EU lawmakers are divided over how much the bloc\u2019s climate planning should rely on carbon removal technologies, after a draft appraisal of the European Commission\u2019s 2050 strategy questioned their feasibility.<\/p>\n
European Parliament committees are currently giving their two cents on the EU executive\u2019s landmark climate plan, which was published in November and will probably form the basis of EU climate policy for the next few decades.<\/p>\n
But lawmakers are divided into two camps on a crucial issue, the use of\u00a0technology like carbon capture and storage (CCS): one which favours its use and one which is adamant that planning for 2050 should not \u201coverly rely\u201d on it.<\/p>\n
The Commission plan offers up several scenarios for 2050, from which member states will have to choose. The most ambitious scenarios, which aim for nearly 100% emission cuts by mid-century, rely heavily on carbon removal.
\nNew EU plan comes out fighting for \u2018climate neutrality\u2019 by 2050
\nThe European Commission will unveil its long-awaited strategy for a \u201cclimate-neutral Europe\u201d later on Wednesday (28 November), in an effort to show EU countries how to stick to the goals of the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n
In a draft resolution penned by the Parliament\u2019s environment committee (ENVI), MEPs initially said that technologies like CCS and direct air capture have yet \u201cto prove their feasibility\u201d and should only \u201ccomplement direct emissions reduction\u201d.<\/p>\n
A series of amendments penned by the likes of Bas Eickhout (Greens), Eleonora Evi (EFDD), Ulrike M\u00fcller (ALDE) and Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), among others, seek to dismiss or at least downplay carbon removal\u2019s role.<\/p>\n
An expert with the European Environmental Bureau agreed that \u201cthe path to net zero emissions by 2040 must not be dependent on unproven negative emissions technology\u201d, citing forests and carbon sequestration as \u201cnatural and effective\u201d options.<\/p>\n
That is in direct contrast to other amendments proposed by MEPs like Peter Liese (EPP), Seb Dance (S&D), Jan Huitema (ALDE) and ENVI chair Adina-Ioana V\u0103lean (EPP), which elaborate that the \u201cfeasibility\u201d issue of CCS is related to large-scale deployment and\u00a0not fundamental viability.<\/p>\n
In one addition to the resolution, V\u0103lean says CCS should be considered a \u201cno-regrets option\u201d, while another amendment, co-penned by Fran\u00e7oise Grosset\u00eate (EPP), says the technology is needed for processes where \u201cfew or no other economically feasible alternatives [\u2026] are available\u201d.<\/p>\n
CCS advocates also pointed out in their changes that the recent UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) \u201cassigns important emissions reductions\u201d to the technology, particularly in scenarios where global warming is limited to just 1.5 degrees Celsius.<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers told EURACTIV that the draft resolution is contradictory as it refers to the IPCC findings but dismisses \u201ckey findings that CCS will be essential to deliver a 1.5\u00b0C\u201d.<\/p>\n
It is possible that the Parliament will be asked to vote on two separate resolutions in March, as the energy committee (ITRE) has disputed ENVI\u2019s lead on the file and has compiled its own stocktake.<\/p>\n
In a copy of the ITRE draft, seen by EURACTIV, CCS is not questioned although amendments are still pouring in.<\/p>\n
ENVI lawmakers are set to vote on their resolution on 20 February, while ITRE\u2019s will be ready at a later date.
\nMEPs in dust-up over EU\u2019s climate plan
\nEuropean lawmakers are locked in a dispute over a landmark climate plan that is meant to drag the EU into compliance with the Paris Agreement, as parliamentary committees tussle over who should take the lead.<\/p>\n
Shy investors<\/p>\n
The main reason why CCS and other carbon removal techs have not taken off yet is the lack of investment, which a 2018 report by the European Court of Auditors concluded was down to lack of coordination and long-term strategies.<\/p>\n
Between 2008 and 2017, more than \u20ac3 billion in EU money was available for demo projects to prove the feasibility of CCS but the Auditors report found that each funding programme fell short of their targets.
\nPost-mortem: Auditors analyse EU’s failed carbon capture projects
\nEU-funded efforts to boost the uptake of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have failed largely because of a lack of coordination and long-term strategies that scared away investors, according to a report by the European Court of Auditors.<\/p>\n
However, a UK government task force concluded last July that there are viable business models and that CCS deployment in \u201cindustrial clusters\u201d is the best way forward, as this would share infrastructure costs.<\/p>\n
Indeed, as the Global CCS Institute points out, \u201cCCS\u00a0has been operational at commercial scale since the 1970s, there are currently 18 large-scale projects in operation globally and five under construction and to date more than 200 million tons of CO2 has been safely stored\u201d.<\/p>\n
At the 4th EU-Norway energy conference on Tuesday (4 February) though, one senior Commission official warned that CCS is still \u201cnot an easy subject\u201d, citing \u201cpublic resistance, high costs and relatively low private investments\u201d as barriers.<\/p>\n
Speaking at the event, EU energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Ca\u00f1ete urged oil and gas companies to increase their support for CCS and \u201cbecome part of the solution\u201d to climate change.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
EU lawmakers are divided over how much the bloc\u2019s climate planning should rely on carbon removal technologies, after a draft appraisal of the European Commission\u2019s 2050 strategy questioned their feasibility. European Parliament committees are currently giving their two cents on the EU executive\u2019s landmark climate plan, which was published in November and will probably form […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","nova_meta_subtitle":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5572],"tags":[12426,14898],"supplier":[4514],"class_list":["post-60754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bio-based","tag-climatechange","tag-co2","supplier-european-parliament"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60754"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=60754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}