Categories

LNGJusticeFossil FuelsClimate

CHAMPIONING BOLD CLIMATE ACTION, SOCIAL JUSTICE & PHASE OUT FROM FOSSIL FUELS

Amidst the challenges the EU and the world are currently facing, the upcoming 2024 European elections mark a critical juncture. The past years have been marked by multiple and unprecedented crises from the global impact of COVID-19 pandemic, growing impacts of climate change, and conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine, among others. All these crises have triggered a ripple effect causing a profound impact on communities, especially the most vulnerable ones, with a surge in energy poverty and a deepening of social inequalities. The upcoming EU legislators must provide concrete, just and effective responses to these crises, especially in the face of mounting Euroscepticism and the resurgence of far-right parties.

In our manifesto, there are 7 key demands for the upcoming EU lawmakers, urging them not to invest in dirty Liquefied “Natural” Gas (LNG) and fossil gas projects, but to truly commit to a 100% clean and just energy transition, away from the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Our full manifesto is available in English here.

 

LNG Threat Map

Check out the digital version of our LNG Threat Map!

Front side: European LNG terminals, build-out plans and threat categories

Back side: European (and a small selection of international) groups opposing the LNG build-out

Liquefied ‘Natural’ Gas (LNG) is fossil gas, cooled down to -162 degrees Celsius to turn it into a liquid. This reduces its volume by a factor of about 600, making it easier to load LNG on ships and transport it across the ocean. About 42% of the gas consumed in Europe in 2023 arrived in the form of LNG, the biggest part of it was fracked US LNG. Along the entire supply chain, LNG leads to high emissions, making it a hazardous climate threat that rivals even coal in its climate impact. On top of environmental damage, LNG has severe impacts on communities both in supply countries as well as many import countries.

Find here a non-exhaustive list of groups opposing the LNG build-out in Europe and beyond, including links to their websites.

Uniting Against Fossil Capitalism: Highlights from the People’s Summit in Vienna

Categories

JusticeFossil FuelsClimate

From March 22nd to 24th, activists and campaigners from across Europe and beyond converged in Vienna for the People’s Summit. This year’s gathering was marked by ad significant victory: The organizers of the notorious European Gas Conference, a meeting of the planet’s most egregious polluters, were forced to postpone their event indefinitely due to fears of activist actions and disruptions.

The People’s Summit brought together an inspiring group of activists, campaigners, and concerned citizens, all committed to tackling the existential threat posed by fossil gas. Food & Water Action Europe joined the summit and hosted a series of sessions. Over the course of three days, attendees engaged in a packed agenda, delving into critical topics such as the expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure and the proliferation of fossil gas projects all over the world, or the promotion of false solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen by the fossil fuel industry. Moreover, the conference shed light on the interconnected nature of the fight against fossil capitalism, emphasizing its connections to the rise of extreme right movements, (neo-)colonialism, social injustices, militarization, and the ongoing conflict in Palestine.

The summit also aimed to expose Europe’s complicity in the global proliferation of fossil fuel infrastructure. In a bid to fortify international solidarity, the conference welcomed delegations from the United States, Canada, and Africa. These frontline community voices brought to light the deep-seated injustices perpetuated by fossil capitalism, reminding us that behind the statistics and every additional percentage of fossil fuel imports lies a human story of suffering.. The participants from British Columbia, Texas and the Niger Delta provided a stark reminder that the struggle isn’t just a choice—it’s a question of life or death. Solidarity, as they demonstrated, goes beyond mere rhetoric—it is about amplifying marginalized voices, understanding their struggles, and coming together to get ready to fight back. 

Undoubtedly, the journey towards phasing out fossil fuels and dismantling the prevailing fossil system remains arduous.

Yet, as Chloe Torres from Texas Campaign for the Environment poignantly reminded us, “We lose only when we stop trying, we only lose when we stop being unapologetic in our demands for a world free of unnecessary suffering and that for me is the world that I want to work towards“. 

Chloe’s sentiments echo a fundamental truth: The path to a sustainable and just future lies in collective action. By building bridges and joining forces, we have the capacity to overcome the fossil system, prioritizing the well-being of people and the planet over profit: a future where clean water, air, and land are accessible to all.