Archives: Press Releases

Vote tarnishes credibility of European Green Deal

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE, FOOD & WATER EUROPE

Brussels – MEPs on the European Parliament’s Energy Committee (ITRE) have failed to reject the EU’s list of priority energy projects in a vote today, despite it containing dozens of new harmful fossil fuel projects incompatible with the Paris climate agreement.

The Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list identifies the highest priority energy infrastructure projects to be built in Europe and which become eligible for EU funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). But this fourth iteration of the PCI list has come under harsh criticism from both MEPs and civil society for the 55+ fossil gas projects on the list [1] – including mega pipelines and terminals to import fracked gas. Constructing these projects would put the climate neutrality goals of the European Green Deal in jeopardy. The list also includes a number of other energy infrastructure projects.

Frida Kieninger from Food & Water Europe said:
“All this new infrastructure for more fossil gas comes on top of Europe’s well-diversified gas network. Fossil gas is today’s biggest contributor to CO2 emission growth and is incompatible with the fossil free future promised in the European Green Deal. More unnecessary gas infrastructure will become a stranded asset, and consumers and the climate will pay the price.”

In exchanges of views with the Commission on the PCI list in October 2019, MEPs criticised the EU Commission for lack of sustainability and climate assessment for the PCI projects, the financial risks associated with creating infrastructure that could become potential ‘stranded assets’, and the incompatibility of the list current EU energy legislation with the Paris Agreement. [2]

Despite these concerns, climate-conscious MEPs in the Renew and S&D groups were unable to convince their colleagues to reject the PCI list. The motion, put forward by Green MEP Marie Toussaint and co-signed by Green, Renew and GUE MEPs, called for a rejection of the entire PCI list, and demanded a rapid revision of the TEN-E regulation which underlies the PCI process [3]. But the motion was today defeated by 54 votes to 17. [4]

84 civil society groups have signed an open letter calling on MEPs to reject the fossil gas PCI list [5]. Many of the signatory organisations are fighting specific gas projects that are being imposed on their local communities, such as the Krk LNG terminal in Croatia, the Shannon LNG terminal in Ireland and the EastMed pipeline, which is facing opposition in Cyprus, Greece, Italy and beyond the EU in Israel.

It is likely that a motion to reject the list will be put to the whole Parliament for plenary votes in February.

Colin Roche, climate justice coordinator for Friends of the Earth Europe said:
“There can be no truly Green Deal with more fossil gas. It’s now up to all MEPs to reject this vast list of mega-pipelines and other new fossil fuel projects – they are not compatible with the climate emergency and tarnish the credibility of any European Green Deal.”

***

For more information, contact:

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

Frida Kieninger, Food & Water Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0) 2893 1045, (+32) (0)487 249 905

Robbie Blake, Communications team, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)2 893 1010

***

[1] The 4th PCI list contains 32 clusters of gas projects. Many of these clusters contain several different projects that were counted as separate pieces of infrastructure in previous PCI lists. When these clusters are separated out, there are 55 gas projects on the 4th PCI list.

[2] The ITRE Committee engaged in two exchanges of views on the PCI list in 2019. The first took place on 17 October with Claus Dieter Borchardt of DG ENER, the second on 5th December with Commissioner Simson.

[3] The PCI list process is laid out in the TEN-E Regulation https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R0347. This regulation dates from 2013 and does not consider climate commitments such as the Paris Agreement, the EU’s 2030 decarbonisation targets and the European Green Deal. The TEN-E Regulation does not require any climate impact assessment of PCI projects. The European Commission has pledged to review the TEN-E legislation by the end of 2020. However, any potential revision of the legislation will take place after the selection process for the next fifth PCI list has begun.

[4] The PCI list is a delegated act. The list is set by the European Commission, after which both the Parliament and the Council have the option to reject the list in its entirety. MEPs can only reject the list in its entirety; they may not reject only the fossil fuel projects, or object to individual projects on the list.

[5] Over 80 Civil Society Organisations spoke out in support of a rejection of the gas projects in the list:https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CSO-letter-PCI.pdf

EU Commission accused of breaking Climate laws on very day President announces European Green Deal

The future for new fracking gas terminals across Europe at risk once again

Brussels — Representatives from NGO’s in Europe and the United States have formally accused the EU Commission of breaking its own rules when it approved support for fracked gas import terminals across Europe. The groups have formally requested a review of the decision from the Director General Commissioner of Energy over concerns that the construction on new gas infrastructure to facilitate trade deals with the United States would wreak havoc on the global climate.

The list of supported projects, known as the Projects of Common Interest (PCI) were approved by the EU Commission in October following an assessment that failed to consider climate or sustainability impacts. If approved by the European Parliament the supported projects which include the controversial Shannon Liquefied National Gas LNG project in Co. Kerry in Ireland would become eligible for significant funding, and are given priority in fast track planning and licensing processes.

The Trans-Atlantic group of NGOs’ appeal raised the accusation that Trade Considerations for the importation of US fracked gas, as agreed by Presidents Trump and Juncker in July 2018, are dominating over considerations of climate change in the European Commission, forcing European Commission staff to turn a blind eye to the disastrous climate impacts of establishing new markets for American fracked gas.

“Increasing scientific evidence about the negative climate role of fossil gas and the need for a swift phase-out show that biased EU subsidies for fossil gas projects will result in dire consequences for the environment and Europe’s economy“, says Andy Gheorghiu, policy advisor for Food & Water Europe.

“The failure to properly address the sustainability and climate impacts of proposed fossil gas Projects of Common Interest is a fatal flaw in the current (and past) lists and represents a breach of crucial European environmental/climate law/legislation, for example Article 11 TFEU, Article 191 TFEU and Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”

The latest peer-reviewed research on fracking for gas notes that methane is a greenhouse gas almost 90 times more powerful than carbon-dioxide over a 20 year period and that shale gas development in North America is the single largest driver of this increase in methane, accounting for one-third of the increase in global emissions from all sources.

The appeal comes on the very day that President Ursula Von der Leyen announced the adoption of the European Green Deal. How the Commission deals with the carbon leakage and non-territorial emissions of US fracked gas imports into Europe on a massive scale which leave a carbon footprint 44% greater than that of coal will quickly reveal whether the European Green Deal is to signal real actions or just aspirations.

Eddie Mitchell, Communities for the Environment First commented,
“We hear a lot rhetoric from the Commission about sustainable development and climate mitigation. Unofficial trade agreements between the Commission and the U.S do not take precedence over the rule of law in Europe. The credibility of the PCI process is at stake. If trade wins over climate we all loose. What does the European Commission stand for?”

Kate Ruddock, Friends of the Earth Ireland commented,

“How can we trust an institution when it does not even follow its own rules. The failure to assess the climate and sustainability impacts of major energy infrastructure projects is unacceptable and must be corrected before MEP’s vote on whether or not to approve the entire list of projects at the European Parliament in February.”

NOTES

[1] The request for the internal review was lodged by Irish NGO’s Friends of the Earth and Communities for the Environment First, by the European NGO Food and Water Europe and the American NGO Food and Water Watch.

[2] The Projects of Common Interest List is published by the European Commission every two years and contains energy infrastructure projects that are considered to contribute to the security, affordability, competitiveness and sustainability of Europe’s energy supply. The projects on the list are entitled to special priority in planning processes and are eligible to apply for EU funding. The 2019 list contains many electricity projects that can be relevant for the energy transition, as well as fossil gas and even oil infrastructure projects. Previous PCI lists contained over 100 projects directly linked to the importing and transportation of fossil gas. The 4th iteration of the PCI list was published by the European Commission in October this year. It contains over 55 fossil gas projects, including 5 Liquified Natural Gas terminals. Members of the European Parliament must approve or reject the list in its entirety the coming months (Jan-Feb).

Brussels — A coalition of international climate activist groups released a letter today demanding that the Port of Cork cancel its arrangement with NextDecade to build fracked gas infrastructure in the Cork harbour. 

The letter — which was signed by groups such as Food & Water Europe, 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Better Path Coalition, Oil Change International, Food & Water Action, Not Here Not Anywhere, FracTracker Alliance, Extinction Rebellion Ireland, Environment Texas, Cork Climate Action — points out that approving fossil fuel projects that will last for decades is incompatible with global efforts to combat the climate crisis. The lifespan of a project like Cork LNG is at least 30 years, which would increase Ireland’s dependence on fossil fuels and slow the development of renewable energy projects.

NextDecade plans to build a floating gas storage unit and a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal import terminal. The fracked gas would originate in the United States, where fracking has been linked to an array of health problems and water contamination. 

Methane emissions at every point of the fracking process are tied to the overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis. New LNG exports will spur additional fracking, as 80% of the increased exports from the United States will come from new fracked wells. Recent research shows that this gas is 40% more damaging to the climate than coal.

The Cork facility is one of two currently proposed highly controversial LNG import terminals in Ireland.

In 2017, the Republic of Ireland banned fracking on health and environmental grounds. A growing international movement is pressuring the Irish government to block fracked gas projects as well, citing the ongoing concerns about the impact of the drilling on local communities. 

Read the letter.

Contact:

Andy Gheorghiu, Policy advisor, Food & Water Europe, email: [email protected], mobile: +49 160 20 30 974

 

Election year move still leaves important questions

Brussels — It was a shocking reversal in British politics: Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party unveiled a halt to fracking in the UK with a policy that would essentially stop fracking in England. The move was similar to the Scottish government’s announcement in October that it would not support fracking there.

It’s nonetheless hard to overstate the shift in England. Prime Minister Johnson, as the Guardian noted, had previously called fracking “glorious news for humanity,” and had called on the country to “leave no stone unturned, or unfracked.” But with elections looming, the Tories were the only major party hanging on to support an issue that had become decidedly unpopular. Johnson clearly wanted to keep fracking out of the electoral debate.

So for many observers, the decision smacked of desperate politics. The government justified its position with a new study by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) pointing to “unacceptable” earthquake risks associated with drilling, and will not allow fracking “until compelling new evidence” shows that it can be done in a “safe and sustainable way.” 

Since there is no safe and sustainable way to frack–in the UK or anywhere else–this would seem to spell the end of fracking in the UK. However, fracking company Cuadrilla has already announced that it will provide the oil and gas regulators with new data to address the concerns of communities near active fracking sites, with the hopes that the moratorium can be lifted.

Several important questions concerning the nitty-gritty details of this temporarily moratorium remain. That’s why UK’s anti-fracking campaigners are treating the current situation with caution.

Definition of fracking— what might still be allowed?

While activists took the government’s sudden announcement as a good sign, there are questions about specifically which processes are covered by the moratorium. Would acidization be covered by the current moratorium? Can fracking companies get around the moratorium by using less water? What will happen with the existing licenses of companies like Cuadrilla or plastic producer Ineos, which owns the majority of shale licenses in England and Scotland? It remains unclear how the new UK government will deal with such matters.

Importing fracked gas 

A freeze or ban on drilling could merely shift fossil fuel companies to rely on imports— meaning that more fracking in other places around the world, including areas in the United States like Pennsylvania and Ohio. The US already exports LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) to the UK. 

On top of that, petrochemical giant Ineos has established an additional trans-atlantic supply chain of fracked “wet gas” (ie ethane, propane and butane) from Pennsylvania that it uses for the production of virgin plastic at Grangemouth, Scotland. Neither the moratorium in England nor in Scotland will affect these existing supply chains. As long as they exist (and even expand), the question remains how long it will take until someone asks the question again if it isn’t “safer, more sustainable and cheaper” to frack the hydrocarbons in the UK.

The UK government calls its new policy an “effective moratorium,” which means in the short term it is “unlikely to approve future Hydraulic Fracture Plans unless new evidence is presented.” The government added that it will “not be taking forward proposed planning reforms in relation to shale gas,” and has “a presumption against issuing any further Hydraulic Fracturing Consents.”

But at the same time–and in very same statement— Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Andrea Leadson also sent this message: “The Government continues to recognise the importance of natural gas as a source of secure and affordable energy as we aim to reach net zero emissions by 2050.” 

A full, comprehensive ban cannot see fossil fuels as having a role in the country’s energy future. And until that vision is realized, the movement to ban fracking still has work to do. 

 

Brussels, 31 October 2019 – In one of the last acts of President Juncker’s administration, the European Commission has today backed 55 new climate-damaging fossil fuel projects, as part of a list of priority energy projects [1] – a move that flies in the face of the climate emergency say Friends of the Earth Europe and Food & Water Europe. 

This fourth edition of the list, known as ‘Projects of Common Interest’ (PCI) list, lends European Commission support to dozens of new climate-damaging gas infrastructure projects with lifetimes lasting decades. 

Projects supported include new gas pipelines and LNG terminals – many to import fracked gas from the United States – which could shackle Europe to decades more fossil fuel use. [2] This is despite incoming European Commission President von der Leyen’s promise of a ‘carbon neutral’ continent by 2050 and a ‘Green Deal’ for Europe in her first 100 days. 

Colin Roche, fossil free campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said:
“The Commission’s support for yet more fossil gas projects will bring us a step closer to climate breakdown. This new PCI list makes a mockery of the EU’s commitments to deliver a ‘carbon neutral’ Europe, and insults all those who have voted and protested for decisive climate action. MEPs must now reject this list and all new fossil fuel projects.”

Energy projects on the PCI list are eligible to receive EU subsidy under the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’, even though the EU has committed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. 

Fossil gas is an emissions-intensive fossil fuel that is not compatible with the Paris Climate Agreement nor with EU climate targets. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) one year ago warned the world is running out of time to address the climate emergency. 

Attention next turns to MEPs, who face a test of their climate credentials if they vote on whether to approve or reject this PCI list. [3] 

Frida Kieninger, from Food & Water Europe said:
“MEPs must reject EU support for yet more dirty gas projects – this list is based on a deeply flawed selection process that is untransparent, riddled with gas industry interests, and does not consider climate impacts. The climate crisis has no space for the EU Commission’s blatant promotion of dirty fossil fuels.” [4]

Kate Ruddock of Friends of the Earth Ireland, commenting on the EU Commission’s support for an LNG terminal in Shannon, Ireland, said: 

“It’s hard to see how the Shannon LNG terminal even qualifies as a so-called ‘project of common interest’ – it does not connect with the rest of Europe, it has not been assessed for the impacts on our climate targets – it’s in the interest of an American fossil fuel company, not the people of Europe.”

Campaigners are calling for the ‘Trans-European Networks – Energy’ (TEN-E) Regulation, which governs the PCI list, to be aligned to EU climate commitments. [5]

***

For more information, contact:

Robbie Blake, communications team, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)2 893 1010

Colin Roche, fossil free campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)2 893 1018, (+32)(0) 489 598984

Frida Kieninger, campaign officer, Food & Water Europe, [email protected], (+32) (0)487 249905

***

NOTES: 

Just weeks ago, the Swedish government denied permission for Gothenburg LNG terminal, a current gas project on the PCI list, citing climate considerations: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vast/regeringen-sager-nej-till-planer-pa-naturgashamn-i-goteborg 

[1] Link to the new PCI list

[2] Controversial projects backed by the European Commission include: 

• gas mega-pipelines connecting Europe to Azerbaijan and other crisis-ridden Eastern Mediterranean countries; 
• and terminals for importation of polluting fracked gas from the U.S., including the controversial LNG terminals in Krk in Croatia (http://www.foeeurope.org/lng-terminal-krk-unacceptable-190318), and Shannon in Ireland (which is caught up in a legal dispute and faces criticism for its links to the U.S. fracking industry https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/actor-mark-ruffalo-claims-supporting-fracked-gas-project-makes-government-appear-bought-off-by-fossil-fuel-industry-38610389.html), as well as terminals in Greece, Cyprus and Poland.

EU LNG import terminals have been used at less than a quarter of their capacities in the past years: https://alsi.gie.eu.

[3] MEPs have at least two months to scrutinise the list. The fossil fuel projects cannot be voted individually, only the package as a whole. 

[4] Hiding in plain sight: how the gas industry influences European energy policy http://www.foeeurope.org/hiding-plain-sight-gas-industry-influences-european-energy-policy-110517 

When asked about climate impacts of the PCI list, deputy director of DG Energy Klaus-Dieter Borchardt said: “Where is the sustainability or climate impact assessment? Unfortunately we are not doing it” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20191017-0900-COMMITTEE-ITRE 

[5] EU parliamentarians have repeatedly demanded greater inclusion in the PCI list drafting. The Commission has promised a review of the relevant TEN-E regulation, but a revision could take years.

The outcome of a public consultation held on all PCI candidate projects showed that 99.6% of the participants give a negative assessment to PCI projects, but the Commission never published the report http://bit.ly/PCI_publCons2019