Imagine walking through a city where every building is a testament to sustainability, resilience and innovation. A city built by – and now serving – a prosperous, diverse and cohesive society.   

This vision of Europe is not a distant dream.   

It’s an achievable reality if the European Commission delivers on advancing its sustainable building policy – plans for which should be firmly at the top of President Ursula von der Leyen’s inbox when she returns from summer recess later this month.  

In just a few short weeks, her second term will begin in earnest, as will her second push at keeping Europe’s green transition alive – a five-year marathon to cement both her and the bloc’s environmental legacy. 

The Commission’s activity to date has been commendable. The revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) were key steps towards accelerating climate action in the sector and driving plans under the Renovation Wave to boost energy efficiency in both public and private buildings.   

Renewable-energy carbon credits rejected by high-integrity scheme

In the “Political Guidelines released shortly after her re-election, von der Leyen has shown promising signs of continuing to champion sustainable buildings as a climate solution. There is a pledge to create the first EU commissioner with direct responsibility for housing, while our sector awaits with interest the new “Circular Economy Act”, designed to create market demand for reused and recycled materials. 

This is promising – but von der Leyen must go further both in implementing existing policies and in developing new ones to maximise the holistic benefits of sustainable buildings for everyone. 

We know already that sustainable buildings have huge greenhouse gas reduction potential. Buildings are responsible for about 40% of total energy consumption in the EU and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy, so they can help improve energy security, reducing the bloc’s exposure to geopolitical shocks and reliance on fossil fuels.     

Creating jobs, lowering energy costs 

What isn’t spoken about enough is that they have the potential to address other issues facing Europe today: the cost of living and the unemployment crises.   

For me, these less-discussed issues in the context of buildings are just as, if not more, important due to their co-benefits for people and society.    

Take the energy efficient renovation of buildings, for example. The widespread availability of well-insulated buildings that keep out the heat during summer but retain the warmth during winter will significantly cut energy costs across the continent.   

The benefits of this will be far-reaching, but particularly for vulnerable or low-income households. Given soaring energy bills, improving energy efficiency across buildings would not only reduce associated costs, but also enhance living conditions.   

The benefits of renovating buildings do not stop here.   

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy supply chains

This task alone could create millions of employment opportunities across Europe: 18 jobs are created for every €1 million invested in this type of renovation.   

Bearing in mind figures from the European Commission, which calculated that €275 billion will be needed annually to bridge the building renovation gap in the EU, this level of investment could lead to nearly 5 million extra jobs across the bloc.   

Not only that, there is a real financial incentive for national governments to look towards investing in the building sector to save in the long run. Data from the Spanish government showed that while supporting one person through unemployment cost €20,000, funding a new construction role amounted to €14,000, a significant decrease. These statistics show a real-world example of how buildings can both address governmental issues and create better prospects for individuals.   

Blueprint ready to go 

Europe is at a significant moment in its history.   

We are only five years away from 2030, a deadline by which Europe committed to slash half its emissions, determining whether it will be on track to become the first climate-neutral continent. Yet the recent parliamentary elections showed a record number of seats from parties that could make the path to net zero more challenging. 

Von der Leyen has a real chance to confirm her legacy of green policies by driving an energy-efficient, regenerative and just transition in the built environment. World Green Building Council’s Europe Regional Network stands ready to continue to build momentum with the Commission over the next five years and create tangible benefits at the individual, societal and national levels.   

Let’s create a brighter, equitable and more sustainable future for all of Europe. The blueprint is ready; we just need to turn it into reality.   

The World Green Building Council leads BuildingLife, a project that drives the Commission’s EU Green Deal across the bloc by working to eliminate the whole-life carbon impact of buildings. 

The post How better buildings can help von der Leyen maintain her green legacy    appeared first on Climate Home News.

This is Azerbaijan’s first large-scale solar power plant. It opened last October and the Emirati company developing it, Masdar, says it can power 110,000 homes.

Climate Home visited the solar park as part of a media tour organised and sponsored by the Azerbaijan COP29 Presidency, which is arranging the UN climate summit in Baku this November.

At the park’s opening ceremony, in front of Sultan Al-Jaber – Masdar’s CEO who led the COP28 climate summit in Dubai – Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev boasted about his country’s determination in “moving towards a green agenda”. 

“This is our contribution not only to the future development of Azerbaijan but to the issues related to climate change,” he told the assembled dignitaries. 

But despite this rhetoric, climate scientists have questioned Azerbaijan’s climate credentials as it prepares to host the COP29 summit. 

An increase in renewable energy production does not mean Azerbaijan is planning to leave its vast oil and gas reserves in the ground. Aliyev said last month that Azerbaijan will try to sell abroad the gas it saves by not using it in power stations at home. Europe is the main target customer, as it shifts away from Russian gas supplies.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s net zero vision clashes with legacy of war

On top of selling its surplus, Azerbaijan is planning to extract more gas thanks, in part, to fresh investments from foreign fossil fuel giants like Britain’s BP, France’s TotalEnergies and Emirati oil giant ADNOC, which Al-Jaber also heads. 

Bill Hare, CEO of climate science non-profit group Climate Analytics, called Azerbaijan’s plans “a fantasy”. “Ramping up renewables won’t make a dent in emissions unless they displace fossil fuels in the system,” he told Climate Home. “You can’t tackle climate change without getting rid of fossil fuels.” 

A spokesperson for COP29 said gas is “an ideal transition fuel in the production of electricity”. In emailed comments, they added that gas exported to Europe can replace coal power – which currently provides around 15% of the EU’s electricity – in the short to medium-term, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Azerbaijan is not alone in pursuing both renewable energy and fossil fuel production. Most fossil fuel producers – including wealthy nations like the US, UK and Canada – have no plans to stop producing oil and gas. That’s despite the International Energy Agency (IEA) warning that new fossil fuel extraction projects are not compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

The COP29 spokesperson said Azerbaijan’s strategy does not contradict IEA scenarios, noting those do not exclude continued investment in existing oil and gas assets and approved projects.

A fossil fuel economy

Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel industry is steeped in history. As early as the 13th century, Italian explorer Marco Polo wrote of Baku’s “stream of oil in such abundance that a hundred ships may load there at once”. 

In the 19th century, Azerbaijan gave birth to modern crude refining, and by the 20th century it accounted for around half of the world’s oil production, helping fuel the Soviet Union’s victory in World War Two.

Oil and gas remain omnipresent today. The Flame Towers, Baku’s iconic skyscrapers, are a symbol of fossil fuel wealth. At night, their facades light up to display flickering flames in a reference to the naturally-occurring fires produced by gas leaks that earned Azerbaijan its name, “The Land of Fire”. 

The logo of SOCAR, the state-owned oil and gas firm, emblazons the national football team shirts, while one of the country’s oldest oil fields sits just behind Baku’s Olympic Stadium, the venue for the COP29 climate summit. 

Oil fields on the outskirts of Baku, Azerbaijan, April 2o24. Photo: Matteo Civillini

By global standards, Azerbaijan is no longer a major fossil fuel producer, pumping less than 1% of the world’s oil and gas. But its economy remains heavily dependent on the income they generate. Fossil fuels make up over 90% of all exports and 64% of government revenue.

At the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin last month, Aliyev said that “having oil and gas deposits is not our fault. It’s a gift from God. We must not be judged by that. He added that “our oil and gas will be needed for many more years, including in European markets”.

A shrinking market?

European countries have historically been the main destination market for Azerbaijani oil and gas, and flows have been rising in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

As Europe tried to wean itself off Moscow’s supplies, the European Commission went looking around the world for alternative sources of gas to keep the lights on and curb skyrocketing prices. In Azerbaijan, it struck a new deal to double gas exports by 2027. 

Baku is now scrambling to make good on that pact, while using it as a lever to expand its lucrative gas industry. The country could boost its gas production by more than a third over the next decade, according to data analysis by campaigning group Global Witness. 

“We are largely investing in increasing our gas production,” said Aliyev in Berlin, “because Europe needs more gas from new sources.” 

But energy experts question that reasoning. While looking for new gas supplies in the short term, the war in Ukraine also prompted the EU to fast-track its transition towards renewable sources of energy. Its strategic energy plan, laid out in 2022, would see overall gas demand in the bloc halve by 2030. 

“There will be a lot of supply globally and not that much demand on the European side,” said E3G analyst Maria Pastukhova. “Looking at the amounts alone, the EU will not need any additional gas from Azerbaijan if it delivers on its energy transition policies.”

Clean, cheap or fair – which countries should pump the last oil and gas?

But much will also depend on what kind of gas the block will continue to rely on. Norway, Europe’s top supplier, Algeria and Azerbaijan provide it through pipelines, while the United States and Qatar ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the continent. 

“It’s hard to say at the moment [which supplies will remain],” added Pastukhova. “But it isn’t very likely that Azerbaijan can continue to bank on crazy gas revenues from the EU. We don’t see readiness from European buyers to sign long-term contracts beyond 2035.” 

Sell, don’t burn

Meanwhile, Baku also wants to ensure that its gas is channelled towards the lucrative export market not burned at home.

Central to this strategy is the rollout of renewable energy. With strong winds blowing from the Caspian Sea and sun shining for a large part of the year, Azerbaijan boasts significant clean energy prospects.

But that potential has so far been largely untapped. Renewable sources, mainly from three hydro power stations, produced only 7% of Azerbaijan’s electricity in 2023. The government wants to increase that to 30% by 2030. 

If that target is met, Aliyev says that solar and wind will pump 5 gigawatts of clean electricity into the national grid, freeing up “at least” 5 billion cubic metres of gas for the European market.

At Masdar’s sprawling solar park in Garadagh, this plan is being rolled out. The park spans the equivalent of 770 football pitches, but was built in just under two years. It cost $262 million, with multilateral development banks stumping up just under half of that.

Speaking to journalists inside the plant’s control room, Kamran Huseynov, deputy director of the Azerbaijan Renewable Energy Agency, said eight more solar and wind projects are being developed for the coming years. “We are quite sure we can reach the target [of 30% renewables capacity] by 2028,” he added. 

As in Garadagh, foreign energy companies will be at the helm of those eight projects. Masdar will build two more solar parks and one onshore wind farm. Saudi Arabia’s ACWA Power is erecting a wind farm just north of Baku by the Caspian Sea.

Renewables-processed fossil fuels?

Later this year, BP is expected to start building a solar farm in the district of Jabrayil. This is one of the territories Azerbaijan captured after a long-running dispute with Armenia centred on the Nagorno-Karabakh region. 

Baku seized control of these areas in a two-part military offensive that started in 2020 and ended last autumn. As a result, some 136,000 ethnic Armenians who had lived in Nagorno-Karabakh fled in a mass exodus which, according to Armenia and the EU Parliament, amounted to “ethnic cleansing”. Azerbaijan has rejected those accusations. 

In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan’s net zero vision clashes with legacy of war

The Azeri government is now promoting a green vision for Nagorno-Karabakh which involves the construction of government-branded “net zero” villages. It has also designated the region as a “green energy zone”, aiming to attract investment in renewable energy.

BP was the first major international energy firm to jump at that opportunity. In 2022, the company’s regional president for Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, praised Baku’s efforts to turn Karabakh into “the heart of sustainable development”. 

BP wants electricity produced from Jabrayil’s solar power plant to make some of its vast oil and gas operations in Azerbaijan less dirty.

The British energy giant runs the Sangachal terminal, one of the world’s largest oil and gas processing facilities and the starting point for the pipelines transporting gas to Europe. Processing all of this oil and gas requires power, which BP currently gets from burning gas in generators.

The Sangachal oil and gas terminal in Azerbaijan. Photo: Azerbaijan Presidency

According to Elnur Soltanov, Azerbaijan’s deputy energy minister and the COP29 CEO, these are “very inefficient” and produce “some of the dirtiest electricity” in the country. After being electrified, the fossil fuel processing plant will receive the same amount of electricity from the grid as the solar park generates, according to Azernenerji, the country’s grid operator.

The process will also free up “more gas to export to world markets”, BP says.

BP’s project is being developed in partnership with SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas giant. After setting up a “green energy” unit last year, SOCAR says it is working with international companies, like BP, “in order to get the know-how” and “learn in the process” with the goal of transforming into a “comprehensive energy company”.  

“Sooner or later, hydrocarbons will slowly die out – not right away,” Teymur Guliyev, deputy vice president for the energy transition at SOCAR, told reporters including Climate Home. “But we have to start our transformation process when we still have plenty of time to plan accordingly, go through trial and error.” 

The COP29 spokesperson said Azerbaijan “is making significant progress” towards reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Azerbaijan has a goal to reduce emissions 40% by 2050 as outlined in its national climate plan (NDC). It has promised to submit a new NDC that is aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5C, which is due by early 2025.

How to move it

While the current priority for Azerbaijan’s renewables push appears to be maximising its gas exports, the government is also wrangling over how to sell its clean energy to Europe, when gas demand falls.

COP29’s Soltanov told Climate Home and other international journalists that he is “very optimistic” about Azerbaijan’s green transition. “Azerbaijan has been at the forefront of the oil revolution, it has been at the forefront of the gas revolution, and it has all the conditions to be at the forefront of the clean energy revolution as well,” he added. 

But the transportation of green electricity remains an obstacle.

The main option being explored is laying an electric cable under the Black Sea, stretching over 1,155 kilometres between Georgia and Romania. Originally the project, under discussion for several years, had the stated intention of linking Georgia to the European transmission network and boosting its energy security. 

But it was recently revamped as a possible route to carry Azerbaijan’s clean energy to the European market. In December 2022, the leaders of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania and Hungary formed a partnership to push the project forward, indicating it could be completed by 2029 at a cost of €2.3bn ($2.5bn). A two-year long feasibility study is currently in its final stage, according to President Aliyev. 

The leaders of Azerbaijan, Romania, Hungary and Georgia, and the European Commission President, at the signing of a green energy partnership in December 2022. (Photo: Inquam Photos/Octav Ganea via Reuters)

Implementing the project could be challenging given the fragile geopolitical situation in the region. The cable would run just south of the Crimean Peninsula, under Russian control, and near a theatre of war in Ukraine with the strong presence of military vessels. 

For Climate Analytics’ Bill Hare, “it’s a tricky location to attract investment and get built at the moment, but it would provide a lot of benefits in the long-term”. 

There are also questions over whether Azerbaijan’s current plans to export green energy via the Black Sea cable will yield a high-enough return to compensate for selling less fossil fuel.

“Electricity trade is a stable source of revenue, but it is also capital-intensive and not very high margin,” explained E3G’s Pastukhova. “It will not replace the same amount of export revenue that gas and oil have been contributing.”

“What Azerbaijan is doing right now [on renewables] is not enough and quite alarming because this country is so dependent on oil and gas revenue,” she said.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini in Azerbaijan; editing by Megan Rowling and Joe Lo)

Matteo Civillini visited Azerbaijan as part of an “energy media tour” organised and sponsored by the COP29 Presidency.

The article was updated on 17 May to include comments from a COP29 spokesperson received after publication. 

The post Azerbaijan pursues clean energy to export more ‘god-given’ gas to Europe appeared first on Climate Home News.

Encouraging one party to continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, while paying another to do the opposite has been a giant diversion: side-tracking us from decarbonising our economies and lives.

One scandal after another has engulfed carbon offset schemes. Their credibility has eroded as evidence has mounted that offset projects fail to deliver the climate gains that they promise.

An investigation earlier this year found that 90% of the rainforest protection schemes approved by the world’s largest carbon offsets standards agency, Verra, were “worthless” from a climate perspective. This point was reinforced by a new study from UC Berkeley, which found that the companies had greatly overstated the emissions their projects saved.

Inherently flawed

Another study investigating the largest forest offsetting schemes by companies, governments and the World Bank reached the same conclusion: all had inflated their impact.

The real problem with carbon offsetting schemes, however, lies less with their execution than with their inherent flaws.

This is especially true of land-based offsetting – where polluters claim the effects of their fossil fuel emissions have been neutralised because they’ve paid for trees to be planted, improved farming methods, or temporarily locked carbon into the land by another means.

Exposed: carbon offsets linked to high forest loss still on sale

These schemes are predicated on the promise of sucking vast amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere in the future: a future laden with variables and uncertainties. By contrast, every ton of emissions released now will certainly contribute to the floods, heat waves, wildfires and other climate-fuelled chaos unfolding across the planet.

From global leader to global wrecking ball?

Yet just as the evidence is hardening around land-based offsets’ fundamental flaws, the European Union (EU) could be on the cusp of agreeing a law that would bolster the market. This would signal a serious reversal of the EU’s status as a global climate leader.

EU countries hammer out joint stance for Cop28 climate summit

The EU chose to exclude forest offsets from its Emissions Trading System (ETS), because of concerns about the problems plaguing the voluntary carbon offset market – that projects could be manipulated to overstate their climate impact.

Now, with potentially disastrous consequences, conservative EU lawmakers are paving the way to reverse this.

Their proposed EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), aimed at establishing new standards for calculating carbon dioxide removals from forests, farms, or yet-to-be developed projects for industrial carbon capture, will also include forest offsets.

Cooking the books: cookstove offsets produce millions of fake emission cuts

The CRCF would encourage private, self-regulating agencies like Verra to create tradable carbon credits based on agreed standards, allowing the use of carbon removals to offset ongoing emissions by the entities that buy the credits, rather than ensuring companies are obligated to both reduce their emissions and pay for activities that remove carbon.

This dangerous proposal, which is currently before the European Parliament, would reward offsetters with an EU stamp of approval. It would also create the false impression that the use of tradable carbon credits, developed under new EU rules and misleadingly described as “carbon removals”, will result in lower total emissions.

The opposite is more likely to occur.

A stark choice

Like other speculative markets, from crypto currencies to derivatives, the carbon offset market is plagued by cycles of boom and bust. It is currently in a swoon. As the risks of being held liable for false claims have risen, many companies have stopped buying. The price for land-based carbon credits has fallen tenfold since the start of 2022.

Those championing land-based carbon offsetting as a climate solution are trying to resuscitate the carbon offset market. A major reason, as a new report co-authored by Kathleen McAfee asserts, is that carbon trading has become a self-perpetuating industry rife with conflicts of interest and a bias for producing success stories.

In their quest to revive their industry, the carbon marketeers seem to have found powerful allies among a sizeable number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

This week, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee will vote on the CRCF. If MEPs are serious about tackling the climate emergency, then they must call for the EU to ban the sale of carbon credits which would enable climate action to be delayed.

As the world has just endured the hottest July, August and September on record, it is clear that the EU faces a stark choice. It can either give a false climate solution a new lease of life – or face up to the reality that offsets simply don’t work.

Dr Kate Dooley is a Research Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Dr Kathleen McAfee is Professor Emerita in International Relations at San Francisco State University.

The post The EU is about to revive a failed climate solution appeared first on Climate Home News.

Timmermans has led the climate policy of the EU’s executive arm, the European Commission, since December 2019. He led the EU’s delegation to three Cop climate talks but he will not do so at Cop28 in December.

His successor currently unknown but may be just a stop-gap until the next set of commissioners come into power next year, around June. One commissioner from each country is nominated by each of the EU’s member states.

Under Timmermans leadership, the EU pushed internationally for measures to cut methane emissions at Cop26, ended its long-standing opposition to a loss and damage fund at Cop27 and is pushing for a commitment to phase out fossil fuels and ramp up renewables at Cop28.

Domestically, during Timmermans tenure the EU set to target net zero by 2050 and to reduce emissions 55% by 2030 on 1990 levels through a package of measures known as “fit for 55”. But the bloc was widely criticised for endorsing gas as a transition fuel last year.

Alessia Virone, Clean Air Task Force’s European government affairs director, told Climate Home Timmermans would be missed.

“He was the driving force for the green deal,” she said, “now we will have to see who will ensure the remaining green deal legislations are going across the finishing line”.

The 62-year old speaks English, German, French, Italian and Russian in addition to his native Dutch. He is known for speaking frankly and emotionally at international climate talks. At Cop27, he threatened to walk away from talks unless he won concessions before failing to follow throw on that threat, saying that to do so would hurt vulnerable countries.

At a summit to discuss adaptation finance last September, he told African leaders that many European citizens would not be persuaded by the “moral point that those suffering the most consequences are not responsible for creating the crisis” because “what is closer to your own worries is always bigger on your agenda than someone else’s worries”.

Dutch opening

Before joining the European Commission in 2014, Timmermans was the Dutch foreign minister. He represented the centre-left Labour Party in a coalition government led by Mark Rutte.

Earlier this month, Rutte’s latest coalition government collapsed after failing to reach an agreement on restricting immigration, triggering a vote on Nov. 22.

Timmermans formally announced his candidacy to lead the ticket for Labour and Green Left parties, which are joining forces in a bid to stem a decline in support for left-leaning parties.

“This morning I told the Labour and Green Left parties that I would love to be a candidate to lead them in the next elections,” Timmermans said on national Dutch television.

An EU commission spokesperson declined to comment on his possible departure, first reported by Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant.

He was expected to leave his EU post before the autumn to join campaigning in the Netherlands.

This article was updated to include Alessia Virone’s comment on 20 July

The post Frans Timmermans steps down from EU’s climate leadership appeared first on Climate Home News.

Tuesday’s deal is part of a wider €300 billion ($300bn) plan tabled by the European Commission in May to speed up the energy transition in the wake of Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine.

“Today we achieved a major step forward in strengthening Europe’s autonomy from Russia’s fossil fuels,” said Zbyněk Stanjura, the finance minister of the Czech Republic, which holds the rotating EU presidency.

“Given the geopolitical context since Russia started its military aggression against Ukraine, and given the latest attacks on energy infrastructure in Europe, I am sure it is necessary to push for a fast agreement on this proposal,” he added.

The proposal will add a new energy chapter to the national recovery plans approved by the European Union to restart the economy in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis two years ago.

But how to fund this spending without compromising other green objectives is hotly debated between the EU’s institutions and has yet to be decided.

Carbon price kept high

The European Commission originally suggested releasing carbon credits from the market stability reserve. This reserve was established in 2015 to keep the carbon price high to incentivise emissions reductions.

But EU countries like Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark, were opposed to the idea, said Agnese Ruggiero from Carbon Market Watch, a green NGO. And in the European Parliament, all the main political groups are also fiercely against.

With its proposal, the European Commission probably tried killing two birds with one stone by raising funds and addressing calls from eastern EU countries to tackle high prices on the carbon market, Ruggiero said.

But the proposal risked causing a negative spiral as releasing more allowances would depress prices on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), requiring more allowances to be released to hit the €20 billion ($20bn), she explained.

Experts also criticised the Commission’s plan, saying it would undermine trust in the ETS at a time when the EU needs a high carbon price to sustain the bloc’s more ambitious decarbonisation targets for 2030.

EU countries set for clash with Parliament

Instead, EU ministers backed a combination of funds, including drawing 75% of the €20 billion ($20bn) from the Innovation Fund and 25% from the early sale of carbon allowances (frontloading).

Although more allowances would be sold in the short term, there would be no new CO2 allowances added to the ETS, raising pressure on EU countries to accelerate emissions reductions in the second half of the decade to hit the bloc’s 2030 goal.

But the European Parliament rejected the idea of using the Innovation Fund and would rather draw the €20 billion from the regular pool of emission allowances.

“We strongly disagree to have the main bulk of the money from the innovation fund because we need the fund to support the transition of the industry,” said Peter Liese, a German MEP who is the lead negotiator on the ETS reform in the European Parliament.

“This is completely unacceptable for us. And we will fight hard against this proposal” during final talks with EU member states, he added, saying member states like France and Netherlands were on the Parliament’s side.

Using the Innovation Fund

Last week, Liese presented a common position on the issue with the Parliament’s four biggest political groups – the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the left-wing Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the centrist Renew Europe (RE) and the Greens.

Despite the Parliament’s concerns, Federico Sibaja from think-tank Sandbag said drawing money from the Innovation Fund also brings benefits.

“Those resources would be better spent than the way they’re being spent right now as the projects from the Innovation Fund are really focused on innovative technologies that may actually not be deployed in the next years to come. While actually the money from the recovery funds will be spent for mitigation strategies right away,” he explained.

The scope of the Innovation Fund should also be addressed in wider discussions about reforming the carbon market, he added.

However, it is not yet clear whether the negotiations will take place as part of the wider carbon market reform, which would allow trade-offs in negotiations within the topic, or if it will be tackled in separate negotiations.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on its position in November. It will then negotiate the plan with EU countries.

If adopted, the Parliament’s “frontloading” proposal would leave EU countries with fewer allowances until the end of the decade, which means pressure to decarbonise “will be even higher” as the EU gets closer to 2030, Liese said.

“That’s why member states are not so happy,” he added.

The European Commission hopes to have the proposal adopted by early next year.

This article was originally published on Euractiv and has been lightly edited for clarity.

The post EU ministers back €20 billion plan to ditch Russian fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

Observers say the European Commission’s decision to classify gas as a transition fuel in its green investment list leaves the door open to “blue hydrogen” projects with exaggerated climate credentials.

“Blue hydrogen is basically nothing but a smokescreen for more air pollution, mining, and fossil fuel use with hardly any CO2 benefit,” said Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University.

Unlike green hydrogen, which is derived from water in a process powered exclusively by renewable energy, blue hydrogen comes from methane, with the carbon dioxide emitted during production captured and stored.

The International Energy Agency reported last week that there are at least 50 blue hydrogen projects under development globally, and capacity is set to increase more than tenfold by 2030.

European Commission endorses fossil gas as ‘transition’ fuel for private investment

In a delegated act last year, the EU Commission set an emissions threshold of just over 3 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of H2 for hydrogen projects to comply with the green taxonomy.

“Which is not low enough to guarantee that it would be only renewable energy-powered hydrogen,” said Eleonora Moro, a hydrogen analyst at the E3G climate think tank. “It could include some types of high efficiency blue hydrogen projects.”

One such project is a joint venture announced by Equinor and Engie in December to produce “low-carbon hydrogen… at large scale and at competitive cost levels”. The companies claim that they will use a process known as autothermal reforming (ATR), which “allows for decarbonization rates above 95%”.

The project sponsors some editions of POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook newsletter, telling readers: “Hydrogen can accelerate the energy transition but we need to develop well-functioning markets and infrastructure. The H2BE project will help kick-start the Belgian low-carbon hydrogen market.”

Seven countries join US and EU in methane reduction pledge

ATR involves heating methane gas with a catalyst, then adding water to get hydrogen and CO2 that is then captured. Equinor says it will bury the captured CO2 beneath the North Sea. 

The EU’s hydrogen strategy, published in 2020, says that “renewable  and low-carbon hydrogen can contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ahead of 2030”.

Jacobson disputed Equinor and Engie’s claim that blue hydrogen can be classified as “low-carbon”.

“Carbon capture equipment is never 95% effective,” he told Climate Home. Blue hydrogen capture technology currently available is at best 78.8% effective, “but that ignores the fact that more energy is needed to run carbon capture equipment, so it is 78.8% of a much larger emission stream”. 

Jacobson co-wrote a study last year which found, due to the increased amount of fossil gas needed to power the carbon capture and storage (CCS) process, blue hydrogen likely had a 20% higher carbon footprint than burning methane alone.

Comment: Why the hydrogen bubble could burst in Europe’s face

A paper by different researchers last month noted that developers’ promises of a 90-95% CCS success rate were based on theory, not practice. 

“While these high capture rates are assumed in many national strategies and major reports, they have not yet been achieved in a large-scale commercial plant,” said the paper, published in the journal Applied Energy. 

Another issue with blue hydrogen projects is that the methane feedstock can leak, with a short-term warming impact more than 80 times that of CO2.

Countries agreed at the last UN climate summit in November to reduce methane emissions by 30% this decade, and an EU Commission proposal seeks a ban on routine gas flaring and venting as well as penalties on leaks. 

Yet the draft legislation doesn’t set specific emissions reduction targets, and E3G’s Moro said leakages – which may be as much as 4% in some countries – could only be penalised if effectively observed. 

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Eilidh Robb, an anti-gas campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said that industry’s focus on blue hydrogen “shows a complete lack of understanding about methane emissions”.

“We talk so much about CO2 that methane has been overlooked and it’s only now we are starting to talk about that,” she said. “[Blue hydrogen] is a highly technological solution from the gas industry for them to continue to do what they have always done and we need to be deeply skeptical.”

A spokesperson for Equinor told Climate Home that in order for the EU to reach its decarbonisation aims, it “will need many forms of hydrogen with zero to low-carbon and environmental footprint. The volume needs are massive.”

The spokesperson added that Equinor “pursues a methane intensity target of near zero and are an engaged member of international efforts to reduce global emissions”.

Engie did not respond to comment requests.

Researchers also questioned if burying CO2 beneath the sea bed was a durable solution to the climate crisis. 

Caitlin Swalec, research analyst and hydrogen specialist at the Global Energy Monitor watchdog, said that no matter how well it is stored, buried CO2 will “eventually leak and make its way back to the atmosphere”.

“This may happen over several hundred years, or a few decades. We don’t really know because we haven’t tested it,” she said.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its 2005 special report on CCS, suggested that CO2 stored below 3,000 metres would be less likely to leak. At this depth, the gas becomes denser than water.

Saudi energy minister touts pink hydrogen made by “emancipated young ladies”

Equinor says it stores its captured CO2 “1,000-2,000 metres below the seabed” and Swalec said it was not clear how viable the storage was at such depths. 

“In order to store CO2 long term under the sea floor, it needs to go very deep which means that it will require a lot of energy to store it,” she told Climate Home. “If it takes more energy (i.e. emissions) to store the CO2 than we remove, the project will cause more problems than it solves.”

Silje Ask Lunberg, a senior campaigner and Norway expert at Oil Change International, said Equinor – previously Statoil – had a history of failed CCS attempts. 

These include problems at its Snohvit field in the Barents Sea, which saw one attempt at CCS aborted as the reservoir was at risk of collapsing, and a second paused as the injected CO2 was polluting the methane extracted from the site.

Statoil also mothballed its Mongstad CCS plant after less than a year of operations.

“Mongstad was meant to demonstrate that it was completely feasible to have carbon capture at gas-fired power plants and it was supposed to be 100% from 2014,” said Lundberg. “They ended up failing at their own project.”

EU climate package risks locking in gas use, campaigners warn

Equinor and Engie say they are in talks with potential blue hydrogen buyers from “predominantly large, hard-to-abate industries”. These may include sectors such as cement and steel, where there are few low-carbon production methods.

The EU green taxonomy also encourages the use of hydrogen in gas-fired power stations, while gas grid operators are preparing to “blend” hydrogen into the fuel mix for home heating and cooking.

E3G’s Moro said that even for hard-to-abate sectors, there were “much more efficient alternatives”, such as renewable energy or green hydrogen.

She said there were “very strong economic interests” pushing for blue hydrogen across Europe, and that the guidelines as to what qualifies as renewable or low-carbon gas were too vague, as they stand, to discourage them.

“We know that fossil gas will have to be phased out in the EU so what do we do with all that infrastructure? The easy solution the fossil industry is selling is blue hydrogen.”

This article was amended after publication to add a response from Equinor. 

The post Experts sound the alarm on oil sector’s blue hydrogen push appeared first on Climate Home News.

Brussels unveiled part two of a legislative overhaul to cut the bloc’s emissions by at least 55% between 1990 and 2030 and put it on track for 2050 climate neutrality.

The package of proposals includes a reform of EU gas market aimed at integrating low-carbon gases such as hydrogen into the network. It creates a new market and governance structure for hydrogen, requires oil and gas operators to find and fix methane leaks, and bans venting and flaring of greenhouse gases.

“Today’s proposals are designed to make sure that the role of natural gas in our energy system declines and that greener options like renewables, hydrogen, biomass and biogas increase,” EU energy commissioner Kadri Simson told a press conference.

But the gas industry gets a central role in deciding the future of the EU’s energy infrastructure, raising concerns about locking in polluting systems.

“This package was crucial to accelerate the transition towards a decarbonised energy system. Yet the Commission has ceded ground to industry polluters, giving them a chance to greenwash their fossil business and emissions,” said Patrick ten Brink, director of EU policy at the European Environmental Bureau.

As EU seeks to rival China’s infrastructure offer, Africans are sceptical

The Commission’s impact assessment for cutting emissions this decade found that gas consumption should reduce 32-37% between 2015 and 2030.

Under the proposal, gas network operators are being asked to include information about infrastructure that can be decommissioned or repurposed. But the plan doesn’t include targets or milestones to end gas exploitation and downsize the infrastructure.

Simson said the plan “ensures a progressive phase out of fossil gas” but didn’t respond to questions from reporters about how much the share of gas would be decreased this decade.

Instead, she said stranded gas assets will be avoided by ensuring that deployment plans are based on a joint demand scenario for electricity, gas and hydrogen. Long-term contracts to import gas into the EU will not be extended beyond 2049 – a year before the EU is due to reach net zero emissions.

The proposal still needs to be discussed and agreed by member states and the Parliament.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

“The legislation is not opening the door for reducing gas consumption,” Raphael Hanoteaux, senior policy advisor on gas politics at E3G, told Climate Home News.

“A gas package that fails to deliver a phase out of fossil fuels is simply further hypocrisy in the face of a climate emergency that much of Europe is historically responsible for,” said Eilidh Robb, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe.

Last month, The European Commission included an estimated €13 billion ($15bn) worth of gas projects in its list of priority infrastructure projects.

The proposed reform sees the gas industry retain a central role in deciding where and how to develop the EU’s gas infrastructure.

The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas, an industry body for national and regional grid operators, is tasked with proposing lists of gas pipelines and terminals that should be built over a 10-year period.

“The control that the gas industry has on decision-making for infrastructure across Europe has not changed,” said Robb. “If you continue to let the industry set the agenda, then you are going to continue to have gas.”

‘Huge blow’ – cuts to gas finance sparks West African backlash

The structures of a new governance system for the hydrogen market have been modelled on that for gas. The European Network of Network Operators for Hydrogen will promote a dedicated hydrogen infrastructure and the construction of cross-border networks. There are no plans to introduce independent checks or engage a broader range of stakeholders in the process.

“It’s hard to see how this hydrogen network is not going to be completely decided by gas operators because there are dominating the sector at the moment,” said Hanoteaux.

“The EU is lacking overall cohesion on gas. The package is suggesting gas is on its way out but will be replaced by low-carbon gases which is problematic because it means the EU will still use gas and gas infrastructure for a long time,” he said.

Campaigners say these governance structures enshrine gas into Europe’s energy future, with the gas industry able to inflate the demand for hydrogen to justify the continued use of the fossil fuel to produce it.

The proposal allows for blending up to 5% of hydrogen into the gas supply – a practice which Hanoteaux said wastes scarce hydrogen that should be used to help decarbonise the most hard-to-abate sectors.

The post EU climate package risks locking in gas use, campaigners warn appeared first on Climate Home News.

Brussels pledged to mobilise up to $340 billion by 2027 to support a green and digital transition around the world. It announced the initiative the day after a major China-Africa summit ended in Dakar, Senegal, highlighting the contrast in approach.

Africa could certainly use the investment. The African Development Bank estimates the continent’s infrastructure needs at $130–170 billion a year, with a financing gap of $68–$108 billion. But African experts are sceptical of the EU offer.

While China has roads, bridges and dams to show for its 20-year-engagement with Africa, they say, the EU brings red tape and a lecture.

“Who listens and understands the context in which African countries are operating is going to be the better development partner,” Ovigwe Eguegu, a Nigerian policy adviser at consultancy Development Reimagined, tells Climate Home News.

“The EU is the one that doesn’t listen,” he says. “The EU now realises that Africa is serious about wanting to build infrastructure. In a way, the EU coming up with the global gateway is acknowledging that China got development in Africa right.”

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

The global gateway initiative includes €2.4 billion ($2.7bn) in grants for sub-Saharan Africa and €1.08bn ($1.2bn) for North Africa to support the roll out of renewable energy, energy efficiency and the greening of local value chains.

Further proposals include developing a green hydrogen sector and the Africa-EU Green Energy Initiative to integrate regional energy markets.

“It opens up a lot of new potential,” Cobus van Staden, a senior researcher on China-Africa relations at the South African Institute of International Affairs, tells Climate Home. But it raises more questions than it answers, he says.

For Faten Aggad of Algeria, a former advisor to the African Union’s high representative on Africa-EU negotiations, the proposal is disappointing and lacks a firm commitment to new and additional cash.

“China’s financing is through loans but at least it’s on the table,” she says. “As things are, China will certainly remain a much more attractive partner. The EU will need to up its offer if it’s to be truly relevant.”

Early results of a 2019/20 Afrobarometer survey, a research network that measures public attitudes in Africa, show that 59% of respondents think China’s economic and political influence is mostly positive – compared with 46% for former colonial powers.

One of Aggad’s key criticisms is that the EU did not consult African partners ahead of its launch – something echoed by other analysts.

“Was there consultation with African partners leading up to the global gateway? Zero,” says Eguegu. “You can’t expect any enthusiasm because there is just ignorance of what these promises will mean and how they will translate on the ground.”

China ‘trumps’ the west by pledging larger share of IMF relief to African nations

In contrast, Beijing held meetings and consultations with African partners over several months in the run up to the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in November. At the forum, president Xi Jinping announced China will direct a quarter of its IMF pandemic recovery boost to African countries – a more generous reallocation than any OECD country.

A ministerial meeting between the EU and the African Union took place in Kigali, Rwanda, in October, but relations with Brussels have become strained, says Aggad.

The union’s planned carbon border tax could be costly for some African exporters, with no corresponding support on offer to help them clean up their industries. And the EU insisted on a reference to the Africa-EU Green Energy Initiative in a joint ministerial statement, despite the African Union’s objection it had not been briefed on the plan.

“This is not anchored in a political process,” says Aggad, adding it was not the first time Africa’s view had been bypassed. “It doesn’t land well.”

An EU-African Union summit planned for February could be a moment to improve relations and develop concrete proposals.

African leaders attending the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in Beijing in 2018 (Photo: Paul Kagame office/Flickr)

The European Commission has been open about the fact its global gateway is a direct response to China’s sprawling investments strategy.

China’s approach to infrastructure finance has been criticised for unfair procurement processes, lack of transparency and transfer of technology, promoting speed over quality, limited job creation and unfavourable terms that locked nations into debt. Some of that is changing.

President Xi Jinping has called a halt to building coal plants abroad. China is pivoting to large-scale renewable-energy infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa and considering some environmental sustainability standards.

Official EU documents state that the global gateway aims “to forge links and not create dependencies” and to invest in projects “that can be delivered with high standards, good governance and transparency”.

“We want to take a different approach. We want to show that a democratic, value-driven approach can deliver on the most pressing challenges,” Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told a press conference at the launch.

‘Huge blow’ – cuts to gas finance sparks West African backlash

How this value-focused approach will translate on the ground is unclear. What the EU sees as good governance, many African nations see as onerous bureaucracy, lacking the institutional capacity to readily fill all the forms.

“I think the danger is that this might end up favouring richer countries,” says van Staden. With China there are fewer hoops to jump through, meaning projects can get started quickly. “And that’s important in Africa because a lot of these infrastructure projects are tied to the electoral cycles,” the South African explains.

In Nigeria, the EU’s environmental standards will be “a double-edged sword,” says Eguegu. While important for the energy transition, it is “secondary” to the stark infrastructure deficit faced by the nation, he says.

“Nigeria is not going to sit back and let the EU dictate whether it’s going to expand its hydrocarbon investments,” he added, but it will seek deals with other partners including China, Turkey or an increasingly engaged UAE.

This view is shared by others across the continent. According to Afrobarometer, 55% of Africans believe foreign lenders and donors should allow African governments to make their own decisions about how to use their resources.

Views on development cooperation from 34 African countries in 2019/21 in a survey carried out by Afrobarometer (Source: Afrobarometer)

For Eguegu, global gateway’s competitive framing with China is “problematic” and suggests the EU is more interested in the power play than providing infrastructure. What is needed to address the infrastructure deficit “is cooperation, not competition,” he says.

The scale of plugging this infrastructure gap is so vast, “no one partner is big enough to be able to deal with it,” says van Staden. “Geopolitical preoccupation shouldn’t undermine African agency in decision making.”

African Union urged to bring political clout to Egypt climate talks

Where cooperation isn’t possible, virtuous competition between China and the West could help drive down the cost of projects and provide African countries with better borrowing deals, says Kenyan Patrick Anam, a lawyer and trade policy expert at Development Reimagined.

The EU has an edge over China in some areas. A report by the African Climate Foundation last week found that very few renewable energy projects are ready for development, largely because of technical expertise and feasibility studies that the EU could help bridge.

For Anam, the EU should bring the technological know-how and capacity building to speed up the transition away from polluting industries on the continent. “Building a huge solar park is pointless if we have to fly engineers from Belgium or France to come and fix it,” he says.

“African countries need to redefine what they really want from this relationship,” says Anam. “It’s not upon the EU, China, or the US to say this what you want. But Africa also needs to take its seat at the table knowing what it wants.”

The post As EU seeks to rival China’s infrastructure offer, Africans are sceptical appeared first on Climate Home News.

In Strasbourg, European lawmakers signed off on the package following three years of negotiations with member states and the European Commission.

The Cap is a huge subsidy programme for farmers across the EU, which accounts for nearly a third of the EU’s agreed budget for the period 2021-2027. It has long been criticised by environmentalists for supporting large agribusiness interests, encouraging overproduction and negatively impacting biodiversity.

The European Commission in Brussels says the policy changes align the bloc’s agricultural policy with its climate objectives while providing a fairer distribution of support to small and medium-sized family farms and young farmers.

ACTION NEEDED: On Tuesday, MEPs will vote on the Common Agricultural Policy.

This #CAP is unfair, dangerous for our farming system and farmers and bad for the climate, biodiversity and animal welfare.

Tell your MEP to #VoteThisCAPdown here: https://t.co/PfV4Ih53vH pic.twitter.com/zv08opLify

— Greens/EFA in the EU Parliament (@GreensEFA) November 19, 2021

But youth activists and green groups argue the reform was watered down by member states and does little to support a move away from harmful farming practices.

Tilly Metz, of Luxembourg, a Green member of the EU parliament, described the deal as “inadequate to fight the climate and biodiversity crisis and the loss of small farmers all over Europe”.

“This is not a reform, or even a stepping stone for a reform. It is, indeed, a mess,” she said.

Comment: Why I am calling on EU lawmakers to put climate at the heart of agricultural policy

Under the reform, farmers receiving Cap support need to dedicate at least 3% of their arable land to protecting biodiversity.

Farmers can apply to voluntary “ecoschemes” that reward them for climate and environmentally friendly practices such as organic farming and agroecology. Member states must allocate at least 25% of their income support budget to these schemes. They have to redistribute at least 10% of the support to smaller farms and at least 3% to young farmers.

Peter Jahr, a conservative MEP for Germany, one of the lawmakers responsible for handling the negotiations with EU member states, told parliament compromises had to be made but he described the new Cap as “innovative” and “more environmentally friendly”.

The delivery model gives member states “more room for manoeuvre,” he said, accusing critics of being “full of mistrust” in member states’ willingness to implement the policy.

“Let’s give it a real chance to develop,” he said.

#CAP text approved. This deal is ambitious, consistent with the #GreenDeal and provides planning security for farmers. Now we call on the member states @eucouncil to put it into practice and make it suitable for all farmers. #CAPreform

— Norbert Lins MEP (@LinsNorbert) November 23, 2021

Opposition lawmakers said the reform failed to align the EU’s agricultural policy with its Green Deal, citing the absence of a cap on payments to large agro-industry and that only a quarter of the support is earmarked to promote sustainable agriculture.

Green lawmakers said the farm to fork and biodiversity strategies already agreed by the EU, which include halving the use of pesticides, increasing the share of land under organic farming to at least 25% and that 10% of agricultural land show high diversity features by 2030, were not reflected in the new Cap.

And the draft strategic plans compiled by some countries “confirm our fear that the environmental ambition will be set as low as possible,” Metz, of the Green political grouping, said.

“It’s giving member states a blank cheque with no guarantees of good results on the ground. Member states will use the new flexibility to change exactly nothing about the status quo.”

Nigeria commits to annual carbon budgets to reach net zero under climate law

The EU’s Court of Auditors found that the Cap has failed to cut the agriculture sector’s emissions and the proposed reforms lack measurable objectives and incentives to link the Cap with the union’s climate targets.

Christine Chemnitz, head of international agricultural policy at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, told Climate Home News that the Cap was “a major obstacle” for the EU to meet its climate objectives.

She described the policy change “a desperately missed opportunity” to transform the EU’s agricultural production.

The EU’s highly industrialised and intensive model has harmful knock-on effects for developing countries, said Chemnitz. For example, EU livestock consume large amounts of soy imported from deforested areas of Latin America, while EU surplus milk has been dumped on the West African market, undercutting local farmers.

“We need a lot of money to transform this productive system and we need a better Cap and completely different financing infrastructure to achieve it,” she said.

The post EU’s reformed agricultural policy fails its climate goals, say green groups appeared first on Climate Home News.

I was among them. Once again, I was urging politicians to implement these abstract and far-away goals of “emission reductions” and “carbon neutrality”.

Since I first took to the streets, plenty of climate promises have been made. But until they are followed through with concrete policies, those promises will remain empty words.

On my way home from the protest, I experienced this gap between promises and action when stopping to buy food for dinner.

In the fruit and vegetable section of my local store, I have the choice between regional produce, and fruit and vegetables that are available all year around and have been cultivated in large greenhouses in Spain, Italy, or Greece before they were wrapped in plastic and transported thousands of kilometers by truck.

While I am conscious of the carbon footprint of those tomatoes and peppers and the poor working conditions of the employees producing, picking and packaging them, one criteria matters most in my decision of what to buy: they are a lot cheaper.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

As a student, I have no choice but to opt for the cheapest option. The same reasoning applies when I decide to eat at the canteen of my university, where cheap food is served regardless of its origin, quality or the seasonality of products.

Like me, millions of EU citizens have to make this decision every day: to buy the cheapest available food or to prefer regional and organic produce that are much more expensive.

The number of people who struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month has increased during the coronavirus pandemic and the situation is compounded by rising energy prices. Most people certainly cannot afford to spend more money on food.

But a reform of the European Union’s farming subsidy programme, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), could increase support for small-scale farmers, organic agriculture, and low-emission agricultural techniques that preserve biodiversity.

The CAP was originally designed in the 1960s to increase agricultural production in Europe, where memories of food rationing and malnutrition caused by the Second World War were still very present.

In this regard, the CAP certainly did a good job, but the context has changed significantly since then. With agriculture responsible for 13% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, the sector has to significantly cut its emissions if the block is to reach its 2050 net-zero target.

The EU’s own auditors found that the CAP is failing to cut the agriculture sector’s emissions despite billions of euros worth of subsidies under the programme being labelled as climate spending.

But change is possible: CAP funding could be shifted away from farming techniques that harm the environment to support climate-friendly farming, namely organic and small and medium-sized farms.

Subsidies for large-scale industrial farming could be capped and financial support could be made conditional on increasing sustainable production methods.

African nations settled for ‘moral pact’ with US on adaptation finance at Cop26

European lawmakers will vote on new rules for the CAP on Tuesday. This vote is the chance to put the EU’s promises into action.

While Brussels says the reform to the CAP aims to make it greener, the current proposal is far from a holistic shift towards a just and climate-friendly agriculture. Instead, it continues a business-as-usual approach to farming.

Small amendments and tweaks to the CAP are no longer sufficient to respond to the scale of the climate emergency. A profound reform is needed.

As such, I call on members of the European Parliament to vote against the proposed reform and return to the negotiation table. Many promises have been made – now it is time to deliver on them with concrete policy changes.

Robin Ehl is a climate justice activist and the international secretary of the French youth movement, Jeunes Écologistes. He is studying for a master’s degree in European Studies in Paris.

The post Why I am calling on EU lawmakers to put climate at the heart of agricultural policy appeared first on Climate Home News.

This week, the EU’s top political table is again devoted to climate action, as European heads of government gather to discuss the EU’s 2030 climate policy.

Yet the lofty rhetoric of European leaders is still far ahead of the actions they are planning.

Europe’s climate policies must be in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C, in line with a fair share of global action, and in line with science.

Yet, despite increased commitments from the EU and others, estimates still predict that current policies leave the world on a catastrophic path to a 2.9C increase this century. As a realisation slowly dawns on (most) European leaders of just how much deeper and faster our emissions cuts still need to be, their minds are turning to the question of how that can be achieved.

Any chance of staying within 1.5C requires a huge amount of new renewable energy — a new IEA pathway pointed out that wind and solar power need to quadruple by 2030.

This is a huge task that will change our whole energy system. It will have an impact on how we use energy, heat our homes and how our industries are shaped. It may seem daunting to Europe’s leaders. But they are overlooking the potential power of a quiet movement of citizens all over Europe eagerly waiting to participate in this important endeavour.

G7 commits to end unabated coal finance in 2021 to ‘keep 1.5C within reach’

In every country in Europe people and local authorities are coming together to create renewable energy solutions, in the form of community energy projects. These projects are as diverse as European communities themselves.

There are inspiring success stories of offshore wind projects, solar panels on schools, large-scale cooperatives, projects to tackle energy poverty and many more. But for every project that manages to succeed, there are many more which fail. This is because a plethora of barriers still exist that slow down or block projects from succeeding.

The energy transition will require huge amounts more renewable energy to be built. For this, we need public support. We need an energy transition that communities feel they can be a part of and that benefits everyone. This is why it is now more important than ever for our governments to allow the potential of community renewable ownership to be unleashed.

There is evidence that, when citizens and communities are engaged and benefit in meaningful ways in the energy transition, renewable policies are popular and supported. Studies show that involvement in local energy projects increases overall support for renewable technologies. With the right policies, renewable projects won’t just be endured, but will be supported and participated in.

Without participation of ordinary people and communities, we risk further local opposition to renewable projects — with local communities feeling that renewable energy projects are being imposed on them. And this will slow down the energy transition at exactly the time leaders need to speed it up.

Want more climate news? Sign up to get updates straight to your inbox

The barriers to successful development of community energy projects vary across Europe. Some of the most common are access to the grid, access to finance, and overwhelming permitting processes. There are simple policies that national governments can put in place to remove these barriers and allow community energy to flourish.

In fact, EU governments have a duty to introduce a legal framework to support and facilitate the development of community energy under the EU’s revised Renewabes Directive (or REDII). Every EU citizen and community now has the right to be part of community energy projects.

Unfortunately, many member states are doing a slow or poor job of putting these rights and frameworks into place before a deadline of the end of June 2021. Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland are delaying, while in Hungary there are misunderstandings around the definition and importance of these projects. In Germany, once a leader in community energy, the government is claiming that the provisions of the REDII are in place, despite differing views of most key stakeholders.

Our leaders should do themselves a favour. By creating the right conditions for community energy to flourish, they will create a whole tranche of groups who stand to benefit from and participate in Europe’s energy transition, making it faster and more popular. In the face of a climate crisis that demands the climate action gap urgently be closed, there isn’t a better win-win.

Molly Walsh is a climate justice campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe and the coordinator of the European community power coalition. 

The post Governments are overlooking a key piece in the climate puzzle: community energy appeared first on Climate Home News.

After a long night that finished around 5am on Wednesday, negotiators from the European parliament and EU member states reached an agreement on the European Climate Law that will enshrine the EU’s commitment to reaching climate neutrality by 2050.

As expected, the 2030 target was the big political fight of the night, but parties reached an agreement to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by “at least 55%” by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. That objective will therefore also become a legal obligation for the EU and its member states.

While the 55% target is lower than the 60% that Parliament had earlier voted for, member states made a concession to European lawmakers by agreeing to cap the contribution of carbon removals from land use, agriculture and forestry.

In addition, the European Commission agreed to consider increasing the contribution of carbon sinks in order to bump up the EU’s climate ambition to 57%, although this is not written in the law.

#EUClimateLaw @2021PortugalEU @EUCouncil and @Europarl_EN reached today a provisional political agreement setting into law the objective of a climate-neutral EU by 2050. The EU climate law sets the frame for the EU’s climate action in the long term #EU2021PT pic.twitter.com/ZQa718CO7J

— 2021Portugal.eu (@2021PortugalEU) April 21, 2021

Bowing to parliament’s demands, EU negotiators also decided to establish an independent scientific advisory body, the European Scientific Advisory Board, to advise policymakers on the alignment of EU policies with the bloc’s climate neutrality goal.

The new body will consist of 15 members from across Europe, each nominated for a four-year mandate. It will provide scientific advice and report on existing and proposed policy measures and targets as well as greenhouse gas budgets. The European Environment Agency will act as its secretariat.

“We raised the ambition of the 2030 net target to almost 57%, we got the greenhouse gas-budget and the advisory board. We wanted more, but this is a good first step towards climate neutrality,” said Jytte Guteland, parliament’s lead negotiator.

Poland seeks to nationalise coal plants so firms can finance green investments

As a result, the EU’s 2030 target translates into a “gross” reduction of 52.8% without carbon removals from agriculture and forestry.

The inclusion of carbon sinks into the EU’s climate goal caused jitters among the Greens who denounced the move as an “accounting trick” to meet the 55% goal for 2030.

“By failing to establish a serious climate target without accounting tricks in the European Climate Law, the Green Deal fails to live up to the big speeches of the Ursula von der Leyen Commission,” said Michael Bloss, the lead negotiator for the Greens in the European Parliament.

The centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), which backed the “net” target for 2030, was more positive: “A 55% net target for 2030 is very ambitious,” said German Christian Democrat MEP Peter Liese, who hailed a “historical agreement”.

A win for parliament came on the 2040 target, which will be informed by a greenhouse gas budget, which determines how much carbon the EU can emit up to 2050 before it breaches the Paris Agreement. This will have separate calculations for emissions and carbon sinks.

The 2040 target will be proposed alongside the indicative greenhouse gas budget within six months of the first global stock-take of the Paris Agreement in 2023, at the latest.

Stay in the know: Subscribe to our Climate Daily newsletter

Beyond 2050, EU negotiators agreed to strive towards reaching negative emissions.

However, national representatives in the Council of Ministers did not agree to make the 2050 goal a legal obligation for every EU nation . Instead, the 2050 climate goal will remain an objective for the EU to attain as a group, meaning some countries will be allowed to reach the objective later if others manage to decarbonise their economies sooner.

“Unfortunately, the Council was not ready to accept climate neutrality for every member state. It will remain a collective target,” Liese said.

EU negotiations also agreed that the European Commission would help create road maps for decarbonisation for industrial sectors that make a request for it. The EU executive will then facilitate dialogue, share best practices, and monitor progress.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the announcement, saying she was “delighted” that a deal has been reached on the climate law.

I warmly welcome the agreement on the Climate Law.

Our political commitment to becoming the 1st climate neutral continent by 2050 is now also a legal one.

The Climate Law sets the EU on a green path for a generation. It is our binding pledge to our children and grandchildren.

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) April 21, 2021

Frans Timmermans, the Commission’s executive vice-president in charge of the European Green Deal, was equally cheerful, saying: “This is a landmark moment for the EU. We have reached an ambitious agreement to write our climate neutrality target into binding legislation, as a guide to our policies for the next 30 years. The Climate Law will shape the EU’s green recovery and ensure a socially just green transition.”

“Today’s agreement also reinforces our global position as a leader in tackling the climate crisis. When world leaders gather on Earth Day, the EU will come to the table with this positive news, which we hope will inspire our international partners. This is a good day for our people and our planet,” he continued, pointing to the value of the agreement for the EU on the world stage.

Biden’s moment: What to expect from Thursday’s climate leaders summit

Pascal Canfin, the chairman of the European parliament’s environment committee, said the deal “: “Today, Europe confirms its leadership in the fight against climate change. Twenty-four hours before the climate leaders’ summit, we are further strengthening our European climate objectives thanks to a reduction in our emissions which will reach nearly 57% compared to 1990. Parliament was obviously ready to go even further, but the compromise found is ambitious: we are going to do two and a half times more in nine years than what we have done in the last 10 years in Europe.”

João Pedro Matos Fernandes, the Portuguese minister of environment and climate action, said: “We can be proud to have set in stone an ambitious climate goal that can get everyone’s support. With this agreement we send a strong signal to the world – right ahead of the leader’s climate summit on 22 April – and pave the way for the Commission to propose its “fit-for-55″ climate package in June,” he said.

The agreement will now be fine tuned by legal experts and submitted to a final approval from the Council and the parliament.

This story was produced by Climate Home News’ media partner Euractiv. 

The post EU reaches hard-fought deal on climate law ahead of US leaders’ summit appeared first on Climate Home News.

The proposal by the ministry of state assets is part of negotiations between the government and energy companies to restructure the ailing coal sector.

Under the plan, 70 lignite coal units, which generated more than half of Poland’s electricity in 2020, will be purchased by the state and handed over to a single state-run National Energy Security Agency (NABE).

In a statement, the ministry said this would enable a “gradual and long-term transformation of the power sector” by replacing coal with low-carbon and green sources. In 2020, Poland’s share of electricity generated from coal dropped below 70% for the first time.

The merger of coal assets into a single entity is designed to give three state-owned energy companies – PGE, Enea and Tauron – fiscal space to develop clean energy sources.

Jacek Sasin, Poland’s deputy prime minister and minister of state assets, said banks were becoming reluctant to finance companies with carbon-intensive assets in their portfolio. He added pollution allowances required by the European Union to burn coal had become more expensive than the coal itself.

Sasin said the EU’s climate policy and goal to cut emissions at least 55% by 2030, compared with 1990, had created “a huge challenge for the Polish power sector”.

Poland’s council of ministers are expected to discuss the proposal before a broad social and inter-ministerial consultation.

Stay in the know: Subscribe to our Climate Daily newsletter

Aleksandra Gawlikowska-Fyk, an analyst at Forum Energii, told Climate Home News that the proposal was “a step in the right direction” if it enables energy companies to invest in clean energy.

But the plan lacks critical details about the need for a coal phase-out, she said, leaving out all climate considerations.

Pawel Czyżak, head of energy and climate research at the Warsaw-based Instrat Foundation, told Climate Home that without a coal exit date for energy generation, taxpayers’ money could be used to “run these plants forever”, a prospect he described as “worrying”.

“The government is completely neglecting the climate angle. Its energy strategy and plans are still incompatible with the EU’s climate policy,” he said.

The proposal would require approval from the European Commission under the union’s state aid rules.

Czyżak said this was a critical moment for Brussels to force Warsaw to agree a coal exit date. An outright refusal of the plan could be used by Poland to blame the EU for rising electricity prices, he warned.

Biden’s moment: What to expect from Thursday’s climate leaders summit

At the same time, the Polish government is seeking approval from the Commission for providing state aid to its coal mining sector, with an agreement between the government and mining unions tipped to be finalised this week.

The government has previously agreed to continue to subsidise coal production until 2049 – an exit date campaigners and experts say is far too late.

“The government will be fighting on two fronts and I believe it will be impossible to get approval for both from the Commission. It will be no nice Sunday talk,” Robert Tomaszewski, a senior energy analyst at Warsaw-based think tank Polityka Insight, told Climate Home.

Tomaszewski said Brussels was unlikely to green light Poland’s restructuring proposal for coal plants without a date to shut down old and inefficient plants.

Pakistan explores debt-for-nature scheme to accelerate its 10 billion tree tsunami

Under current rules, old coal plants in Poland are eligible for support under an energy capacity agreement approved by the European Commission. But the arrangement is coming to an end on 1 July 2025, when most existing plants will loose critical funding.

Without it, old and inefficient plants are anticipated to run at high losses. Around half of Poland’s coal fleet were operating with negative margins in 2020.

“Inevitably, NABE will have to close them down,” Tomaszewski said – a sudden shut down which will force investments in alternative energy sources to plug a looming capacity gap in the power system.

In February, the government approved a plan that aims to reduce coal’s share in the power mix to 56% by 2030 through deployment of offshore wind and onshore wind and solar energy.

Recent analysis by the Instrat Foundation found that the share of coal-generated electricity in Poland could decrease from the current 70% to just 13% in 2030, without compromising the country’s energy security.

Under this scenario, 76% of the electricity demand could be generated by renewable energy sources by 2030 and burning coal in power plants would end in 2035.

The post Poland seeks to nationalise coal plants so firms can finance green investments appeared first on Climate Home News.

Everything around the climate law was discussed, including the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate targets, said Harriet Mackhaill-Hill from Climate Action Network Europe.

The biggest hurdle standing in the way of a deal is the 2030 target. The European parliament voted last year in favour of a 60% reduction in emissions, up from members states’ 55% target agreed last December following an all-night session of excruciating talks.

The latest three-way talks were held on Friday in an attempt to find an agreement between parliament and the Council of Ministers, the body representing the EU’s 27 member states. The European Commission, for its part, is meant to act as a mediator in the talks.

However, EU member states did not give the Council a new mandate to negotiate on their behalf, meaning it could not change its position.

“We achieved nothing. There is no deal on anything. There’s no progress. That’s really frustrating for me, because I expected that we [would] make some progress this time,” said Michael Bloss, a Green lawmkers from Germany, who is part of the European Parliament’s negotiating team, in a press conference after the negotiations on Friday evening.

Parliament negotiators had initially expected substantial progress to be made on proposals to introduce a greenhouse gas budget and establish a European Climate Change Council, an EU scientific advisory body which would verify the bloc’s alignment with the Paris climate goals.

But the Council said it did not have a mandate to make concessions and bought time with technical questions, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

Under fire over aid cuts, UK hosts summit to help vulnerable nations fund climate action

“Nothing happened. It was basically the parliament talking about all of their positions,” said Mackhaill-Hill. “They’ve really been working hard on trying to find a compromise and the impression is that the Council just turned up and had nothing,” she said.

The lead negotiator from the parliament, Jytte Guteland, was more positive, saying: “I think we had some progress on the middle-sized questions. Now we can focus on the big ones during the next, and hopefully last [negotiation round]. It will all be about 2030 and 2050.”

Portugal, which holds the Council’s six-month rotating presidency, aims to reach an agreement on the climate law by the end of April. But with the Easter break approaching, it seems increasingly likely that this deadline will be missed.

It is “really putting at risk” the EU’s timeline, Bloss warned, referring to the European Commission’s June package of energy and climate laws, which will introduce new policies to reduce the bloc’s emissions by 55% at least before the end of the decade.

Without an agreement, the EU risks attending the US’ leaders climate summit on the 22 April without a confirmed 2030 target.

“Either there’s a deal that’s made and it will be ready for the 22 April as the Council wants. However, if there is no move on the target, and the parliament stand strong, it won’t be the last and in that case we’ll go over the 22,” said Mackhaill-Hill.

Rare IMF relief offers a hope of green recovery to debt-laden nations

While the 2030 target was discussed, there is now a stalemate, with neither the parliament nor the Council budging in the talks. The EU’s climate chief Frans Timmermans, too, is being “stubborn”, said a source familiar with the negotiations.

For Bloss, a key sticking point is the Commission’s insistence on a “net” target which also takes into account carbon removals from agriculture and forestry. Parliament, for its part, wants a separate target for carbon removals, saying the “net” approach will encourage tree-planting initiatives as a substitute for emission reductions from industry.

“The Commission is very much insisting on their net approach, which is highly problematic,” said Bloss, who added that the “net” target contains lots of loopholes, causing issues in terms of carbon accounting.

Bloss’ comments are part of a broader criticism of the Commission not acting as an honest broker in the talks and standing by the hard-fought consensus reached among EU leaders at their December summit.

Suzana Carp, from think-tank Bellona Europe, says the “net’ target is not precise enough, and that half of EU countries do not support it.

“I’m pretty confident that Council will have to move, but also I know that there are quite a few member states who actually don’t support the net targets approach. They’re extremely worried about what it would mean at Cop26,” she told Euractiv.

She pointed to a 2019 study which found the EU was on track for a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if all its existing policies were implemented. Now, since the pandemic has slashed emissions, the EU should be more ambitious, she said.

The story was initially published by Climate Home News’ media partner Euractiv. Some amendments to the initial story have been made to provide more context on the negotiations. 

The post EU member states and lawmakers at loggerheads over 2030 climate target appeared first on Climate Home News.

While states like France, Spain and Luxembourg want drastic reform of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), sources familiar with the negotiations said several Eastern European nations are resisting change.

The treaty allows fossil fuel companies to sue nations when climate policies affect their profits. Recently, German utility RWE filed a suit against the Dutch government for €1.4 billion in damages over coal phaseout plans that hit the value of a plant the company built in 2015.

Similar cases could cost taxpayers across the world up to €1.3 trillion ($1.5tn) by 2050, according to the Open Exp think tank, based on the value of fossil fuel assets protected by the treaty. Just under half of these costs would fall on the EU.

Campaigners and some member states have called on the EU to leave the treaty – a matter complicated by a clause meaning the ECT’s rules apply for 20 years after leaving.

“The ECT leaves us in a dead end street and the only good option is therefore to leave the ECT,” Paul de Clerck, from Friends of the Earth Europe, told Climate Home News.

The European Commission has been pushing for reform of the ECT at modernisation talks which began in July 2020. Any amendment to the treaty would have to be agreed unanimously between its 53 signatories.

Leaked ECT notes previously seen by Climate Home show the EU’s proposals for reform have so far been blocked by Japan and Kazakhstan, which argue “modernisation should be mininimal”. Japan’s position as the largest single donor to the ECT and the vice chair of the modernisation negotiations means it is influential.

Climate leaders welcome reforming WTO chief, as carbon trade wars loom

Monday was the deadline for parties to the ECT to send proposed text ahead of the third round of negotiations on 2-5 March. The EU proposal was submitted shortly before midnight.

The document proposes to protect existing fossil fuel infrastructure for ten years after the amendment comes into force. New power generation would be protected during that period if it emitted less than 380g of CO2 per kWh, covering efficient gas-fired plants as well as renewables.

That is strengthened from an earlier draft EU position seen by Climate Home, which set the emissions intensity threshold at 550g of CO2. But it remains far above levels considered by the EU in its own draft taxonomy, which would only label as “sustainable” gas power plants that emit less than 100g of CO2 per kWh – requiring carbon capture and storage.

The EU also seeks to extend protection to hydrogen, biomass and biogas investments.

Hydrogen can be made from fossil fuels or clean electricity. The EU’s proposal protects renewable and “low-carbon” hydrogen which it defines as either fossil-based hydrogen with carbon capture technology or electricity-based hydrogen “with significantly reduced full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions”.

Cornelia Maarfield, climate and trade manager at Climate Action Network Europe, said hydrogen and biomass should not be included as they are not necessarily green.

“Why set a new trap for policy makers if you haven’t found the way out of the existing one?” she told Climate Home.

Angola’s oil dependency thwarts its exit from the group of poorest nations

A European Commission spokesperson told Climate Home that modernisation negotiations were still “at an early stage”. Campaigners argue the reform process is hopeless and member states should leave the treaty.

Maarfield said: “It is now crystal clear that even after the reform, the ECT will remain an obstacle to climate and sustainable energy policies.”

“European countries must shift from modernisation to complete withdrawal from the outdated ECT. If they pull out jointly, they can cancel the sunset clause, which allows investors to sue for another 20 years after withdrawal, by excluding investor-state disputes amongst themselves.”

Yamina Saheb, who used to head the ECT energy efficiency unit and now monitors negotiations, said just 20% of energy investments in the EU or the European Free Trade Association are from outside of its borders. So, by leaving together, EU nations could avoid most legal cases.

Saheb told Climate Home that while the EU’s proposal wasn’t ambitious enough, it still wouldn’t be accepted by other ECT parties. It is now time for countries like France, Spain and Luxembourg, which have threatened to leave the ECT, “to take action,” she said.

Spanish energy and environment minister Teresa Ribera tweeted on Saturday: “Full alignment with the Paris Agreement [on climate change] or withdrawal from the treaty.”

Europa se prepara ya para la siguiente ronda de negociación de la #CartaDeLaEnergía.
Hemos comunicado a la @EU_Commission nuestra posición:
a) la plena alineación con el #AcuerdoDeParís o el abandono de este tratado,
b) la consideración “doméstica” del espacio jurídico #UE. pic.twitter.com/BCMWlHLhVb

— Teresa Ribera (@Teresaribera) February 13, 2021

French ministers have told the European Commission that the “option of a coordinated withdrawal of the EU and its member states should be raised publicly from now on”.

Luxembourg’s energy ministry told Climate Home News that, while minister Claude Turmes supported the EU’s attempts to modernise the treaty, “he also recalls the urgency to find a swift agreement on this issue since climate is an emergency and as such 2030 and 2050 objectives cannot be slowed down. March is our last chance for a deal.”

On the other hand, a Slovak official in Brussels told Politico on Sunday: “We support the Commission’s current proposal” but “we are not supportive of any stricter criteria on deadlines or thresholds” that would undermine investments in gas infrastructure.

The ECT was set up in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union to encourage global investments in energy. Italy and Russia have since left the ECT although they are still subject to its sunset clause.

The post EU member states divided over green reforms of energy investment treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

In its methane strategy published on Wednesday, the European Commission declared a commitment to tackling emissions from methane, which is the second-largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide.

“The Commission will examine options as regards possible methane emission reduction targets or standards or other incentives on fossil energy consumed and imported in the EU in the absence of significant commitments from international partners,” the strategy states. 

EU standards would put pressure on suppliers like Russia, Algeria and Gulf states to take methane emissions seriously. That could significantly impact global methane emissions, as the EU is the world’s largest importer of fossil gas.

Methane, which is released into the atmosphere from abandoned coal mines, farming and leaky oil and gas pipes, has a global warming impact 84 times higher than CO2 over a 20-year period.

The Commission said it planned to introduce legislation requiring oil and gas companies to report methane emissions and repair leaks. It will consider banning flaring and venting, which involve burning methane or directly releasing the potent gas into the atmosphere.

“The Commission will deliver legislative proposals in 2021 on compulsory measurement, reporting, and verification for all energy-related methane emissions and on an obligation to improve leak detection and repair of leaks on all fossil gas infrastructure,” a statement read.

IEA outlines how world can reach net zero emissions by 2050

The oil and gas industry could achieve a 75% reduction in methane emissions by 2030 using current technology, according to the International Energy Agency. 

Methane emissions are rising rapidly, with new satellite data from technology company Kayrros revealing that large leaks have increased by 32% in the past year. According to Kayrros, there are around 100 high-volume leaks happening around the world at any one time. Half of these methane hotspots occur in regions with coal mining and oil and gas industries. One of the worst culprits is Russia – Europe’s largest supplier of natural gas.

EU energy commissioner Kadri Simson tweeted a map of the findings, saying it “shows what we want to fix with #MethaneStrategy”.

#Methane hotspots can be seen from space! At least by satellites like Sentinel-5P. This map shows what we want to fix with #MethaneStrategy! Technology to facilitate the strategy already exists thanks to #EUlong-term investments in satellite programs. #Copernicus #Horizon2020 pic.twitter.com/EmnDzJ1t1n

— Kadri Simson (@KadriSimson) October 13, 2020

Slashing methane emissions is critical to the EU’s climate ambition and its goal to reach net zero by 2050. The EU has a target to reduce greenhouse gases 40% from 1990 levels by 2030, with internal negotiations ongoing to deepen those cuts. In line with this, methane emissions will need to be reduced by around 35% compared to 2005, according to the Commission’s 2030 climate plan. 

Analysis: Where are US emissions after four years of President Trump?

A failure to do so would undermine the EU’s Paris Agreement commitments, Katalin Cseh, Hungarian MEP for Renew Europe, told Climate Home.

Cseh described the EU methane strategy as “a promising step in the right direction” but said it was disappointing that binding targets and standards only remained under consideration. She added that a lack of data and uniform monitoring had hindered opportunities to reduce methane emissions to date.

Jutta Paulus, a German MEP for the European Green Party, said in a statement the strategy did not go far enough: “The European Commission only scratches the surface and limits itself to minor issues like plugging methane leaks and statistics. Counting emissions does not help when the order of the day is to reduce them.”

The EU produces 5% of global methane emissions internally but as the world’s largest importer of gas it plays a major role in influencing the climate policies of other countries, the strategy notes.

The EU imports around 47% of internationally traded gas, Poppy Kalesi, director of global energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Climate Home. Companies including Shell and BP have set voluntary targets to curb methane emissions, but legislative action is needed to achieve global reductions, according to Kalesi. 

“Setting a mandatory methane performance standard can catalyse constructive collaboration between the EU and supplier countries by making it easy on large European gas buyers to apply pressure on their suppliers to credibly engage with their methane emissions,” Kalesi said.

The post EU considers crackdown on methane leaks from imported oil and gas appeared first on Climate Home News.

Lawmakers in the EU assembly voted the proposed amendment on the 2030 target by 352 votes to 326, with 18 abstentions, according to initial estimates.

The text will now be forwarded to the EU Council of Ministers representing the EU’s 27 member states for final approval. The EU’s objective is to wrap up negotiations by the end of the year.

The Parliament’s decision on the 2030 climate target took place on Tuesday evening as part of a wider vote on a proposed European Climate Law, which seeks to enshrine into legislation the EU’s goal of reaching climate neutrality by 2050.

“We did it! 60% did win!” said Jytte Guteland, a Swedish MEP from the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group, who was the Parliament rapporteur on the proposed European Climate Law.

We did it! 60% did win! Now we take the climate policy to a higher level! Thank you EP for givning me that mandate. @TheProgressives pic.twitter.com/ZzlSnwoDjc

— Jytte Guteland (@JytteGuteland) October 7, 2020

“My amendment is now becoming the official position of the Parliament,” said Pascal Canfin, a French centrist MEP who chairs the assembly’s environment committee. “We are more than ever at the forefront of climate ambition!” he tweeted victoriously.

The right wing of the hemicycle was not impressed, however, saying the 60% would be too costly to implement for Europe’s industry.

Peter Liese, a German lawmaker from the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), said the 60% goal was “overambitous” and called on EU member states to back the European Commission’s initial proposal for a 55% cut instead.

“I regret that the majority in the European Parliament did not support the European Commission’s Climate Law proposal but voted for the overambitious 60%,” Liese said on Twitter.

“We will abstain because we sincerely dislike the 60% and think it really endangers jobs,” he said.

EU faces internal battle as it prepares to increase 2030 climate target

The EPP is the largest political faction in the European Parliament. It said it supports the 55% CO2 reduction target by 2030 because “it is the most feasible,” according to European Commission estimates.

The European Commission tabled the updated 2030 target in September, saying a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was “achievable” and “beneficial” for the EU economy.

“Going beyond 55% would endanger jobs. Let’s not be ideological,” said Agnes Evren, a French MEP from the EPP group.

A final vote on the climate law is scheduled for Thursday but isn’t expected to be more than a mere rubber-stamping exercise.

Environmental campaigners hailed the vote. “The European Parliament is to be applauded for taking a position that is far more progressive than the Commission’s 55% ‘net’ proposal,” said the WWF.

However, it added that a 60% target for 2030 is still not in line with what the science shows is needed to keep global warming at manageable levels, in line with the 1.5-2C target of the Paris Agreement. “WWF and other NGOs have been calling for at least 65% emissions reductions by 2030, and a separate target for carbon removals from sinks.”

The story was initially published by CHN’s media partner Euractiv.

The post EU Parliament votes in favour of cutting emissions 60% by 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.