It's Pollinator Week! All gifts will be matched $2-to-$1 — this week only!


DONATE NOW

x
DONATE

Archives: Press Releases

EU Methane Regulation – the lack of ambition will fail climate goals

Categories

Fossil Fuels

15th DECEMBER 2021

BRUSSELS: Methane emissions resulting from the petrochemical industry’s extraction and production of coal, gas and oil are responsible for 25 per cent of overall global warming – but a new Methane Regulation unveiled today by the European Commission is a half-hearted step back from EU climate goals.

Campaigners from the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Brussels- based Food & Water Action Europe (FWAE) and Berlin-based Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) warned the Regulation is letting fossil fuel imports off the hook.

Methane emissions are 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide and tackling the energy sector has been identified as the most cost effective way of reducing them.

The Commission’s Regulation puts in place a framework with obligations on measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), leak detection and repair (LDAR) and a ban on routine venting and flaring (BRVF) of gases, which are the three main pillars of effective methane emissions mitigation.

Despite numerous calls from European policymakers and recommendations from leading NGOs, the Regulation lacks a key element – extending the framework to all oil, gas and coal consumed in the EU, imports included, and to the petrochemical sector.

The EU imports more than 80 per cent of the fossil gas, 90 per cent of the crude oil and 40 per cent of the coal it consumes, long after methane has been emitted outside EU borders.

EIA Climate Campaigner Kim O’Dowd said: “The Commission is hiding behind excuses. With this regulation, the EU will continue to drive global methane emissions in other countries, turning a blind eye to its role.

“In the context of the Global Methane Pledge to take action on these emissions –launched and adopted by the US, EU and others at the UN CoP26 climate change summit in November – the EU should be irreproachable, but this proposal sends completely the wrong message, effectively saying it’s okay for the EU and other countries to pledge and pontificate at the podium and then dally and dither at home.”

Any methane reduction initiative not linked to a phase-out of fossil fuels falls dangerously short of the necessary climate action. In October, MEPs asked, in a resolution on the EU strategy to reduce methane emissions, to phase-out all fossil fuels as soon as possible, but today’s proposal ignores the Parliament’s position.

As a major importer of fossil gas and oil, the EU must work on cutting methane emissions along the whole supply chain and, in the meantime, implement phase-out plans to get rid of oil, fossil gas and coal.

There is no way the EU can cut methane emissions fast enough and promote a sustainable energy transition while still investing in climate-harming fossil fuels.

Fossil gas consists almost entirely of methane, pollutes air and water with numerous hazardous substances and contributes to environmental destruction on top of inherently leading to methane emissions. While cutting methane emissions is important to reduce the climate impact of fossil fuels, it risks being used to support false sustainability claims by the oil and gas companies.

Food & Water Action Europe Campaigner Enrico Donda said: “Fossil gas, even with reduced methane emissions, is neither clean nor a ‘bridge fuel’ and the Commission proposal fails to make this clear. All gas infrastructure is prone to leaks and a serious methane law should stop the development of new fossil gas infrastructure such as pipelines and LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) terminals, used to reception and unload gas from the cargo shipped mainly from the US, Qatar and Russia”.

The European Parliament must now protect the ambition it showed in its own initiative report on the Methane Strategy, which called for extending the framework across the supply chain and to the petrochemical sector.

Members of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union now have the opportunity to improve the proposal.

Pictures. Monday 13 Dec, local anti-gas activists TegenGas and the Gastivists Collective projected slogans and infrared images of methane leakage from around Europe to criticize the lack of ambition in EU methane Regulation. More high-quality images here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/192587475@N02/albums/72157720207985773

CONTACTS FOR MEDIA

  • Tim Grabiel, EIA Senior Lawyer, timgrabiel[at]eia-international.org
  • Enrico Donda, FWAE Gas Campaigner, edonda[at]fweurope.org
  • Paul Newman, EIA Senior Press & Communications Officer, press[at]eia-international.org
  • Neal Huddon-Cossar, [email protected], +39 345 44 70 749

 

EDITORS’ NOTES

  1. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) investigates and campaigns against environmental crime and abuses. Our undercover investigations expose transnational wildlife crime, with a focus on elephants, pangolins and tigers, and forest crimes such as illegal logging and deforestation for cash crops such as palm oil; we work to safeguard global marine ecosystems by tackling plastic pollution, exposing illegal fishing and seeking an end to all whaling; and we address the threat of global warming by campaigning to curtail powerful refrigerant greenhouse gases and exposing related criminal trade.
  2. Food & Water Action Europe (FWAE) is the European programme of Food & Water Watch, a non-profit organisation based in the US. FWAE works to create a healthy future for generations to come – a world where all people have the resources they need, including wholesome food, clean water and sustainable energy. We campaign for a 100 per cent sustainable energy transition, this implies ending EU and national fossil fuels subsidies and drastically cutting GHG emissions. This requires organising people from all over the world to engaging in a large movement with the political power to make our democratic process work for us all.
  3. Environmental Action Germany (Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.- DUH) was founded in 1975. The organisation is politically independent, recognised as a non-profit organisation, entitled to bring legal action and it campaigns mainly on a national and European level. Environmental Action Germany supports all sustainable ways of life and economic systems that respect ecological boundaries. At the same time, the organisation fights for the preservation of biological diversity and the protection of natural assets as well as for climate protection. DUH is convinced that only energy supplies based on efficiency and regenerative energies, sustainable mobility, the respectful handling of our natural resources and the avoidance of waste will secure life on our planet.

EU COMMISSION SLAMMED FOR BACKING GAS MEGAPROJECTS DURING COP26

Categories

Fossil Fuels

New list of 30 priority energy projects worth €13 billion a danger to climate and people say NGOs

***

Brussels, 10 November 2021 – Environmentalists have slammed as “dangerous and dirty” a European Commission decision, due to be presented to MEPs tomorrow, to back 30 fossil gas mega-projects worth €13 billion.[1] Even as international climate talks continue in Glasgow – where Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said “it is our duty to act now” – the new edition of the Commission’s list of priority energy infrastructure developments sees EU backing given to mega-projects that lock Europe into fossil fuel dependency and exacerbate climate change.[2]

This fifth edition of the “projects of common interest” (PCI) list lends EU support to controversial gas projects like the EastMed pipeline, the Baltic Pipe, Gdansk LNG, and the Cyprus2EU LNG terminal. Projects featured on the list gain fast-track permitting privileges and the opportunity to receive EU funding via its Connecting Europe Facility.

The Commission had promised to deliver a list in line with the European Green Deal with less room for gas projects. Yet rather than stopping subsidies for fossil fuels, this fresh list will see renewed support and taxpayers’ money given to unnecessary and climate-damaging fossil fuels for the next two years and potentially much longer.[3]

The list also comes as Europe faces a gas price crisis, caused in part by over-reliance on unreliable gas, which is expected to tip millions of people into fuel poverty this winter.[4]

Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said:
“This list is a dangerous and dirty disgrace. Continuing to back fossil gas is completely out of step with the reality of the climate emergency already devastating lives around the world. Gas is holding people hostage to fuel poverty this winter – building yet more gas pipelines will only exacerbate the problem. Billions of euros have already been wasted when this cash is needed now for rolling out clean, renewable solutions and efficient warm buildings.”[5]

The PCI list process has been challenged by NGOs as lacking in transparency – with multiple EU Ombudsman enquiries [6] questioning the Commission’s decision making process, and an influential role for gas transmission companies in drawing up the list.[7]

Frida Kieninger, campaign officer at Food & Water Action said:
“We’re in the middle of a gas crisis and UN climate talks, yet the Commission’s ‘priority’ today is to increase reliance on fossil gas! These mega gas projects serve the interests of fossil fuel corporations, not the common interest of Europeans. The whole process has lacked transparency and independent oversight, with the fossil fuel industry even given a core role in the decision.”

Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Action Europe are calling on the European Parliament to reject this list of gas projects. They call on the Parliament and Council to deliver a revised Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) regulation – the EU law that governs the PCI list – that is free from fossil fuels.[8] And they call for a firewall to prevent fossil fuel lobbyists influencing climate decision-making.

Frida Kieninger continued:
“The next energy infrastructure law needs to finally end support for fossil fuel projects and remove fossil lobbyists from the privileged role they currently enjoy.”

***

For more information, contact:

Frida Kieninger, senior campaigner, Food & Water Action Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)487 249 905

Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)489 598984

Robbie Blake, communications team, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)491 290096

***

NOTES

[1] The PCI list was shared with Food & Water Action Europe and is available here https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/European-Commission-5th-PCI-list.pdf

The NGO also calculated the number of fossil gas projects on the list and their value based on ENTSOG data in https://www.entsog.eu/tyndp#entsog-ten-year-network-development-plan-2020

[2] Earlier this year the International Energy Agency found that, to have a chance of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees, no new fossil investments must take place, and existing use of fossil fuels must be phased out. https://www.iea.org/news/pathway-to-critical-and-formidable-goal-of-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-is-narrow-but-brings-huge-benefits

[3] Since 2013, the EU has poured nearly €5 billion of taxpayers’ money into expanding Europe’s network of gas pipelines and import terminals. https://www.globalwitness.org/wastedgascash/

40 percent, or €1.5 billion, of the Connecting Europe Facility’s funds have been awarded to fossil gas projects. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/how-gas-lobby-infiltrates-eu/

[4] https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/22/energy-prices-are-skyrocketing-it-s-game-over-for-gas-view

[5] €440 million of EU taxpayers’ money has been wasted on PCI gas projects which have been or are likely to be cancelled. https://www.globalwitness.org/wastedgascash/

[6] EU Ombudsman case on sustainability assessment for gas projects on the current List of Projects of Common Interest: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/135095 ; EU Ombudsman case on assessing the sustainability of gas projects on the list of ‘projects of regional significance’ of the ‘Energy Community’ https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/opening-summary/en/140685 ; Complaint to EU Ombudsman regarding the sustainability assessment criteria in the fifth Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWAE_FOEE_GW_Fifth-PCI-List-Complaint_22072021.pdf

[7] On The Inside: How the gas lobby infiltrates EU decision making https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/how-gas-lobby-infiltrates-eu/

[8] The Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) regulation which governs the PCI list, is currently being revised – prompted in part by the inclusion of controversial gas projects in the Commission’s previous 2019 PCI list.

The Commission framed its proposed reforms as a way to exclude gas projects from future PCI lists and align with the goals of the EU Green Deal. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2020)824&lang=en

Yet both the EU Council and Parliament have proposed loopholes that would still leave considerable room for gas projects on future editions of the priority list. Specifically, the Parliament put forward a “grandfathering” clause that would allow all projects on the fourth and fifth list to continue to apply for PCI status, while the Council proposed derogations for the Melita Pipeline and EastMed. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/meps-fail-to-end-support-for-climate-damaging-gas/

MEPs Approve Methane Report – Highlighting Dangers of Fracking and Need to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Today, the European Parliament adopted its own-initiative report on an EU methane strategy, which calls for regulatory measures and clear targets to reduce methane emissions across all sectors in line with the Paris Agreement. But the report falls short in several key areas.

While MEPs highlight in the report that “fossil fuels have no long-term role in the Union’s energy mix”, it is missing a clear deadline for a phase-out. Considering that the EU imports more than 80% of the oil and gas it consumes, the upcoming rules have to cover the whole supply chain in both the energy and petrochemical sectors. MEPs backed measures across the supply chain, but failed to stress that we have to implement those measures immediately. 

“Decision-makers must ensure that methane mitigation is not abused as an opportunity for greenwashing practices by oil and gas companies. Reducing methane emissions can bring real climate benefits in the short-term, but it must happen within a clear time frame to phase-out fossil gas, consisting mainly of methane, by 2035,” said Enrico Donda, gas campaigner at Food & Water Action Europe.

Another concern arises on who would pay for tackling emissions. The position of the Parliament affirms that investments undertaken by infrastructure operators “should be recognised within the scope of regulated activities”. Once activities are recognised as “regulated” their costs can be passed on via gas tariffs to consumers. The risk is therefore that an increase in gas tariffs will lead to an additional burden to low-income households.

“With raging gas prices across the EU exacerbating energy precarity, measures to reduce methane must fully reflect the polluter pays principle. It would be cynical towards consumers to subsidise activities to fix and detect leaks while fossil fuel companies can sell more gas and wrongly claim it is ‘sustainable’ or ‘clean’”, continued Enrico Donda.    

The Parliament report takes a sufficiently bold approach on other occasions. MEPs reiterate that the EU should not authorize “new hydraulic fracturing operations in the EU and to halt all existing operations” (1). It also rightfully calls production and transport of liquefied fossil gas (LNG) “extremely inefficient”.

By the end of this year, the EU Commission will present legislative proposals on measures to tackle methane emissions. These will include mandatory monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), leak detection and repair (LDAR) programmes and measures on routine venting and flaring (RVF).

The EU Parliament position on methane raises key points that the Commission should consider when dealing with this climate-wrecking greenhouse gas, such as a clear reference to cooperate with Member States to phase-out all fossil fuels, a halt to fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure expansion and the link to the petrochemical sector. 

—

Notes to the editor:

  1. An increasing amount of fossil gas is imported into Europe from the US, a majority of which is extracted via hydraulic fracturing. In Q2 2021, all LNG imports amounted to 24 bcm, with the US being the biggest supplier of LNG to Europe. The European Commission gas market report is available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/quarterly_report_on_european_gas_markets_q2_2021_final.pdf

 

  • The text adopted today by the EU Parliament is an own initiative report by MEP Maria Spyraki (EPP, Greece) – please note that for the section on agriculture  some changes have been proposed by MEPs 
  • Agriculture and energy sectors are the major sources of human-driven methane emissions, accounting respectively to almost 50% and 19% of total EU emissions, according to the EU Commission. Note that these percentages may not be accurate since there is no constant monitoring and the EU Commission relies on outdated data. The EU Commission proposal expected by the end of this year in the context of the second wave of the fit-for-55 package will focus on energy-related methane emissions. 
  • Methane (CH4) is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which has an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. It is 86 times more climate polluting than CO2 over a 20-year period. 

Proposed gas projects for EU support would emit as much carbon as Germany’s coal fleet each year

Categories

Fossil Fuels

 

FOOD & WATER ACTION EUROPE, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE, GLOBAL WITNESS

 

26 July 2021, Brussels – Three climate NGOs have filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman over the European Commission’s repeated failure to properly assess the climate impact of fossil gas projects seeking political and financial support from the EU. This means gas infrastructure projects with significant impacts on accelerating global warming stand to benefit from favoured treatment.

Food & Water Action Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe and Global Witness say that the Commission’s revised methodology for deciding which fossil gas pipelines and terminals will earn the status of “projects of common interest” (PCI) does not include a credible sustainability assessment. PCI status means a project is treated as high priority, enjoys fast-tracked planning and can receive significant public funding.

This updated methodology, published last month, means that even if a gas project fails the sustainability test, it will not automatically be removed from the PCI list. Moreover, the analysis does not take into account methane leakage from infrastructure but methane leakage from Europe’s fossil fuel infrastructure accounts for some 2% of the EU’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. The methodology only considers carbon savings when compared to coal, which artificially inflates the alleged savings. The NGOs are also critical of a lack of transparency over project assessment (as previously noted by the Ombudsman), making it impossible to know how or why a project was approved.

Analysis by Global Witness has shown just how catastrophic it would be for the planet; additional emissions from proposed gas projects would total at least 213 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year – equivalent to the emissions of Germany’s fleet of coal plants in 2018.

Frida Kieninger, Senior Campaigner with Food & Water Europe said: 

“With climate catastrophe knocking at Europe’s doors and flooding our towns, it is appalling that once again the Commission is ignoring science and proposing a farcical process overlooking the climate impacts of the fossil gas projects it will support.”

“This means dozens of climate-damaging, not to mention unnecessary, gas pipelines and terminals could receive favoured treatment from the EU. Instead of pumping more public cash into fossil fuels, the EU should be fighting to phase them out to protect our climate.”

The complaint comes after the EU Ombudsman already censured the EU Commission for a “suboptimal” sustainability process for assessing gas projects that failed to take into account climate risks. The Commission promised it would take several steps to improve its criteria for assessing PCI projects and the Ombudsman indicated that this should include both carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

The European Commission is expected to publish its final draft fifth list of PCI projects in November, which will then go to MEPs and EU governments for approval or rejection. A Global Witness analysis of the previous four PCI lists showed that at least €440 million of EU taxpayer money has been wasted on projects that either have or are likely to fail.

Notes to editor:

[1] Link to sustainability methodology: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/3ba59f7e-2e01-46d0-9683-a72b39b6decf/library/8248eebd-2590-44b1-b1c8-01bcb01ea7af?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC

[2] For all calculations, citations, and methodologies used to determine carbon emissions, see Global Witness, EU Proposed 5th PCI List – Possible CO2 Emissions, 25 June 2021, available at https://gwitness.org/5th_PCIList_Carbon_Emissions.

[3] European Ombudsman (10 February 2020). Decision in case 1991/2019/KR on the European Commission’s action concerning sustainability assessment for gas projects on the current List of Projects of Common Interest. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/135095

[4] Global Witness (2021) EU companies burn fossil gas and taxpayer cash

Available at: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/eu-companies-burn-fossil-gas-and-taxpayer-cash/

[5] Methane leakage quantities and proportions https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2019

EU energy ministers decide to extend subsidies for fossil fuels in the revised energy infrastructure legislation stranding EU’s climate objectives and the European Green Deal

Categories

Fossil Fuels

Brussels, 11 June 2021 – Europe’s energy ministers have decided to extend subsidies for  fossil gas in today’s approval of the Energy Council’s position for the revision of the energy infrastructure legislation (TEN-E) – a move highly criticised by climate groups and which is not in line with  EU’s climate targets.

Despite its stated intent to stop funding fossil gas infrastructure, the Council’s TEN-E revision contains an extraordinary loophole. As climate organisations recently warned, this means that fossil gas pipelines could be retrofitted to transport an undefined mix of fossil gas and hydrogen, known as blending, over the next nine years Financial support from the EU however would stop in 2027.

While 11 countries spoke out clearly against new gas projects, the final compromise was that  pipelines and import terminals would carry a “blend” of these gasses. However, with no definition of what percentages of each gas could be transported and given the substantially higher costs of producing and transporting hydrogen, it is likely that fossil gas will continue to dominate new projects. Moreover there are no provisions for the blended hydrogen to be sourced from renewable hydrogen only.

“Today, energy ministers decided to perpetuate climate-damaging fossil gas use. The nine year transition period during which existing gas infrastructure can be upgraded to carry hydrogen blends is totally at odds with an already well oversupplied European gas grid and the recent IEA Net Zero Report which gave a red card to fossil gas infrastructure extension. Today politics have not contributed to bringing the  EU closer to the Paris Agreement goal  to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C,” said Esther Bollendorff, Senior Gas Policy Advisor at CAN Europe.

Furthermore, the Council’s proposal also includes support for a new generation of energy infrastructure, which at first glance looks promising: transporting hydrogen and making existing infrastructure “smart”. But a closer look reveals a disappointing truth. The proposal would allow for projects that support fossil fuel infrastructure and so-called “smart gas grids” under the auspices of “low carbon” gasses. An undefined term that in reality includes a plurality of gasses regardless of their climate impact. If such projects are allowed, it would seriously undermine the EU’s ability to meet its climate objective to accomplish at least 55% net emission reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.

The Council’s TEN-E revision also undermines the EU’s efforts to fight the climate emergency by continuing to support two large fossil gas infrastructure projects. On one hand, the EastMed project, an unabashed, €6 billion effort to provide the EU with a new source of fossil gas Europe cannot use. If operating at full capacity – 20 billion cubic metres of gas per year – the pipeline’s gas would, when burned, emit as much carbon dioxide as Europe’s current worst polluter, the Bełchatów coal-fired power plant in Poland. On the other hand, the Melita pipeline would keep Malta hooked on gas, with the capacity of transporting an immense 2 billion cubic metres of gas per year to a country with a population of only 500,000.

“We are in a climate emergency. There is no room for new support for fossil gas infrastructure, without exception. It’s hard to see how either the EastMed and Melita pipelines fit into this crucial analysis It’s now down to MEPs to step in and bring a halt to more subsidies for fossil fuel projects – no exceptions, no loopholes,” said Frida Kieninger, Senior Campaigner at Food & Water Action Europe.

Lastly, fossil gas companies that profit from EU gas infrastructure policy and subsidies will continue to hold sway over key energy decisions. Despite some Member States concerns, under the Council’s proposal gas lobbyists – operating through the trade body ENTSOG – would have the power to forecast how much energy Europe needs and to assess and prioritise new infrastructure projects. Like suggestions made by the European Commission, the Council’s proposal continues to grant companies considerable influence rather than handing powers to an independent body which the climate NGO community have called for. Ultimately, the EU cannot wean itself from fossil fuels while this conflict of interest lies at the heart of its decisions on energy infrastructure policy.

“The Council is again letting the fox guard the henhouse siding with fossil gas companies by proposing that they continue to define Europe’s gas policies. If the EU is serious about meeting its climate targets it must remove this conflict of interest, and start listening to science over profiteers of the crisis,” said  Gligor Radečić, Gas Campaigner at Bankwatch.

The Council was badly divided in its decision, with multiple countries abstaining in protest, and “no” votes from Austria, Luxembourg, Germany and Spain, leaving the Council’s position weaker as the text now enters negotiations with the European Parliament. MEPs in the Energy Committee are due to vote on 15 July. The three-way negotiations, known as trilogues, between Commission, EU governments and MEPs could start immediately. Alternatively they may be delayed until after all MEPs have voted on the Parliament’s position in plenary, which is likely to take place in September.

—ENDS—

Grupos ecologistas muestran su oposición a un nuevo proyecto de biogás de Reganosa

Categories

Climate

●    Amigos de la Tierra y Food & Water Action Europe muestran su rechazo a la inclusión de un proyecto de biogás en la lista europea de Proyectos de Interés Común


●   La empresa Renagosa ya cuenta con proyectos controvertidos en Galicia con un gran impacto ambiental


●  El biogás provoca un grave problema de gestión de residuos y fomenta un modelo ganadero insostenible

Madrid, Bruselas, 1 de junio de 2021, Amigos de la Tierra y Food & Water Action Europe reclaman a las autoridades españolas y europeas que no incluyan un proyecto de biogás de la empresa Reganosa en la lista europea de Proyectos de Interés Común, lo cual daría a esta empresa acceso preferente a fondos públicos. Denuncian que el biogás supone un intento de lavado verde de la industria gasística y que sigue tratándose de un gas contaminante por mucho que se utilice el prefijo “bio”.

El objetivo de la empresa es generar biometano a partir de biogás producido con purines de ganadería industrial y residuos, para inyectarlo en la red de gas convencional. Un negocio que provocaría un grave problema de gestión de residuos y fomentaría un modelo ganadero insostenible.

Además, el coste del proyecto, que se estima en 75 millones de euros y se podría elevar hasta 235 millones(1), sería subvencionado por la ciudadanía europea a través de fondos públicos, cuando su apuesta por el biogás se trata de un atentado contra el medio ambiente y el interés común.

“La inyección de biogás en las redes de gas supone la permanencia de este combustible contaminante en la matriz energética retrasando la descarbonización y desplazando otros tipos de energía realmente renovables en la transición energética”, ha asegurado Cristina Alonso, responsable de Justicia Climática de Amigos de la Tierra.

“Este proyecto implicaría dar un gran paso atrás en la gestión de los residuos e ir contra la normativa europea en materia de economía circular, además de agravar la crisis climática”, ha señalado Adriana Espinosa, responsable de Residuos y Recursos Naturales de la organización ecologista.

“La creación de nuevas plantas de producción de biogás ligadas a explotaciones ganaderas industriales supone una estrategia de lavado verde de las grandes empresas cárnicas, como COREN y un apoyo con dinero público a la ganadería industrial que debería destinarse a otros fines”, ha añadido, Andrés Muñoz, responsable de Soberanía Alimentaria de Amigos de la Tierra. “La producción de biogás no elimina el principal problema de los purines, que es la contaminación por nitratos. Resolver esto implica una moratoria sobre nuevas explotaciones ganaderas industriales y la reducción de la cabaña ganadera industrial ya existente, especialmente en zonas como la comarca de La Limia en Galicia”, ha seguido explicando.

La aprobación de las anteriores listas europeas de Proyectos de Interés Común fue muy polémica, al abrir la puerta de los fondos europeos a proyectos basados en grandes infraestructuras y conexiones gasísticas. Justo durante estos meses el Parlamento Europeo está debatiendo la revisión de la normativa que regula la admisión de proyectos a las listas, por este motivo las organizaciones insisten en la necesidad de rechazar la inclusión de un proyecto alejado del interés general como el de Reganosa.

“La lista de Proyectos de Interés Común es una propuesta caduca, que sigue financiando proyectos energéticos insostenibles. El debate deja cada vez más claro que el gas fósil y el biogás no pueden jugar ningún papel relevante en el futuro energético de la Unión Europea”, ha aseverado, Frida Kieninger, de Food & Water Action Europe.

Reganosa ya hace gala, además, de un historial controvertido en Galicia, donde ya cuentan con una regasificadora en la Ría de Ferrol, la cual conlleva un gran impacto ambiental y genera una fuerte oposición social. “Reganosa no es compatible con el modelo de transición energética hacia el que debemos caminar y ni la regasificadora actual ni los nuevos proyectos que proponen serán aceptables desde el punto de vista ambiental y social”, ha concluido María Durán, portavoz de Amigas da Terra Galicia.

Notas:  

La presentación del proyecto se realizó el 22 de abril en el marco de las reuniones regionales organizadas por la Comisión Europea para presentar los proyectos candidatos para la lista. A partir del minuto 14:39:20.