Archives: Blogs

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.

Joint NGO Letter: DG CLIMA to support ambitious EU methane regulation

Categories

MethaneFossil Fuels

Over 10 CSO groups from across Europe have sent an open letter to the EU Commission. We are writing to DG CLIMA to urgently request stronger support and involvement in the ongoing trilogue negotiations on the Methane Regulation to cut methane emissions in the energy sector.

We are extremely concerned about the Council’s lack of ambition on the text, and the impact it will have on the final agreement.

We therefore call DG CLIM to support the colleagues from DG ENER in making the Methane Regulation a crucial tool to reduce GHG emissions and bring the EU closer to reaching its 2030 and 2050 climate targets.

You can read the joint letter here.

Netherlands – Fracked Gas Imports: Briefing

Imports of U.S. liquid gas into the Netherlands soared in 2022, representing 59% of total LNG imports and 34% of total gas consumption in the country – and almost all of it comes from fracking. In order to avoid climate catastrophe, Europe and the Netherlands should decrease their dependence on U.S. fracked gas as fast as possible.

Fossil gas, no matter its origin, is no solution for Europe. Russian gas has proven to be synonymous for supply insecurity and weaponization of the EU’s dirty energy dependency. The EU’s aim to get off Russian gas could be a big chance to accelerate a just transition. So far, however, EU-leaders and European governments have chosen to go into the wrong direction embracing LNG as a dirty fix, while largely ignoring real solutions. Simply moving Europe’s gas addiction from Russia to LNG imports is a big problem. This briefing takes a closer look at fossil gas imports from the U.S., which are almost entirely fracked.

Read the full briefing here

The European Parliament’s Plenary Adopts a Good Position on the EU Methane Regulation, But Concerns Persist. 

Categories

MethaneFossil Fuels

On Tuesday, May 9, the European Parliament’s plenary adopted its position on the EU methane regulation proposal. 

This is a good result, considering the plenary’s vote had been overshadowed by the threat of the adoption of some worrying amendments from some MEPs in the EPP and ID (European People’s Party and Identity and Democracy) groups. These would have dramatically weakened key elements of the report as adopted in the European Parliament’s ITRE (Energy) and ENVI (Environment) committees at the end of April, by favouring the interests of the fossil fuel industry through weakening provisions on leak detection and repair (LDAR) and energy imports. 

Fortunately, this did not happen. In its position, the European Parliament calls on the European Commission to set binding targets to reduce methane emissions for 2030 and implements strict rules on imported fossil gas, coal and oil from 2026 onwards. Additionally, the parliament’s position extends the provisions of the regulation to the petrochemical sector, which is becoming the largest driver of global oil demand. 

Let’s not sweep problems under the rug

Although this is a very good outcome, some concerns spoil the party:

  • No mention of fossil fuel phase-out

In the Parliament’s text there is no mention of a phase-out of fossil fuels in the longer term. Contrary to what signatories asked for in our methane manifesto, rapid actions to cut methane emissions from fossil fuels are crucial in the short-term, but these need to be coupled with strong commitments towards a path to deliver a fossil-free European Union. In 2021, the European Parliament in its INI report on the EU Methane Strategy, clearly recognised that fossil fuels have no long-term role in the Union’s energy mix. But this is not reflected in the final parliamentary position adopted this week. 

  • No fracked gas import ban

The EU Parliament’s request for stricter measures on imports is an important step forward compared to the Commission and Council’s positions, but a clear focus on the need to stop imports of fracked gas is missing. Most of the U.S. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exported to Europe is produced by fracking, a technology which is banned across much of the EU due to its environmental impacts. Fracking is closely tied to the rise of methane emissions in the atmosphere, besides posing a serious threat to public health and local communities. However, U.S. fracked gas imports to Europe skyrocketed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the European Parliament had the opportunity in its report to call for an immediate ban on those imports.  

  • Major loopholes for coal mine methane emissions

Following strong pressure from the Polish coal industry, the European Parliament revised downwards its ambition on coal mine methane emissions. However, coal mines are the largest single source of energy sector methane emissions in the EU.

Amendments adopted in plenary suggest an increase in venting thresholds for thermal coal, while action on venting from coking coal is delayed until 2031. The rules will allow Polish mining companies to easily comply with the regulation through accounting tricks rather than any actual methane reductions. 

  • There’s always danger lurking in the dark

The imminent start of trilogue negotiations in the summer with the Council and the European Commission are one more opportunity for the fossil fuel industry to scuttle these regulations. The Council’s general approach has more holes than Swiss cheese and blatantly benefits the interests of fossil companies. It will be vital to safeguard and strengthen the parliament’s position, and to ensure that the trilogue final text is not a lowball agreement, but one that truly serves the interests of the planet and the people. 

This is What Environmental Racism Looks Like.

Categories

LNGFossil FuelsDemocracy

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, U.S. political leaders have pledged to massively increase the fracked US gas exports to Europe. These moves will have grave implications for communities that are forced to live near the massive polluting facilities that liquify and ship fossil fuels across the Atlantic. 

But these frontline communities are ready to defend the health and safety of their communities. And one of the leaders in this fight traveled to the EU to spread the word.

John Beard, frontline community leader and leader of the Port Arthur Community Action Network in Port Arthur, Texas met EU decision makers in April, telling them how their decisions on US LNG imports have a real impact on the lives and health of people in the US. 

John lives in the “belly of the beast”–  a community that has been turned into a sacrifice zone, heavily impacted by the petrochemical industry and  large gas export facilities. 

While the EU must stop its dependence on Russia, the bloc must not exchange one dangerous dependency with another one, which is harming communities in the US. US gas has been cynically dubbed  “Freedom Gas,” but it is clear that many of those impacted by fossil gas export plans are suffering misery including poverty, health impacts and the aggravating impacts of climate change that are disproportionately affecting them.

The “belly of the beast”

John and his community live in the immediate vicinity of petrochemical facilities and next to a massive terminal to export liquefied fossil gas: the gigantic Sabine Pass LNG terminal. In 2022, around 40% of all US LNG vessels to Europe started their journey right there, in Sabine Pass. It’s not rare that John wakes up to see mysterious chemical grains covering the grass, finds himself in the middle of a plume, or fears that fossil gas leaks in his house but discovers that it is a chemical stench originating outside. John never knows which will be the next chemical he finds in his garden or on his car. It is not unusual for him to see massive flares of gas, topped with pitch-black clouds, or eerily yellow clouds containing sulfur dioxide, a chemical corroding our lungs, in his community.

“People of color are hurt the most and helped the least” 

“People of color are hurt the most and helped the least,” says John –  who knows that in his community,  a large majority of the population are people of color. The environmental racism and injustice is visible in almost all the communities heavily impacted by polluting industries in the region, both up and down the coast. Communities with poor, indigenous people and people of color are deemed as the “path of least resistance” by corporate polluters.

Now there are several additional LNG export terminals that are planned just a handful of kilometers away from John’s community, despite all the harm people there are already suffering. Giant polluters like Sempra, Cheniere and ExxonMobile plan to expand the LNG export business, on the back of communities like Port Arthur – all because they claim Europe needs the gas.

The luxury of living and breathing

These are devastating news for a region which, despite over $80 billion of industrial investment, sees a high unemployment rate, inhumanely low wages and plummeting property values. This makes it extremely difficult for many people wanting nothing but the luxury of “living and breathing” and to live a healthier life. Those who have to stay suffer from a multitude of illnesses. Black people in Port Arthur have a 40% higher risk to contract cancer than elsewhere in the country.

Port Arthur is the place where much of Europe’s US LNG comes from . But this is only a fraction of the suffering caused by our gas greed: Many more communities impacted by LNG and fracking and massive fossil infrastructure are forced to sacrifice the right to drink clean water and breathe clean air.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The good news is that truly clean solutions are ready for us. We just need the political will to get started and to be able to meet people like John without that burning feeling of guilt.

Representatives from Food & Water Action Europe and EU Parliamentarian Marie Toussaint met John Beard in the EU Parliament

30+ CSOs are calling for a bold EU Methane Regulation away from fossil fuel interests

Categories

Methane

Over 30 CSOs from across Europe have sent an open letter to the ENVI and ITRE members of the European Parliament ahead of the joint committee vote on the EU methane regulation proposal.

We ask the ENVI and ITRE committees to adopt an ambitious position on the text away from fossil fuel industry interests.

We have witnessed in the last months worrying attempts to water down the legislative proposal, it is crucial that the arguments and narratives put forward by the fossil fuel industry to dilute the methane regulation do not find room in the European Parliament’s position.

We urge you to deliver a methane regulation that takes effective and rapid measures to cut methane emissions associated with imported fossil fuels. This is why we ask to extend domestic provisions on Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV), Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR), and Limits on Venting and Flaring (LVF) to EU energy imports along the entire supply chain. Legal studies have already pointed out that this is feasible, and it is not in conflict with WTO rules.

It is vital for the people and the planet to drastically reduce methane emissions while working to implement comprehensive plans to phase out fossil fuels, especially fossil gas by 2035.

You can read the joint letter here.