Archives: Blogs

The Methane Dimension in the REPowerEU Plan

Categories

Fossil Fuels

While it is over 100 days since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission presented its REPowerEU plan on Wednesday, May 18th. Built on the REPowerEU communication released in March, the flood of energy-related proposals, guidelines and explainers included in the strategy should aim to cut the fossil fuel cord with Russia and accelerate the clean energy transition.

The EU external strategy of the REPowerEU package aims at diversifying away from Russian energy imports, but it offers solutions that benefit the interests of the fossil fossil industry rather than the well-being of the people and the planet. Notably, it includes massive Liquified Fossil Gas (LNG), hydrogen plans and biomethane production, which incentives industrial livestock farming. 

The Commission does not commit exclusively on 100% renewable-hydrogen and foresees weak measures for “green” hydrogen production, without mentioning the principle of “additionality”. Hydrogen to be labeled truly ‘green’ must be combined with the deployment of new renewables to cover the energy required. Brussels also considers LNG imports from Africa, Asia and North-America as a lifejacket. In an act of complete dismissal of the Paris Agreement, the EU has already signed an agreement with the U.S. to import an additional 50 bcm of LNG, mainly fracked gas, annually at least until 2030.      

This stands in stark contrast to the EU’s intentions to portray itself as a champion in the fight against greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, notably methane. Methane is the main component of fossil gas and a potent GHG with a global warming potential (GWP) 83 times higher than CO2 over a 20-years period. Expanding LNG imports means boosting hydraulic-fracturing (fracking) operations in North America. Fracking involves the injection of a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to break up deep shale rock layers in order to release the fossil gas and oil. This extraction method is directly responsible for the release in the atmosphere of significant amounts of methane emissions. 

Although the Commission pretends to work to stop methane leaks, it supports new fossil fuel projects, embraces false solutions such as investing in LNG, biomethane and fossil hydrogen and puts forward toothless legislative tools. This is the case of the EU Methane Regulation’s proposal, which was released in December 2021, and is currently under scrutiny in the European Parliament and Council. The text fails to extend domestic provisions on monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), leak detection and repair (LDAR) and limits on venting and flaring (LVF) to the whole supply chain, including energy imports, even though most methane emissions associated with EU consumption occur outside its borders. Indeed, the bloc imports 90% of its gas consumption, 97% of its oil and 70% of coal and the failure to address the upstream methane emissions is a gross oversight. The Commission’s assertions that it will “aim to ensure that additional gas supplies from existing and new gas suppliers are coupled with targeted actions to tackle methane leaks and to address venting and flaring” must be converted into concrete actions. We must act now and we need an ambitious regulatory framework at home and internationally. 

The Commission did present the initiative “You collect/we buy” in its REPowerEU plans, which aims at promoting the capture of methane instead of intentionally releasing it through venting and destroying it through flaring. The amount of fossil gas that is estimated to be captured by that is massive, showing as well the immense scale of the problem. But the EU should not be simply asking for methane emission reductions but requiring them as a condition of market access.

Additionally, the joint commitment taken by the EU and the US through the launch of the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) shows that methane emission reduction is at least on the agenda, but it is by far not enough. The GMP is only a voluntary-based initiative, aiming at slashing methane emissions by only 30% by 2030, and this is a global target that does not come with national commitments. A major gap is also that the top three methane emitters in the world, Russia, India and China, have not signed the pledge. The EU must show real leadership by implementing bold measures, including on the side of oil and gas imports, that can set an example internationally. 

Nor can there be a credible methane emission reduction strategy without a timely and managed phase out of fossil fuel at the EU and international level. However, with REPowerEU, leaders showed again that there are no defined plans to phase out fossil fuels. Merely reducing methane is not enough if it is not linked to serious targets to get rid of fossil fuels. 

Good intentions must be proved in deeds, not just words. A concrete commitment to reduce methane emissions, also with regard to energy imports, is a clear advantage in climate and energy security terms.

 It is hard to understand why there are no binding commitments at the international level that compel the fossil gas industry to slash methane emissions right now, especially considering that around 40% of current methane emissions could be avoided at no net cost. 

Reducing methane emissions, within a long-term fossil fuel phase-out, is the best opportunity we have to limit the planet’s warming to below 1.5°C. 

U.S. LNG – A Fracking Health and Climate Nightmare

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Three Stories of Fossil Fuel Social Injustice From the U.S.

The Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) engine is running at full speed on both sides of the Atlantic. The EU’s appetite for LNG is growing after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has led political leaders to scramble to find additional supplies of fossil fuels. While some leaders talk about this as a temporary move, the dirty energy industry obviously sees things differently. 

This risks resulting in a dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure expansion. On March 25, an EU-US deal was announced outlining plans to supply 15 additional billion cubic meters (bcm) of LNG to the EU this year, and a commitment to ship further 50 bcm US LNG a year to Europe until at least 2030. In a rush to replace Russian fossil gas, the EU risks locking itself into LNG dependency for decades and boosting hydraulic-fracturing (fracking) overseas.

Fracking is a dangerous drilling process that consists of injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and chemicals into the ground to break up deep shale rock layers in order to release fossil gas and oil. Although this technique has been banned in many EU countries, due to its associated environmental, climate and health impacts, it is extensively adopted in North-America and is now set to conquer European households, power plants and industry consumers.

The EU is the world’s top importer of U.S. LNG, but  there is little talk on this end of the Atlantic about how these imports impact people elsewhere. Almost all the U.S. LNG shipped to Europe is fracked gas, which has tremendous climate, environmental and health implications. Replacing fossil gas with other fossil gas is not the solution. We must use the time remaining, now more than ever, to  phase-out fossil fuels altogether.

There is ample evidence of the harms of fracking – on air quality, clean water and public health. New studies continue to track the horrible consequences of the so-called shale boom. We chose three stories to illustrate the impact of the fracking rush on people in the U.S., and how fossil fuels are responsible for deep social injustices. They should be a warning that LNG dreams in the EU are actually climate, health and environmental nightmares. 

Case #1
Aliso Canyon Gas Storage (California)

One of the first challenges with importing fossil gas is determining where to store it. EU legislation plans to oblige Member States to fill up their gas storage facilities to at least 90% by 2023. It is relevant to look at the Aliso Canyon case in this respect. Aliso Canyon, near Porter Ranch (Los Angeles), is the largest fossil gas storage facility in California. The site is a depleted petroleum field that was converted to an underground gas storage site.

In 2015, a blow-out caused the largest-ever methane leak in U.S. history at Aliso Canyon. The explosion released 100.000 tonnes of methane along with other toxic chemicals into the air, with devastating impacts. Residents experienced headaches, nosebleeds, nausea and rashes, many of them are still suffering health effects like asthma and cancer today.

Jane Fowler, a member of Aliso Moms Alliance, has recently affirmed. “I live near this horrible, dilapidated facility and I know what it’s like to breathe toxic air. We have dubbed our cough ‘the Aliso cough’”.

In 2021 the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which operates the facility, agreed to pay $1.8 billion to plaintiffs affected by the blow-out. The settlement, however, is a smokescreen in respect of the pain and the suffering of the local communities.

“I now have asthma, COPD and two nodules on my lungs and one on my kidney and my thigh bone. Four people on my street have cancer. Two have died. We need to come to a better settlement,” said Maureen Capra, a resident of Porter Ranch. 

In November 2021, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted unanimously to increase the gas storage capacity of Aliso Canyon. But community advocates continue to push for the shutdown of the site. It is an ominous warning sign for those who would encourage similar facilities across Europe.

Case #2
Miami LNG ‘bomb trains’ (Florida)  

The state of Florida is home to some of the most intense LNG infrastructure build-out. There are already facilities built, along with other projects under discussion, to export LNG on international markets. 

On the east coast, fracked gas in LNG form is regularly transported by truck and train from the Hialeah liquefaction plant to ports between Jacksonville and Miami. Beyond the climate hazard and the pollution it creates along the way, LNG represents a grave public safety concern, as it is transported through heavily populated neighborhoods.

In 2021 the Biden Administration proposed a rule to suspend the transportation of LNG by rail; however those measures have no impact on rail companies that benefit from loopholes in the legislation and have permits to transport LNG in special train cars known as ISO containers. To make matters worse, these so-called “bomb trains” could even share tracks with high-speed passanger trains, with potential risks of horrifiying accidents. Any LNG tank rupture could lead to explosive vapor clouds that can travel up to three miles from the place of the accident putting even more people in danger if the fossil gas is ignited. 

What makes things worse is that communities are often kept in the dark about the risks they face, so fossil fuel companies can continue to do business as usual. Through the import of LNG, the EU contributes to endangering communities like those affected by ‘bomb trains’ and LNG infrastructure’ in Florida or anywhere else.

Case #3
Cameron LNG (Louisiana)

Since 2016, the Gulf Coast has become a key international LNG export hub. The fracked gas from Permian, Haynesville and Marcellus basins is transported to the state’s ports, where it is liquified and loaded on LNG cargoes, most of which head to the European shores. 

The LNG footprint in the Gulf Coast is growing. At the beginning of March, the first LNG tanker departed from the Cameron LNG facility, Venture Global Calcasieu Pass (Louisiana), the newest U.S. export terminal. In Cameron, there is already a proposal to build another export terminal a short distance away. In Louisiana alone, five new facilities will be constructed in the coming months, and seven more are under development in Texas and Mississippi. 

While fossil fuel companies are rushing to build new facilities, the devastating impacts on the environment and local communities are already a reality. The build-out of the Cameron plant and the other LNG facilities in southern Louisiana have a severe impact on wetlands, which are essential to fighting coastal erosion and also store large quantities of greenhouse gasses, keeping them out of the atmosphere. Wetlands are also a key protection against tropical storms and hurricanes, which are very frequent in the Gulf area. The Cameron LNG facility has already been hit twice by hurricanes in the last few years. In 2020, Hurricane Laura flooded the construction site and knocked out the electricity for over a month. For weeks residents denounced large flares coming from the site when it was under construction. 

The deadly mix of extreme weather events, the destruction of the wetlands, and the pollution deriving from the terminal operations is an existential threat for the local population. There is a concrete risk that residents will be forced to leave their homes due to the harmful effects of these reckless LNG expansion plans.

Nicole Dardar, a Cameron resident, recently affirmed: “I’m worried about the health impacts the plant might have on my family […]. I no longer feel like this is a safe place for our kids”. 

Fracked Gas Imports Produced Europe’s Fossil Fuel Crisis

Categories

Fossil Fuels

LNG terminal utilization rates reveal underlying problems

For years, the fossil fuel industry assured Europe that importing LNG and therefore more and more fracked gas would help avoid costly energy shortages. But the ongoing supply crisis – which has led to skyrocketing bills – shows how deepening our reliance on fossil fuels has been an expensive failure.

Imported liquified natural gas (LNG) is also a disaster for our environment and the climate. It is fossil gas that is chilled to -162 degrees and then transported via vessels to far-away destinations. The process is highly energy intensive: the energy needed just to operate all existing and planned US liquefaction terminals would create CO2 emissions equaling those of 24 coal power plants.  In fact, the entire supply chain of LNG is harming communities, impacted by air and water pollution from fracking, pipelines and the chilling of methane to create LNG.

Despite these issues, a significant portion of the EU’s energy needs are filled by this particularly dirty fuel, made possible by a global network of fossil fuel infrastructure that allows world leaders and oil and gas companies to manipulate supplies. These are the exact same issues the politicians are investigating in a hearing on corporate price gouging in the US. Never ones to let a crisis go to waste, fossil fuel companies and some political leaders are clamoring to build more import and export LNG projects, turning a blind eye to the inherent dangers posed by the industry. While this might be good for fossil fuel company profits, the rest of us

will suffer from the expansion of this industry.

Click here to enlarge picture.

Food & Water Action Europe looked at data from Gas LNG Europe for all EU large scale LNG terminals to assess to what extent these facilities have been using the available capacity between January 2021 and mid-January 2022. We also compared this with the utilization rates for September 2021 until mid-January, when the energy price crisis really hit. What we found is significant oversupply in import capacity with a few facilities importing near their maximum capacity.

European LNG terminals by the Numbers

Although LNG terminals have been used more over the past decade, the utilization rate of all EU terminals from January 2021 through mid-January 2022 is around 40%, trending downward from  46% in 2019 and 2020. The latest EU gas market analysis confirms the trend is continuing, with LNG imports decreasing by 9% in the third quarter of 2021, compared to the same period in 2020.

LNG has been hailed for years as a super flexible, competitive fuel, but in reality, it provides flexibility to fossil fuel companies and leaves the rest of us at the mercy of international commodity markets.  Last October, higher prices in Asia – over 500% in some cases — made it more profitable to divert shipments of LNG to those markets.

Most of the LNG Europe imports comes from the U.S. – in the first three quarters in 2021, the U.S. was the #1 supplier of the liquefied fuel. Europeans who oppose fracking have expressed intense opposition to these developments, since most of the U.S. gas is produced by using the extremely harmful extraction method of hydraulic fracturing.

Busy LNG terminals Vs Idling LNG terminals  

While most of us lose from LNG developments, the obvious ‘winner’ is Porto Levante LNG terminal in the Northeast of Italy, which operated at a 92% capacity last year and 87% since September. Conversely, the two other Italian LNG terminals showed below-average utilization rates over the same periods.

Bilbao LNG in Spain came in second, with a utilization rate of almost 85% in 2021 and of over 70% since September. Four out of the five other Spanish terminals were used at only 15-30% in 2021, increasing to 19-39% in the period from September onwards.

Spain and France are Europe’s biggest LNG importers, with 6 and 4 large scale LNG terminals respectively. The main LNG supplier for Spain in the third quarter of 2021 has been the U.S. followed by Nigeria and Qatar. For France, the top supplier was Nigeria, followed by Russia.

At the bottom of the LNG utilization list is Barcelona LNG in Spain, used at only about 15% in 2021 and 19% since September. Italy’s Panigaglia LNG terminal was used at about a quarter of its capacities in 2021 and even less, at only at 8%, since September. Building new LNG capacity is hardly necessary given the significant LNG capacity underutilization and the fact we need to be ramping down not ramping up fossil fuel infrastructure.

LNG Hungry Countries

We also found that LNG utilizations rates vary by country as well, with Eastern European Countries having higher top level utilization rates. In terms of the country-level, top utilization rates can be found in Poland. Almost 68% of the capacity of the state’s Swinoujscie terminal was used in 2021, and over 62% since September, mostly originating from Qatar. Rather than working to transition off this dirty fuel with so many problems, Poland is expanding LNG import capacity.

Croatia has a similar story, with the second biggest appetite for LNG compared to import capacity. Croatia’s highly contested Krk LNG terminal, which started operating in 2021, raises the country’s LNG utilization rate to above 60% for 2021 and over 70% since September, with gas coming mostly from Qatar and from the U.S.

Over the past few years, Gate Terminal, the only LNG terminal in the Netherlands, has ramped up its utilization rate. It stood at over 50% during the past year, and at over 60% from September onwards.

The country with the lowest utilization rate in the EU was Belgium, with its Zeebrugge LNG terminal working at only 23% of its capacity last year and 20% since September.

Between January 2021 and mid-January 2022, only the UK’s terminals were used less than that, at barely 22%.

LNG: Fossil Fuel False Hopes

The European experience shows dependence on LNG enables and exacerbates the current energy supply shortages. It is being built to accommodate gas from the fracking fields in the United States, which are causing considerable environmental and public health concerns, not to mention accelerate the climate crisis. The good news is, we have alternatives to this fossil fuel industry scheme to continue Europe’s dependance on gas. 

We can tackle both the climate crisis and prevent energy poverty by rejecting new LNG infrastructure and moving to truly clean renewable energy and heating solutions, including electrification, and energy efficiency. In the coming weeks, EU decision-makers consider the plans for prioritizing energy infrastructure in the next round of the Projects of Common interest. They can make critical decisions necessary to make Europe transition off dirty polluting LNG.

You can find detailed numbers on each EU large-scale LNG terminal here.

US and EU Methane Rules: Many Words, Few Deeds. A Transatlantic Perspective

Categories

Fossil Fuels

A once ignored greenhouse gas (GHG), methane is now moving to the top of the international agenda. The EU and US have both announced decisions to adopt rules to cut methane emissions to bring them in line with international commitments they both have signed up, i.e. the EU-US driven Global Methane Pledge. 

Gastivists action at Vilvoorde gas power station

Only controlling methane emissions, however, does nothing to address the sources of methane emissions, fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture. The only real solution is to rapidly phase-out fossil fuels and factory farming, and this must be part of any plan to deal with methane! While many European countries have taken action to ban fracking, we are still supporting fracking by building gas import facilities, pipelines and petrochemical facilities that will create new markets for fracked gas originating in the United States, Russia and elsewhere.   

What are the EU and US initiatives focusing on? 

In short, the EU and US are focusing on hardening their existing methane infrastructure, poised to make significant investments in infrastructure that will support more fracking. The EU, as a major fossil fuels consumer, imports more than half the energy it consumes from third-party nations and it is directly responsible for the upstream methane emissions in exporting countries. 

On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States is one of the top three oil and natural gas producers in the world, and is the second largest emitter of methane in the world, behind Russia. By building more methane infrastructure, we are not only making more leaky infrastructure, but also exacerbating the impacts fracking, transporting, refining and burning methane has on drinking water and air quality, while it continues to spew planet-warming GHGs into the atmosphere.

On December 15, the European Commission published a methane regulation aiming to reduce methane emissions in the energy sector. The proposal includes new rules for oil and gas companies on monitoring, reporting and verification, leak detection and repair and a ban on routine venting and flaring practices. 

In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing regulations to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas drilling operations. The new rules would apply to existing and new oil and gas infrastructure. They will focus on new emissions monitoring programs to detect and fix leaks and restrict venting practices.

Ramping Up the Transatlantic Fossil Fuel Pipeline

Both EU and US initiatives have a high degree of hypocrisy. Massive public subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic are propping up mega gas projects, while public land is being leased to support even more fossil fuel extraction. More specifically, the EU is planning to invest €13 billion of public funds in 20 fossil gas mega projects and President Biden just signed an infrastructure bill that provides over $25 billion in new subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, on top of $121 billion in existing US fossil fuel subsidies. The Biden’s Administration recently leased-out more than 800 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for fossil gas and oil extraction, the largest off-shore sale in US history.

The US is number one in LNG sales to the EU this year. Even though the supply chain on EU territory is only a small fraction of the fossil fuels consumed in Europe, the proposed methane measures does not consider halting exports overseas (in the US) or imports from overseas (in the EU). They do not impose any monitoring or fixing of leaks occurring outside the EU, but only mild requirements for importers to provide information. On the contrary, new unprofitable (without public subsidies) and unnecessary LNG terminals are under construction in the EU to import fracked gas. 

The construction of an LNG terminal in Cyprus (Cyprus2EU), which the EU could finance through its inclusion on the 5th PCI list, will lock the island into a fossil gas future for decades. This goes hand in hand with reckless plans within EU member states. Just a few days ago the Dutch government granted a subsidy of more than €4 million to the LNG-Zero project, which includes the adoption of the dangerous and unproven Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. The project suggests that methane emission measures and CCS can lead to “clean” LNG, a claim that has no basis in reality and outright ignores the impacts that fossil fuels have on public health and the environment. 

The situation is not rosy either in the US, where e.g., New Fortress Energy is planning to construct an LNG export terminal in the New Jersey community of Gibbstown, and there are additional plans for new LNG export infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico. The LNG would be transported from fracking fields by pipeline, rail cars and trucks, with the risk of accidents and leaks that could directly affect local communities. Methane rules can only reduce the adverse impacts from fossil fuels in a limited way, and continue the greed driven desire to drill, transport and use fossil fuels altogether, and all the impacts that come with it. 

The support of EU leaders and the Biden Administration for propping up methane infrastructure does not end there. The promotion of hydrogen as a silver bullet for our climate crisis is little more than a fossil fuel industry plan to create even more markets for US fracked gas. The US Department of Energy is developing a plan to export massive amounts of methane based hydrogen and the EU presented a Hydrogen Strategy to build the infrastructure to accommodate this new trans Atlantic fossil fuel frenzy.  This risks big costs and fails to have any climate benefit, as so-called “blue” hydrogen from fossil gas is worse for the climate than just burning fossil gas straight away, or even coal for that matter. The end result is fossil-based hydrogen becomes a major driver of methane emissions, while the fossil fuel industry gets rich on public subsidies, communities are destroyed and our planet burns. 

O Fossil Fuels Phase-Out, Where Art Thou?

In the EU, despite demands from the European Parliament and civil society, there is no fossil fuel phase-out plan or even a ban on imported fracked gas. The US lacks any meaningful plans as well, and instead continues perpetuating a fossil fuel industry narrative that turns a blind eye to the true impacts of fossil fuel development, while pretending that fossil fuels and factory farms are in some way part of a sustainable world. Our government leaders are not taking the climate crisis seriously, and the methane plans in the US and EU are case in point.

We are never going to plug all the leaks, especially as we build out more fossil fuel infrastructure, encourage more drilling and fracking, and pretend like subsidies for fossil fuel industry scams like hydrogen and carbon capture are part of the climate solution. Only focussing on methane emissions also gravely lacks a larger vision of the devastating effects of oil and gas drilling and transport, such as the release of toxic substances, the problem with drilling waste and wastewater, the pollution of our air, water and the environment, severely harming local communities, the health of people and of our planet.

 

Picture: Gastivists Collective and Tegengas-Degaze action at Vilvoorde gas power station

COP and Climate Justice: A Story of Three Nightclubs

Categories

Climate

Food & Water Action Europe’s Philip Wheeler was present in Glasgow in his role as our Network Developer. He has attended COP meetings before this one, and here he reflects on the progress of the movement, as measured in nightclubs he witnessed around the talks.

Nightclub 1
Paris, 2015

A crowd of diplomats are out in high spirits – high on their own success. They’re mostly drunk and chanting:
‘We. Just. Saved The World. We Just Saved The World.’
Footage of this chanting on the night of the deal over the Paris Agreement exists, though they would prefer you didn’t see it.
These people are what you might call the institutional believers, those for whom the international negotiations are the means by which we will make progress towards justice. For them, the backroom deals and geopolitical maneuvers are the paths we must take. Their chanting that night in Paris speaks for itself.

Nightclub 2
Paris, 2015

A bunch of confused activists are sitting in a squat that same night. They are exhausted, and looking for reasons for hope.
There’s no chanting here.
The flipside of the Paris aftermath is not on video, but in this party venue the mood is grim: the realisation is landing that that treaty is not binding – that the destruction of our home would not only continue, but accelerate under cover of this so-called Paris deal.
This crowd of organisers knows that, as the famous saying goes, power concedes nothing without a demand. The fossil fuel industry has our society in a stranglehold. They know on this night that we will need to keep building political power until the point where the institutions cannot resist us. A step-change in climate activism is required. Conversations about those next steps are underway.

Nightclub 3
Glasgow, 2021

Civil society is crammed into one of Glasgow’s finest Friday night establishments, where questionable dj-ing meets questionable dancing.
Rude things are shouted about the authorities by most everyone present – activists and locals.
The final outcome of the Glasgow negotiations hasn’t been decided yet; the final text will be dropped on us the next day. But in this club nobody is waiting for those irrelevant words.
The seeds of resistance, some planted after the disappointment of Paris, others so many generations before then, have started to germinate. We know the odds are still heavily against us. Many are hurting. But the numbers of those standing up for climate justice are growing, and we know more of the world is recognising the massive institutional greenwashing. Empty promises won’t slow us down. We know the destruction will continue until we are strong enough to stop it. But we are getting stronger. Climate justice is on the rise.

Spanish Climate Law: Another Nail in the Coffin for Fracking in Europe

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Spanish Climate Law: Another Nail in the Coffin for Fracking in Europe

By David Sánchez and Frida Kieninger

Fracking is not finding a home in Europe. The latest country to reject this dangerous fossil fuel drilling technique is Spain. The new law on Climate Change and Energy Transition, approved by the Spanish Congress and the Senate in late April, is set to get the final green light from the Congress soon. This legislation includes a ban on fracking and guarantees that no new hydrocarbon extraction projects will be authorized.

The ban on fracking is a clear victory for the Spanish movements, and marks a new landmark victory at the European level. The ban is part of a new Climate Change and Energy Transition law, which has some flaws; it lacks clear ambition and includes proposals aligned with fossil gas industry demands, which is why it has been criticised by Spanish environmental organisations like Amigos de la Tierra or Ecologistas en Acción.

Nonetheless, with this fracking ban Spain joins countries like Scotland, Germany, France and Bulgaria, as well as several other European regions that have banned this technique. Ireland has also imposed a ban on fracking, and is moving ahead with a ban on imported fracked gas.

That move is key. The EU is still the world’s biggest gas importer and it is still building and planning expensive and unnecessary gas infrastructure. While these fracking bans should serve as a model to follow across the Atlantic, the struggle to end the fossil fuels era continues in Europe.

Spain needs to ban imports of fracked gas

Within the EU, Spain is the country with the highest number of import terminals to import liquefied fossil gas (LNG), and it also uses them to import more fracked gas: In 2020, over a quarter of all US LNG that entered Europe, was supplied to Spain.

This needs to stop. With allies all across Europe and beyond, Food & Water Action Europe demanded a ban on fracked gas imports due to high methane emissions.

Stopping fossil gas means banning fracking, but also stopping it from entering through the back door. While the reputation of gas, particularly fracked gas, has suffered greatly thanks to the work of climate organizations and grassroots groups all over Europe, the gas industry is pushing a new ‘hydrogen hype’ to greenwash this fossil fuel and keep Europe hooked on fossil gas and costly pipelines or terminals.

The fracking ban in Spain is a reason to celebrate, but we’ve still got a lot to fight to keep fossil fuels in the ground!