Archives: Blogs

Biden’s Administration Temporary Halt on New LNG Exports – An Important Step, yet the Fight Continues on Both Sides of the Atlantic

Categories

LNGFossil Fuels

“There is absolutely nothing natural about fracked gas, it is just a marketing term to make it seem like what I’m using here isn’t gonna impact me”,          Elida Castillo, Program Director Chispa Texas (Brussels, Oct. 12, 2023) 

In an important step for people and the planet, the Biden Administration announced last week its decision to temporarily pause pending decisions on exports of Liquified ‘Natural’ Gas (LNG). Biden’s gas export decision suspends projects like the construction of the Calcasieu Pass 2 (or CP2) in Louisiana, whose residents already experience the worst toxic pollution of any people across the U.S. 

CP2 is a $10 billion behemoth slated to become one of the largest LNG export terminals in the world. LNG facilities are a direct threat to public health in nearby communities, and drive demand for fracking, a destructive drilling technique tied to dramatic rise in climate-warming methane emissions. 

While Biden’s announcement marks a step forward, it does not impact LNG export projects that are already operating or permitted. The fossil fuel industry has already locked in massive infrastructure expansion: U.S. LNG exports have grown exponentially in the past years, and five LNG export projects currently under construction will double U.S. export capacity by 2027. This is why an immediate and permanent rejection of all proposed LNG exports and infrastructure is vital. It is imperative to send a strong message to the fossil fuel industry that this isn’t just a pause, but rather a firm commitment that there is no future in LNG and fossil gas.

 The fight will not be over until all LNG projects are definitively stopped. LNG expansion only serves the interests of the fossil fuel industry and shackles us to a deadly fossil-fueled future. Only a swift, just and participatory transition to 100% renewable energy gives us a chance to avoid climate catastrophe. As the EU elections approach, it is vital for the EU institutions to put the phase out of fossil fuels at the top of their agenda. This must be coupled with investments in energy efficiency and energy savings, while ensuring that no one is left behind.

As we applaud this win, we must recognize the tireless efforts of activists and frontline communities who have long been sounding the alarm on the devastating impacts of LNG and fracking. In solidarity with overseas fights, EU environmental organizations are supporting calls to stop new LNG investments on both sides of the Atlantic, which will risk creating stranded assets in the coming years. Especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, LNG expansion projects mushroomed in the EU, U.S. and elsewhere in the world. In 2022 the EU became the primary destination for the U.S. LNG shipments, and the bloc is still betting big on LNG to replace the millions of tonnes of fossil gas previously imported from Russia via pipeline. 

Photo stunt outside the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, January 29th

As highlighted in a letter sent by 60 MEPs from across the EU before the Biden Administration decision and reiterated in an joint NGOs open-letter, the expansion of LNG cannot be justified as a necessity for energy security, and Europe cannot be used as an excuse for LNG expansion in the U.S.

While the U.S. decision is indeed a reason to celebrate, it serves as a poignant reminder that the fight for a sustainable, just and oppression free future is far from over. It demonstrates that together we can kick fossil fuels out of our lives – in the EU, U.S., and around the world.

Civil society organizations in Europe ask Biden Administration to halt LNG facility build out

Categories

LNGJusticeFossil FuelsClimate

Today, Food & Water Action Europe, sent a message to US President Joe Biden and Secretary Jennifer Granholm together with over 40 civil society organization from across Europe.

We made clear that we oppose the build out of climate-wrecking US LNG export terminals which poison communities in the US and harm our environment and the planet.

You can find the letter here.

Beyond Gas Conference 2023

Connecting the struggles from East to West 

11th of January 2024 / Paola Matova, Food & Water Action Europe 

Who, what & why?

The urgency to foster connections among gas fighters was the main objective of the conference, aligning with the broader goal of ensuring both social equity and climate justice. Through the three days, participants actively engaged in an exchange of knowledge and information, creating crucial connections to collectively counter the persistent push for fossil gas. The conference served as a platform for taking stock of the progress made by the BGN, strategizing around next steps, and delving into the multifaceted regional perspectives and dynamics inherent in the fight against fossil fuels.

The BGC 2023 not only tackled current issues but also opened dialogues on future obstacles. Participants raised their concerns regarding potential investments in new fossil projects, the credibility of questionable solutions such as hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS), the political trajectory of the European Union in the pre-election period, and more extensive global societal challenges. Essentially, the dynamics discussed at the conference reflected a worldwide movement dedicated to dismantling the prevailing fossil fuel paradigm within the context of a capitalist economic system that sustains substantial inequalities.

Context

In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Union (EU) has shown support for various fossil gas projects through the REPowerEU Plan. Despite having sufficient fossil gas import capacity, the EU is rushing to build additional Liquefied ‘Natural’ Gas (LNG) terminals and pipelines as part of a strategy to reduce reliance on Russian gas. The plan proposes utilizing the European public budget.

The EU’s focus on increasing LNG imports aims to replace a significant portion of the EU’s gas imports that were previously sourced from Russia – a whopping 155 billion cubic meters of Russian fossil gas. This rush raises concerns about prioritizing fossil gas and hydrogen over renewable solutions and direct electrification, hindering efforts to address the ongoing climate crisis.

Simultaneously, fossil gas is a contentious issue and triggers deep-seated conflicts in other regions too, independent of the war in Ukraine. Israel has been promoted as a strategic partner in the context of European energy security, particularly within the framework of the RePowerEU initiative. Through a trilateral agreement involving the EU, Egypt, and Israel, the plan envisions Israel selling fossil gas – extracted from Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) – from its Leviathan and Tamar fields to the EU. This partnership has led to the construction of additional pipelines and the exploration of new offshore fossil gas concessions. 

The EU is highly dependent on fossil energy imports, especially as a primary destination for LNG exports. Consequently, Europe bears direct accountability for the adverse effects on indigenous/local communities, ecosystems, and the socio-political effects resulting from the expansion of fossil gas extraction.

Connecting the fights: International and regional 

BGC 2023 started with a spectrum line session – as we could not start talking about fossil gas without being on the same page and considering the different experiences, realities, perspectives, understandings, privileges and starting points of each and everyone in the room.

The Spectrum Lines revealed diverse perspectives within the group, with people from Germany expressing resonance with the EU narrative, people from Greece feeling closer to the Balkans and the Middle East region, and varying opinions on issues like discussing fossil gas without militarization. Additionally, it highlighted disparities in the connectivity of local movements, with some regions having strong connections and others – mainly Eastern European countries like Estonia/Latvia and Croatia –  acknowledging the limited size of the climate movement in this particular region.

Over the course of the next two days, local activists, researchers, and campaigners provided comprehensive updates and valuable insights from their respective campaigns. This allowed for a deep exploration of the implications for communities and the ongoing struggles faced by those at the forefront of the battle against major fossil fuel corporations. The discussions delved into the nuanced challenges, highlighting the direct impact on communities and the collective efforts required to confront and address the issues provoked by the fossil gas expansion. Most prominently, this was done in a panel discussion featuring delegation of women from the U.S. Gulf Coast alongside testimonies from Croatia and the Middle East.

Elida Castillo, representing Chispa Texas, shed light on the environmental injustices faced by marginalized communities, particularly Black and Hispanic populations, emphasizing the accountability of the fossil fuel industry, banks, and decision-makers. She told us how Chispa’s advocacy empowers communities through informed action, translating the impact of incidents for residents, and challenging the industry.

Elida reported how the Gulf Coast communities face imminent threat due to big expansion plans for fracked fossil gas infrastructure. One of the epicenters of this LNG expansion is her own town of Gregory, Texas, home to Corpus Christi LNG facility. Despite its small size, Gregory has borne the brunt of this dirty industry, including health impacts, contamination of food, air and water and safety threats.

In Corpus Christi, studies reveal alarming levels of pollutants, with residents facing significantly shorter life expectancies due to the cumulative impact of pollution. 

Chloe Torres, representing the Texas Campaign for the Environment, presented the impactful “Clean Slate” campaign, which confronts the profound health ramifications caused by the industry and exposes the redirection of public resources to wealthy corporations. 

Jenny Espino, also part of the Texas Campaign for the Environment, illuminated the intricate interplay of issues. She detailed the blatant environmental racism through deliberate infrastructural segregation and highlighted the stark health impacts visible in affected communities. She calls for comprehensive systemic change, challenging the status quo of both political parties and emphasized the inseparable links between environmental and social challenges.

Connecting these testimonies between the continents and therefore the fight in Europe, Maruska Mileta from Zelena Akcija (Friends of the Earth Croatia), shared the struggle surrounding the Krk anti LNG campaign in Croatia. 

 

Ermioni Frezouli from Gastivists Greece, representing the region together with Ya’ara Peretz and Myrto Skouroupathi, shared how experiences with the EastMed pipeline project highlights geopolitical tensions and conflicts, especially in regions like Cyprus and Greece andPalestine/Israel.

Efforts to raise awareness and oppose these projects face challenges, including a lack of climate movements and cultural protests. Strategies for outreach involve media actions, creative performances, social media campaigns, and direct engagement with communities, with an emphasis on the interconnectedness of environmental and social issues. However, obstacles persist, including difficulties in mobilizing people and the limited impact of health studies in legal proceedings. 

These international (U.S.) and regional fights among continents and in peripheral regions of Europe are interconnected through the shared supply chain of fossil gas, emphasizing the need for robust and region-specific climate justice movements.

The Action 

The majority of the participants of the conference, representing up to 19 countries, took part in a protest march in Prague. We targeted the headquarters of Energetický a průmyslový holding (EPH) and Komerční banka. EPH, a major European fossil fuel entity owned by Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský,   ranks among Europe’s top greenhouse gas emitters and is at the forefront of expansive gas infrastructure projects. The action sought to underscore the dire consequences of fossil gas extraction and combustion on the climate while specifically pointing out the role of EPH, with the focus on Komerční banka due to its longstanding financial support for EPH activities.

In the words of protest participant Klára Suková from Fridays for Future Czech Republic, “Clean fossil gas is a dirty lie. All fossil fuel extraction must end immediately. The first step is to end lending to fossil fuel companies.”

Outcomes

The conference session ‘Opportunities ahead & activities within the movement’ held by Collin Roche (Friends of the Earth Europe) and Gligor Radečić (CEE Bankwatch Network), outlined various  political opportunities and challenges facing the network. Emphasis was placed on the potential impact of fossil gas-related issues in local and EU elections, the integration of fossil gas into the 2040 climate targets communication, and diplomatic opportunities within the EU – U.S. Energy Council. Challenges included the threat of a shift to the far right post-elections, migration issues, and challenges related to environmental nationalism, colonialism, and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). 

  • Social opportunities involved exploring intersections with housing, militarism, and abolition, proposing support mechanisms for people in the green transition, and discussing legal tools and climate litigation. Challenges included NGOs not centering struggles around justice, concerns about the cost of living crisis, fuel poverty, and energy poverty, as well as challenges related to affordability, perceptions of alternatives, and the link between fossil gas and security.
  • Economic and financial opportunities included pointing out funds for renewable energy sources (RES) and the potential of the New Multiannual Financial Framework. Challenges encompassed ongoing funding for fossil gas, Hydrogen-ready infrastructure, CCS, private sector interest in funding gas, and issues with windfall taxes. 
  • Technological opportunities discussed smart grids and efficiency to support electrification, along with unlocking funds from fossil fuels for the energy transition. Challenges included concerns about hydrogen and CCS as false solutions, critical materials imports, technology optimism, and nuclear power/waste.

The People over Polluters Skill Share by Pascoe Sabido from Corporate Europe Observatory highlighted insights into the Fossil Free Politics campaign, the People Over Polluters Declaration, and tips on investigating lobbying activities. 

Within The Speed Knowledge Bazar, Pippo Taglieri from ReCommon focused on the Mediterranean perspective, discussing strong connections between the Italian multinationals ENI, SNAM, and Mediterranean countries, as well as projects in Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Cyprus related to LNG terminals and pipelines. 

Following this, day three – the last day of the conference – emphasized  connecting the dots for joint actions, including concrete action points, tactics, and financial considerations. Working groups and social media strategies were identified.

What’s next? As we reflect on the insights shared during this impactful conference, the conference was a resounding call to action and a reaffirmation of our collective commitment to fight gas. We stand united, interconnected, and resilient in our pursuit of environmental and social justice. We forge ahead, continuing to battle, organize, and amplify our voices. Keep fighting, for our planet, for justice and freedom for the oppressed, for a future beyond fossil gas. 

To join the Beyond Gas email list and find out more about the network, contact [email protected] 

Other relevant readings: 

  1. Beyond Gas Conference 2019
  2. Beyond Gas Conference 2021
  3. Beyond Gas Conference 2023 – blog post

List of top priority hydrogen infrastructure considered in Europe’s “common interest” includes projects worth at least €50bn

Categories

Climate

Food & Water Action Europe analyzed the Union List of Projects of Common and Mutual Interest (PCI and PMI list), the EU Commission published on 28 November. Our focus is on the hydrogen transmission infrastructure – a total of 68 investment items for hydrogen pipelines, storage facilities and ammonia reception facilities.

Compared to these projects, the number of 17 electrolysers included in the Union List is considerably low.

Our findings:

  • All of the 68 hydrogen transmission projects included in the Union list have been proposed by the fossil fuel industry. That means 100% of the projects proposed for priority status and eligibility for EU tax money would be built and operated by the fossil gas transport industry and fossil fuel majors such as RWE, Shell and BP. Three quarters of the projects included on the Union list have been brought forward by members of the European Network of Gas Transmission System Operators (ENTSO-G), the very same network which has a central role in the process of assessing and selecting Union list priority projects.
  • Only the costs of two thirds of the 68 projects are being disclosed. The projects that do provide CAPEX (capital expenses) figures have a combined cost of over €50bn. On top of that, operating costs for these projects amount to over €1bn annually. That means that using the proposed hydrogen infrastructure for just 20 years would add another €22bn in operating costs. If these projects go ahead, consumers will have to pick up much of the bill; on top of that, some of the projects will receive EU tax money from the Connecting Europe Facility and other pots.

    The capital expenses and operational expenses for over one third  of the projects on the list are not disclosed. Assuming that those costs are on average the same as the other 44 projects , building and operating all 68 projects for 20 years could cost more than €100bn€.

    There is large uncertainty around the costs of hydrogen projects, which could result in even higher total costs.  Most project promoters provide an estimate of the cost variations. The average range of these capital expenses amounts to over 30%. This means that the hydrogen infrastructure project costs might increase considerably, and that consumers and taxpayers might be forced to pick up a bill far higher than €100bn for the hydrogen projects included on the Union list.

  • These Union list hydrogen transmission projects have been selected without any official priority-use assessment. The requirement to limit the scarce amounts of all hydrogen available to those sectors where no alternatives exist is being ignored. This risks channeling billions of euros into projects owned by the fossil fuel sector and building an inefficient system that is not aligned with efficiency and priority-only-use infrastructure needs.
  • The promise of climate-friendly hydrogen seems to have turned into a multi-billion jackpot for the fossil gas industry. But only a small fraction of the projects proposed for top priority label are credibly green hydrogen projects, i.e. are linked to concretely defined sources of green hydrogen/electrolyzers, explicitly planning the use of renewable hydrogen only in the PCI/PMI submission. More than half of the projects that had been submitted to the Union list process explicitly included a mention of aiming to transport fossil based hydrogen.

The inclusion of this many huge, costly hydrogen projects on a list for EU top priority infrastructure is worrying, particularly given the profound involvement of the fossil fuel industry in the process and the lack of appropriate assessment of the projects. The climate crisis requires a swift, decisive  move towards truly clean energy; people and our planet cannot afford a multi-billion, multi-year detour via an unneeded super-sized hydrogen economy.

***

Methodology:

While the Union List does not include projects’ numbers and often summarizes several projects/investment items into clusters, all projects applying for PCI status have a unique project number and have been submitted with a set of further details. Hydrogen projects on the Union List are represented in the Ten Year Network Development Plan (TYDNP) drafted by ENTSO–G, which also provides projects’ costs. To analyze the projects included on the Union List relating to costs (CAPEX and OPEX), cost range and project promoters, and providing the projects’ concrete project numbers, FWAE identified for each of the projects on the list its equivalent in a) the TYNDP and b) the list of submissions for inclusion in the Union list. The latter had been made available during the public consultation for the 1st Union List including hydrogen infrastructure (the project list itself is no longer online).

Here is the list of concrete investment items included on the Union List identified through Food & Water Action Europe’s analysis. 

Some projects have been included on the Union List only partially (HYD-N-1205, HYD-N-443, HYD-N-1171, HYD-N-1172, HYD-N-1036, HYD-N-1350, HYD-N-468, HYD-N-788, HYD-N-1239), four projects (only one of which disclosed costs) have a different name on the Union List and thus the assignment with an investment item number is not fully clear (HYD-N-1149, HYD-N-767, HYD-N-772, HYD-N-986).

Some projects have been submitted by different promoters by splitting both CAPEX and OPEX, and each investment item therefore only representing a part of the total project cluster cost. Others have submitted the total project cluster cost for each investment item, requiring the avoidance of double counting for PCI/PMI list project costs. 

The Next Union List for Hydrogen Projects – The Fossil Fuel Industry Wish List Coming true?

Categories

LNGFossil Fuels

Leaked list of top priority hydrogen infrastructure considered in Europe’s “common interest” includes projects worth at least €50bn. 

Food & Water Action Europe analyzed a leak of the Union List of Projects of Common and Mutual Interest (PCI and PMI list), which is expected to be published in November. Our focus is on the hydrogen transmission infrastructure – a total of 68 investment items for hydrogen pipelines, storage facilities and ammonia reception facilities. 

Compared to these projects, the number of 17 electrolysers included in the Union List is considerably low.

Our findings:
  • All of the 68 hydrogen transmission projects included in the leaked Union list have been proposed by the fossil fuel industry. That means 100% of the projects proposed for priority status and eligibility for EU tax money would be built and operated by the fossil gas transport industry and fossil fuel majors such as RWE, Shell and BP. Three quarters of the projects included on the Union list have been brought forward by members of the European Network of Gas Transmission System Operators (ENTSO-G), the very same network which has a central role in the process of assessing and selecting Union list priority projects.
  • Only the costs of two thirds of the 68 projects are being disclosed. The 44 projects that do provide CAPEX (capital expenses) figures have a combined cost of over €50bn. On top of that, operating costs for these projects amount to over €1bn annually. That means that using the proposed hydrogen infrastructure for just 20 years would add another €22bn in operating costs. If these projects go ahead, consumers will have to pick up much of the bill;  on top of that, some of the projects will receive EU tax money from the Connecting Europe Facility and other pots.

    The capital expenses and operational expenses for over one third  of the projects on the list are not disclosed. Assuming that those costs are on average the same as the other 44 projects , building and operating all 68 projects for 20 years could cost more than €100bn€.

    There is large uncertainty around the costs of hydrogen projects, which could result in even higher total costs.  Most project promoters provide an estimate of the cost variations. The average range of these capital expenses amounts to over 30%. This means that the hydrogen infrastructure project costs might increase considerably, and that consumers and taxpayers might be forced to pick up a bill far higher than €100bn for the hydrogen projects included on the Union list.
  • These Union list hydrogen transmission projects have been selected without any official priority-use assessment. The requirement to limit the scarce amounts of all hydrogen available to those sectors where no alternatives exist is being ignored. This risks channeling billions of euros into projects owned by the fossil fuel sector and building an inefficient system that is not aligned with efficiency and priority-only-use infrastructure needs.
  • The promise of climate-friendly hydrogen seems to have turned into a multi-billion jackpot for the fossil gas industry. But only a small fraction of the projects proposed for top priority label are credibly green hydrogen projects, i.e. are linked to concretely defined sources of green hydrogen/electrolyzers, explicitly planning the use of renewable hydrogen only in the PCI/PMI submission. More than half of the projects that had been submitted to the Union list process explicitly included a mention of aiming to transport fossil based hydrogen.

The inclusion of this many huge, costly hydrogen projects on a list for EU top priority infrastructure is worrying, particularly given the profound involvement of the fossil fuel industry in the process and the lack of appropriate assessment of the projects. The climate crisis requires a swift, decisive  move towards truly clean energy; people and our planet cannot afford a multi-billion, multi-year detour via an unneeded super-sized hydrogen economy.

***

Methodology:

While the Union List does not include projects’ numbers and often summarizes several projects/investment items into clusters, all projects applying for PCI status have a unique project number and have been submitted with a set of further details. Hydrogen projects on the Union List are represented in the Ten Year Network Development Plan (TYDNP) drafted by ENTSO–G, which also provides projects’ costs. To analyze the projects included on the leaked Union List relating to costs (CAPEX and OPEX), cost range and project promoters, and providing the projects’ concrete project numbers, FWAE identified for each of the projects on the leaked list its equivalent in a) the TYNDP and b) the list of submissions for inclusion in the Union list. The latter had been made available during the public consultation for the 1st Union List including hydrogen infrastructure (the project list itself is no longer online).

Here is the list of concrete investment items included on the Union List leak identified through Food & Water Action Europe’s analysis. 

Some projects have been included on the Union List only partially (HYD-N-1205, HYD-N-443, HYD-N-1171, HYD-N-1172, HYD-N-1036, HYD-N-1350, HYD-N-468, HYD-N-788, HYD-N-1239), four projects (only one of which disclosed costs) have a different name on the Union List and thus the assignment with an investment item number is not fully clear (HYD-N-1149, HYD-N-767, HYD-N-772, HYD-N-986).

Some projects have been submitted by different promoters by splitting both CAPEX and OPEX, and each investment item therefore only representing a part of the total project cluster cost. Others have submitted the total project cluster cost for each investment item, requiring the avoidance of double counting for PCI/PMI list project costs. 

***

UPDATE: The EU Commission has published the final draft of the Union list on 28 November 2023. It does not differ from the Union list leak analysed above in terms of hydrogen projects.

A Devastating Dam in DR Congo – To Quench Europe’s Thirst for ‘Green’ Hydrogen

Categories

Food

The EU has grand plans for hydrogen, but the impacts on many communities and on the climate will not be so grand at all

By 2030, the EU plans to generate 10 million tons of hydrogen, and import an additional  10 million tons  from other countries. While there is a lot of talk about ‘green’ hydrogen, i.e. hydrogen made by using large amounts of renewable energy, there will also be a substantial amount of fossil fuels-based hydrogen, also called ‘gray’, ‘black’ or ‘blue’ hydrogen. 

While often hailed as clean and as a promising climate solution, ‘green’ hydrogen comes with several drawbacks, and can directly threaten the livelihoods of people in the global south.

In September, a delegation of experts and impacted community members from different African countries visited Brussels, sharing their knowledge and worries about the impacts of Europe’s hydrogen plans, particularly on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

While there are plans to export ‘green’ hydrogen from several different African countries, the example of the DRC is definitely a cautionary tale on many levels. ‘Green’ hydrogen would be generated with hydropower from a gigantic dam (called the Inga dam) which, once constructed, would be the biggest dam on our planet. The government of the DRC regards the Inga Project as a substantial hydroelectric initiative that has attracted the involvement of Chinese and Spanish companies.

The displacement of local communities is a common consequence of large-scale infrastructure projects. Affected communities often receive insufficient compensation and have limited say in a decision-making process that disrupts their lives and livelihoods.
Part I and II of this dam were already built years ago, flooding land, displacing people and forcing those who stayed in the area to walk for hours to get access to clean water. Angelique Mvuezolo brought the perspective of communities threatened by Inga dam part III directly to Brussels, highlighting how the first two parts of the dam were already forced on people with false promises. She finds the government promise that there will not be any people displaced hard to believe; The third dam would flood the entire Bundi valley and might even affect land beyond DRC’s borders. 

And Eric Kassongo from CODED, the Centre Congolais pour le Droit du Développement Durable, decried a severe lack of transparency around the project. Kassongo was able to explain what is known about the links between the Inga dam project and Europe. An agreement to develop Inga dam III was signed in 2018 with by a consortium led by the Chinese Three Gorges and Spanish Actividades de Construccion y Servicios (ACS), the latter having links to the European Investment Bank (EIB) that had already been involved in the development of Inga dam part I. Also Deutsche Bank and funds in other European countries have ties to Inga dam III.

The potential construction of large hydroelectric dams in the DRC raises alarms about the environmental consequences as well. These projects can disrupt ecosystems and lead to a release of climate-wrecking methane emissions. The Congo River, which would be dammed up, serves as an important carbon sink as it carries minerals into the ocean, which puts the climate benefit of the gigantic projects into question. Droughts and floods, made stronger and more likely by climate change, are not only devastating in its impact on communities, but also increase the uncertainties around the entire project  – a point highlighted by Siziwe Mota from International Rivers.

Only a very small fraction of the people in the Democratic Republic of Congo have access to energy. Still, considerable shares of this new mega-hydropower project are dedicated to splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen would then be exported to Europe, but in which form and via which export and import facilities is still unclear. The neocolonial nature of such undertaking is impossible to negate, and Europe risks continuing a highly unjust model of exploitation by failing to block support for Inga dam and other similar projects in the global south.

It is crucial for European decision makers to look beyond the label of ‘green’ hydrogen, and to establish a much safer definition on what truly green energy actually is. They also fail to consider energy poverty, or lack of access to energy, in the countries the EU plans to source its hydrogen. It seems certain that the EU is dramatically inflating its projections for green hydrogen production. These projections should be drastically downscaled, for the sake of the people and the future of our only planet.