EU Marine Action Plan
More than a year since the EU Marine Action Plan was adopted, there is a critical need to ensure that both the European Commission and Member States are held accountable for its effective implementation. The success or failure of this initiative will hinge upon the national roadmaps to be submitted by each Member State by the end of March. The publication of these national roadmaps will be closely monitored, especially considering the tendency of Member State governments to oppose ocean protection matters, often favouring economic interests over environmental ones. This also became evident in the disappointing response of the European Parliament (EP) to the Communication, which rejected the majority of its content.
Youth and Environment Europe strongly supports the gradual phasing out of bottom trawling in all marine protected areas (MPAs) by 2030 as proposed in the Marine Action Plan. This would be in line with an agreement made between 196 countries, including the EU, during the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15) to reach a 30% target of protected land and oceans by 2030 in a landmark agreement for the protection of biodiversity. The method of bottom trawling is notorious for its detrimental impact on marine ecosystems due to several reasons, one of which is significant by-catch, such as marine mammals, seabirds, and other fish species. Bottom trawling can also cause extensive damage to sensitive habitats, disrupting the balance of marine ecosystems and damaging biodiversity. Not least because of the use of bottom trawling, European seas are in a severe environmental crisis. The European Environment Agency recently reported that “almost all marine species groups appear to be in bad condition throughout Europe’s seas, with mixed recovery trends”.
The Parliament had a chance to advocate strongly for ocean conservation shortly before the elections and urge the EU Member States to align its fisheries with nature protection policies. They missed this opportunity: Their report on the Marine Action Plan takes a concerning stance towards the use of harmful fishing equipment, suggesting to continue using bottom trawling within MPAs. The European People’s Party (EPP) holds the view that the proposed ban of bottom trawling in MPAs puts the future of fishermen at risk, labelling the Action Plan “discriminatory”. While coastal communities and the impact of the Marine Action Plan on fishers must not be ignored, YEE believes that this pure focus on the economic impact is too short-sighted. The livelihoods of coastal communities ultimately depend on seas with good environmental status and healthy fish stocks, which can simply not be reconciled with the practice of bottom trawling in MPAs. We need cross-cutting and forward-thinking policymaking to address economic concerns in the fisheries sector alongside the climate and nature crises, including support to fishers in transitioning away from destructive fishing gear to minimise negative socio-economic effects.
As Youth Environment Europe, we call upon all EU Member States to commit promptly and effectively to implementation of the Marine Action Plan, and urge the Commission to conduct and publicly release science-based assessments of their national roadmaps. Furthermore, we demand that any identified weaknesses be addressed by Member States, and call for close monitoring and enforcement to ensure their timely implementation. Only through concerted effort and accountability can meaningful progress be made towards safeguarding our marine environment for future generations.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement
More To Explore
EU Marine Action Plan
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 Eva Kloudová https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Eva Kloudová2024-03-06 14:45:302024-05-30 12:00:43EU Marine Action PlanNature Restoration Law: Youth needs your support
On behalf of European youth, we are reaching out to you as a coalition of youth organizations representing more than 20 million young Europeans with the European environment at heart. On Tuesday the 27th of February, the European Parliament plenary meeting will take place in Strasbourg. We want to underscore the absolute necessity to vote in favor of the provisional agreement on the Nature Restoration Law, for our future, and the future of our and your children.
As young people, we are inheriting a degrading environment and climate which makes us currently see a gloomy future ahead of us. Every day, we witness more species becoming extinct and ecosystems continuing to degrade. It is proof that existing measures so far have been critically insufficient. We are even more worried due to the recent and ongoing watering down of environmental policies and laws at the EU and national level.
This EU Nature Restoration Law is the only opportunity for us to get the chance to see nature improving across Europe and benefit from a healthy environment and climate.
Opposing or further weakening the law would mean condemning our future and fully ignoring all the good things that nature brings to our society. It would mean that young people and future generations, the least responsible for the current crises, will have to address environmental emergencies at a great cost and risk. This is extremely unfair from an intergenerational equity perspective.
On Tuesday, you will cast a vote on our future. The outcome will greatly impact generations of Europeans to come, so we need your vote in favor of the Nature Restoration Law.
Help us spread the word! Share this statement
Learn more about the #restorenature campaign
The recent positive vote for the Nature Restoration Law by the European Parliament sends a strong message on the obligation to restore
The coalition of youth organisations released their statements about the necessity and urgency to adopt the Nature Restoration Law within the European
Join us and over 200 NGOs and ask your decision-makers to adopt a solid and urgent implementation of the law that can
More To Explore
Nature Restoration Law: Youth needs your support
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2024-02-26 17:14:232024-02-26 18:39:49Nature Restoration Law: Youth needs your supportWhat are countries doing about plastic pollution?
A reflection of a INC-3 youth delegate.
Written by
Shellan Saling
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of YEE.
Contents
Visual summary
Share this article
The “Nairobi Spirit”
At the United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA 5, 2022) at the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya Resolution 5/14 entitled “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument” was passed to start the process of the plastic pollution treaty.
This historic moment marked the beginning of what several major news organisations have called the most important environmental deal in all fields since the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. This paved the way for the establishment of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC) to develop “the instrument”, which is to be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal” (UNEP) (See timeline below).
Five rounds of negotiations (INC) have been proposed for countries to come to an agreement and close negotiations by the end of 2024. This treaty will be the first-ever global agreement on addressing plastic pollution and aims to tackle the full life-cycle of plastic.
Plastics are currently one of the last unregulated industries contributing to the climate crisis and increased carbon emissions. Currently, 430 million metric tons of plastics are produced every year and without intervention, this could triple by 2060. The majority of plastic is neither recycled nor reused (UNDP). It follows that a plastics treaty is not only necessary for human health but also for future generations. This statistic was emphasized in the most recent negotiations (INC-3) in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2023.
Timeline of the INC Process
The third round (INC-3) was held from 13 to 19 November 2023 at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. After countries voted to create a Zero Draft at INC-2. The Zero Draft was a collection of ideas and views from member states submitted during the international negotiations in INC-2. The draft was released during the inter-sessional period between INC-2 and INC-3, when countries began negotiating the Zero Draft version of the treaty. During a preparatory meeting for INC-3 on November 11th, Iran announced a low-ambition coalition with other gas-driven countries called the Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability. There was very little to no mention of the coalition during the rest of the negotiations. Countries negotiated a specific text in three smaller groups called contact groups. Each group debated the following parts of the treaty:
Contact group 1: Part I and Part II of the Zero Draft
Contact group 2: Part III and IV
Contact group 3: Addressed elements not previously covered at previous INCs including principles, scope, and definitions.
While negotiations progressed throughout the week, the “Nairobi Spirit” died at the very last minute late on the last night of negotiations after contact group 3 could not come to a consensus on important intersessional work due to be completed between INC-3 and INC-4. Low-ambitious countries successfully used stalling tactics to threaten an ambitious treaty being drafted by the end of 2024 and aimed to be in place by 2025. While countries are eager to work and close negotiations by the end of 2024, there appear to be a lot of ideas for the treaty which are ultimately hindering progress.
More ideas than agreements after INC-3
The negotiations ended with more ideas than conclusions. During INC-3 the secretariat received over five hundred submissions from member states on the treaty. Due to the number of submissions at one point, some member states were arguing that their voices and inputs were not being heard. This led to threats by some states to quit negotiations.
The result was a revised draft expanded from thirty-one pages released after INC-2 to 71 pages. Some sections such as the scope have sixteen different options on text while several other options have four or more options. This was instead of a first draft that was expected after INC-3, a revised zero draft was released on December 26, 2023.
Low-ambitious, gas-driven countries such as Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are arguing for a treaty focused on recycling, waste management and voluntary action, while other countries that are part of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, co-chaired by Norway and Rwanda, are arguing for a treaty that focuses on global mandates by aiming at reducing plastic and targeting the full lifecycle of plastics. Along with more ideas, the lack of an agreement on intersessional work resulted in more setbacks.
The consequences of a lack of consensus
The initial timeline proposed important inter-sessional work which, as agreed at INC-2, should have happened between INC-3 and INC-4. This intersessional work was supposed to bring in experts on different technical and scientific topics related to plastics, finance, and implementation issues. Many of these topics would help delegates have a better understanding of what they are discussing and negotiating as well as different perspectives to fill in knowledge gaps.
This would have helped advance negotiations further at the upcoming INCs. At the last minute, the United States tried to reopen negotiations with Brazil agreeing to try to come to a consensus on work for the inter-sessional period (months between INC-3 and INC-4), but Russia and Saudi Arabia struck down the idea. After hearing member states’ opinions, the Chair decided not to reopen negotiations delaying hopes of progress towards an ambitious plastic reduction treaty.
An ambitious treaty threatened by lobbyists
As countries argue the direction of the treaty, several issues externally and internally towards an ambitious treaty remain. The treaty has gained attention from the fossil fuel and chemical industry. According to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), “143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have registered to attend the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) to advance a global plastics treaty, gaining access to the negotiations at a time when the talks are entering a critical phase”. The article goes on to say this is a 36% increase from previous INCs.
The fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumbered the scientist coalition by over 100 people and 70 of the smallest member state delegations, and they will likely increase in the coming INCs. One of the potential solutions to preventing fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists from interfering with the negotiations would be to pass a Conflict of Interest Policy in the upcoming United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) or future meetings related to the plastics treaty such as the future Conference of Parties (COP). A Conflict of Interest Policy has been requested by several observers. By passing this policy it could prevent a weak treaty.
Lack of representation in the treaty
The treaty continues to lack representation from key groups impacted by plastics and the effects of plastic pollution in the revised Zero Draft text: its seventy-one pages only mention “Indigenous” twenty-eight times, while “youth” and “children” combined are only mentioned ten times. Other vulnerable groups such as women, waste pickers, and workers in plastic value chains are even mentioned less. There are several vulnerable groups not yet mentioned in the treaty such as the disabled (physically and visually-impaired), people of color, and displaced people. Also, the term vulnerable populations/groups remain undefined. This could cause problems during the implementation of the treaty, leaving certain groups at risk of the effects of plastic pollution and unable to benefit from the treaty.
Final thoughts and looking ahead
The UN Plastic Pollution Treaty faces an uphill battle to be completed by the end of 2024. It is still unknown if the treaty will focus more on waste management and recycling or reduction. Several important groups remain voiceless in a treaty critical for their health and livelihoods. The next two INCs are scheduled to be INC 4 in Ottawa, Canada in April and INC 5 in Busan, South Korea in November.
Many key elements of the treaty such as scope, definitions, and principles remain undecided, which will add to the additional challenge of cutting text and cementing a clearer direction the treaty will take. This will make it more challenging for member states to complete the negotiations by the end of 2024. If the treaty stays on schedule, the Diplomatic Conference will be held in 2025 to adopt it and for member states to sign. This would also be when a governing body will be established for future Conference of Parties (COP) to be held on the treaty.
INC-4 will be critical for countries to decide the direction the treaty will take. The secretariat will provide an update in February UNEA-6 on the status of the treaty. While history has shown it is not impossible, it is going to require total focus and compromises from member states to achieve a historic plastics treaty by the end of 2024.
More articles
The war in Ukraine has highlighted the significance of energy policy as a major power issue. It is an opportunity to break
In this article, we will delve into the exciting world of hydrogen as a potential solution for energy storage, aiming to overcome
Learn about the positive and negative outcomes of the liberalisation process, and how energy communities could play a major role in the
Germany is particularly vulnerable to disruptions in the global fossil fuel supply chain. Can coal be considered a temporary solution to the
What are countries doing about plastic pollution?
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/1.png 675 675 Youth and Environment Europe https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png Youth and Environment Europe2024-02-22 17:25:542024-02-23 13:06:00What are countries doing about plastic pollution?Speeding up history in the face of war: How the invasion of Ukraine has shaken up the EU’s energy transition plan
Written by
Alice Pauchard
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of YEE.
Contents
Share this article
In its latest report, the International Energy Agency shows that the geopolitical context since the war in Ukraine has had an unprecedented impact on the energy transition. While a number of changes had already been initiated, such as those concerning renewable energies, the war in Ukraine seems to have accelerated them. In addition, European sanctions have massively reduced Russian gas imports into Europe. Under European sanctions, Russia reduced the flow of its gas pipelines to the EU by around 80%, prompting European states to find alternatives in a short space of time. This episode was an opportunity for many member states to reflect on their energy policy and, above all, the energy transition.
The war in Ukraine revealed that energy policy is a major power issue. This is illustrated by the expression “war ecology” defined by Pierre Charbonnier. According to him, the war in Ukraine is an opportunity to break a toxic dependence, both in geostrategic terms and in terms of climate policy. Achieving energy sufficiency would kill two birds with one stone, by aligning the imperative of coercing the Russian regime with the imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, “the period 2020-2021 was marked by a radical shift in the balance of competitiveness between renewables and existing fossil fuel and nuclear energy options”. So let’s take a look at how the war in Ukraine has affected the energy transition – has it accelerated or slowed it down?
What responses has the EU put in place?
First of all, there is a desire at the European level to promote the EU’s independence, while also attempting to take account of the climate objectives set out in the European Green Deal.
This is illustrated first and foremost by the introduction of the RePower EU plan. What does this plan consist of? This plan, proposed by the EU a few weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and in line with the demands of the 27 member states, aims to massively reduce Russian gas imports, to do without them altogether by 2027. This strategy is based on four pillars: saving energy, replacing Russian fossil fuels with other hydrocarbons, promoting renewable energies and investing in new infrastructures such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.
We can therefore see that the EU Commission, while wishing to reduce member states’ dependence on Russia, also aims to achieve the Green Deal’s climate objectives. The strategic objective is linked to the climate objective. Through this plan, it is proposing to increase the EU’s renewable energy target from 40% to a minimum of 42.5% by 2030. To reach this objective, at the end of the year, the EU adopted a regulation aimed at speeding up the procedure for granting construction permits for renewable energy projects.
Through the RePower EU plan, the EU has also decided to bet on hydrogen, setting a target of 10 million tonnes of domestic production of renewable hydrogen and a similar figure for imports by 2030. The creation of a European Hydrogen Bank is also planned, with the task of investing 3 billion Euros to develop this market on the continent, as announced by Ursula Von Der Leyen during her State of the Union address last September.
Are there any concrete examples of the successful implementation of this plan?
Yes, especially when it comes to the development of renewable energies. After the war, the use of renewable energies rose sharply. Between 2022 and 2023, European renewable energies increased by 57.3 GW. This figure is set to rise further, given that the RED III directive, the result of the RePower EU plan, calls for doubling the share of renewable energies in European energy consumption to 42.5% by 2030. This increase in investment in renewable energies has helped bring prices down. However, their role in heating, and especially in transport, is still limited, although growing.
It’s worth noting that this increase in investment in renewable energies has not been confined to Europe alone, as it is China that has increased its renewable energy production capacity the most (+ 141GW)
What initiatives have been put in place at national levels?
Many member states have also taken steps to reduce their dependence on Russian gas imports. In 2022, for example, Lithuania declared its autonomy from the gas pipeline linking it to Russia, thanks to its LNG terminal and links with its neighbours. Shortly afterwards, Poland was able to put the suspension of Gazprom supplies into perspective, thanks to its LNG terminal and cross-border gas pipelines. Co-financed by the EU, the various cross-border gas pipelines have proved invaluable in times of crisis, embodying the principle of solidarity proclaimed in the Treaty of the European Union. In coastal areas, LNG terminals, previously under-utilized, have made it possible to diversify supplies, even if technical constraints remain between certain member states.
States have also sought to find other countries that can provide them with energy. So there has been a revival of confidence in nuclear power throughout the EU. Italy and Germany have also sought to establish or renew bilateral partnerships. However, the diversity of national energy mixes and the differing levels of vulnerability between member states could well lead to a situation where each country is left to its own devices.
Finally, the war in Ukraine was also an opportunity for many states to review their position on nuclear energy, as was the case with Germany.
Can the EU afford the energy ambitions proposed in its RePower EU plan?
The plan will cost 210 billion euros, and major investments are needed. That’s why InvestEU, the EU’s flagship investment program, was created. Its original aim was to finance a green and digital revival, but with the crisis in Ukraine, the plan is now part of Europe’s drive for emancipation from Russian oil and gas. At present, the EU’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels costs 100 billion euros a year. To free itself from this, an investment of 210 billion euros is required by 2027. However, the EU has already far exceeded 210 billion euros: the 27 countries have spent a combined total of 314 billion euros, bringing the EU’s bill to almost 450 billion euros.
Will Europe emerge stronger from the energy crisis?
While the oil shocks saw European states reacting in a scattered fashion (not necessarily contradictorily, incidentally), the gas crisis provoked by Russia has confirmed the timeliness and effectiveness of a European approach. This energy crisis has made European countries realise the strategic importance of energy supply and has been the starting point for in-depth reflection on the importance of ensuring their independence.
- Russia’s war on Ukraine, European energy policy responses & implications for sustainable transformations
- The Ukraine War and the Energy Transition
- How Europe weighs the geopolitical risks of its energy supplies (Euractiv)
- La politique énergétique européenne face à sa première crise
- The impact of the war in Ukraine on the energy sector
- Guerre en Ukraine : bouleversements et défis énergétiques en Europe
- Finance & Development, December 2022: The Scramble for Energy
- Comment la guerre en Ukraine a bouleversé le marché de l’énergie en 4 chiffres clés
- Impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the markets: EU response
- The war in Ukraine is a catalyst for the energy transition (Le Monde)
More About This Topic
The war in Ukraine has highlighted the significance of energy policy as a major power issue. It is an opportunity to break
How is our generation responding to the challenges posed by the energy crisis and the imperative for a green transition? This thought-provoking
In this article, we will delve into the exciting world of hydrogen as a potential solution for energy storage, aiming to overcome
Learn about the positive and negative outcomes of the liberalisation process, and how energy communities could play a major role in the
Speeding up history in the face of war: How the invasion of Ukraine has shaken up the EU’s energy transition plan
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/article.png 313 313 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2024-01-23 12:24:532024-01-31 13:51:02Speeding up history in the face of war: How the invasion of Ukraine has shaken up the EU's energy transition plan
National Energy and Climate Plans | A handbook for youth participation
This handbook works as an explainer to the EU regulated National Energy and Climate Plans, and as a guide to how to participate in the process as a young citizen.
Each EU Member State is required to submit a National Energy and Climate Plan (NECPs), reflecting how various energy and climate targets will be achieved. According to EU regulations, these plans need to be open to public participation and consultation, yet the majority of Member States have failed to provide opportunities for the public to participate in the process.
These handbooks aim to shed light on the ways in which public participation can be improved, and how you as a young person can take part in the process!
This toolkit covers:
Youth Participation in the NECPs
The Legal Seeds project has been conducting interviews with young people from 4 different EU member states, in order to report on the status of youth participation in the NECP-process. We have compiled country-specific reports on youth involvement for Cyprus, Italy, Bulgaria (coming soon) and Greece (coming soon). These reports outline both the importance and legal requirements of public- and youth participation, while describing the current status of youth involvement in the NECP-process. These reports also highlight the shortcoming of the national processes, while also including suggestions on improvements to national governments.
Youth Participation in the Bulgarian updated NECP draft
In Bulgaria, youth participation is often seen as a “good to have” addition to the already minimal requirements for participation put in place. However, youth empowerment is growing and is demanding more and more accountability, transparency and engagement from public institutions.
Youth Participation in the Cypriot updated NECP draft
The report raises awareness about Governance Regulation shortcomings in Cyprus, focusing on updating NECPs in 2022/2023. Public participation is not there solely for the sake of participating - it is there to increase the acceptability of divisive policies and unite the Cypriot public.
Youth Participation in the Greek updated NECP draft
Young individuals in Greece perceive significant neglect in the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). The overall process of engaging in NECPs has been disappointing, failing to meet the state's obligations under the Governance Regulation.
Youth Participation in the Italian updated NECP draft
The report highlights issues with implementing the Governance Regulation in Italy, focusing on updating National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), namely the lack of public participation in Italian climate and environmental policymaking , higlighting the bigger focus on administrative procedures rather than human rights.
National Energy and Climate Plans | A handbook for youth participation
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/handbook-1.png 313 313 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2023-12-19 13:56:302024-05-27 09:23:25National Energy and Climate Plans | A handbook for youth participation Written by
Bellinda Bartolucci, ClientEarth
Alexandros Kassapis, Youth and Environment Europe
Contents
Share
It’s 2023 and exposure to toxic pollution is the norm in Europe.
Across the bloc, people are living in the shadow of industrial complexes that are still polluting illegally, eroding their health, and claiming lives.
This is a rights issue. An estimated 10% or more of Europe’s cancer burden is suspected to relate to pollution exposure, while EU premature deaths related to excessive levels of air pollution chart in the hundreds of thousands each year –
including minors, whose small bodies register big and lasting pollution impacts.
It’s hardly the futuristic picture we’d hoped for.
EU decision-makers are on the cusp of finalising the update of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). It governs the emissions of over 50,000 installations, including steelworks, chemicals and plastics facilities, coal plants and factory farms all over Europe – and it needs to be the most powerful tool to protect people that it can possibly be.
But on the contrary – the draft law looks set to blow over in the wind. From strong beginnings, we’re left with a nearly empty shell as far as people’s rights are concerned.
So what do our lawmakers need to do?
On your doorstep – what does industrial pollution
look like in Europe?
Pollution exposure is not just about isolated incidents – the reality is more insidious. From ‘forever chemicals’ to heavy metals, there are dramatic cases of chronic industrial pollution across Europe. Their impacts are startling reminders that industrial operations can cause severe illness and kill, in 21st century Europe.
There are ample examples of European workers and local residents – particularly children – being impacted by industrial pollution. A 5-year-old has died in Taranto, Italy, from a brain tumour – metal and dust particles from the local steel plant (Italy’s largest) were found in his brain. The local waters can’t be used to raise mussels because of iron dust levels.
Those living near antiquated coal plants in Bulgaria and Poland complain of stinging eyes and report respiratory ill-health. Towns near coal complexes in Bulgaria have been blanketed with air pollution for years – coal regions in the country chart the EU’s highest levels of sulphur dioxide pollution. But the government gave one of the local plants ongoing permission to pollute far above EU limits.
The above cases were from facilities operating within the law. So it goes without saying that, at least in cases of illegal pollution, anyone suffering from its impacts should be able to go to court and stand a chance of receiving compensation for the damage – no?
They pollute, you pay – why we need a real route to justice
If a facility is polluting beyond the limits allowed by the law, people suffering from health issues due to this illegal pollution must be able to access the courts for compensation. But the legal set-up right now makes it very difficult for anyone to hold Member States or industries to account.
The European Commission has acknowledged this injustice and the new IED was supposed to fix this. The law included a new compensation right for victims of illegal pollution. But throughout the process, the real substance of this right has been systematically dismantled over the course of the negotiations – by now, it risks becoming an in-name-only gesture, which contains no actual avenue for people to access their rights.
With the current wording, negotiators have given the chop to the possibility of NGOs standing for sick people in class actions – vital given that in extreme cases, claimants have passed away before they could complete their actions. The law also relieves authorities of all legal responsibility for failing to enforce laws and therefore enabling health damages.
People across Europe have been pushing for their rights to be reflected in the law. But pressure has been too strong and conflicting information has emerged throughout the process to derail positive lawmaking. This has got in the way of what this law is for: keeping people safe.
Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) have written to EU representatives to urge them to “prioritise health over illegal pollution” and adopt a real, functional compensation right. Along with a host of legal and consumer organisations, we highlighted that an inadequate law would fail people’s fundamental rights – the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that harmful industrial pollution can give rise to individual compensation.
A turning point for victims of illegal industrial pollution – will lawmakers deliver?
An effective compensation right already exists in competition, data protection, anti-discrimination and consumer laws. It works for all parties involved and it ups compliance from the outset. Why should health be protected less? Contrary to industry claims, none of these types of rules have ever led to excessive litigation. In the case of the IED, only illegal polluters are exposed to the risk of litigation. Companies adhering to the rules have no reason to worry – and will actually benefit from a level playing field across the EU.
There is no justification for failing to apply it in the IED for victims of illegal pollution. This is a no-brainer.
An IED based on justice goes far beyond environmental action – it is about helping victims on the ground. This is a major opportunity to bring back justice and finally offer protection for citizens across Europe. Missing it would be a statement by EU lawmakers that lawbreakers have officially taken precedence over people’s rights.
Brussels should take a deep breath and consider this before they give the IED their final seal of approval.
More To Explore
Health first: The IED cannot deprive pollution victims of their rights
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/position.png 250 250 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2023-11-28 17:15:342024-05-30 12:51:39Health first: The IED cannot deprive pollution victims of their rights
The EneRail | Podcast
How is our generation responding to the challenges posed by the energy crisis and the imperative for a green transition?
Share This Podcast
Project
Funded by
The Enerail podcast takes us on a captivating virtual journey across the European Union, examining the energy and climate crisis from different perspectives. In a world where the term “we” can be complex and multifaceted, this immersive podcast introduces us to a diverse range of individuals living through this crisis.
Activists, researchers, and institutional youth representatives are just a few of the voices we encounter along the way. As we delve into the heart of this pressing issue, one burning question guides our exploration: How is our generation responding to the challenges posed by the energy crisis and the imperative for a green transition? This thought-provoking podcast provides a comprehensive and nuanced outlook on the realities, insights, and actions that are shaping our present and future.
Discover all episodes:
Listen on Spotify
Share This Podcast
Project
Funded by
The EneRail | Podcast
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/podcast.png 500 500 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2023-11-23 09:49:002024-03-06 13:35:11The EneRail | PodcastGreen Hydrogen=Green Flag
Overcoming the limits of batteries with hydrogen energy storage
Written by
Pietro Attadio
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of YEE.
Contents
Visual summary
Learn more about the project
Share this article
The importance of effective storage systems in the transition to renewable energy
A future powered by renewables needs effective storage systems. Unlike fossil fuels, wind and sunlight, two low-carbon energy sources at the centre of the energy transition, have some great limitations: they are intermittent and cannot be stored to be converted into energy later on. A turbine spins only where and when the wind blows, and a solar panel works only under daylight. Learning to work around those limitations can help us abandon fossil fuels faster, which is crucial, given the short time we have left to meet the Paris carbon emission reduction targets. Storage systems can help us overcome these limitations, by offering alternative ways to even out energy supply to the grid and by allowing the electrification of sectors that are not connected to the grid altogether.
In this article, I want to look at one of those systems: hydrogen. More specifically, I want to explore how we can store energy using this material, and see in what ways it can help us overcome some of the limitations of the more commonly used Lithium Ion Batteries (LIB). To do so, I will provide you with an accessible explanation of how hydrogen energy storage works. I will also show that LIBs have three main downsides that hydrogen storage can help mitigate: high impact of raw materials, low gravimetric energy density and limited long-term and high-capacity storage capabilities.
My goal here is not to advocate for the complete abandoning of LIBs, rather, I want to show how in some cases having an alternative can help us achieve the decarbonization of our economy faster.
How can electricity be stored in hydrogen?
Let’s start with the basics. How do you generate electricity with hydrogen? It’s pretty simple. Hydrogen atoms flow through a “fuel cell”, which splits their electrons from their protons and nucleus. The electrons then leave the fuel cell and run through a circuit, powering whatever device they are connected to. The end of the circuit is connected back to the fuel cell, where the electron re-joins the proton and nucleus from which it was split. The hydrogen cell is thus re-formed and, reacting with oxygen in the air, it transforms into water vapour. Of course, this is an oversimplification, for a more accurate, but still very accessible, explanation of the process, I redirect you to this video from Alex Dainis, PhD. Just to be clear, this is not a nuclear reaction, as we are not splitting the nucleus itself.
The next question is where do we get hydrogen from? Due to its highly reactive nature, hydrogen is often bonded to other materials. Thus, we need to extract it from other molecules before we can convert it into energy. There are different ways you can do this. The key things to keep in mind are two. Firstly, these processes take a lot of energy. Secondly, the energy source you use determines the name we give to the final product, together with its carbon footprint. Some examples of carbon-intensive production methods are steam methane reforming and gasification. The output of these processes will be called grey or blue hydrogen (in the second case, a carbon capture mechanism is used to limit emissions).
Another method to produce hydrogen is electrolysis. With the same fuel cell we mentioned before, you can split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, through a process that is exactly symmetrical to what we have described two paragraphs above. To do this, you need electricity. If that is produced from renewable sources you have green hydrogen, which is low carbon.
Now, the round-trip efficiency of green hydrogen is less than one, meaning that the energy you get from it is less than the one you used to produce it. This means that, whenever possible, it is more efficient to use a renewable energy source directly, without hydrogen as an intermediary. Whenever that is not possible, however, one can produce hydrogen as a way to store and transport energy. First, clean electricity is used to perform electrolysis. Then the resulting hydrogen is reconverted back into water when and where electricity is needed. Through this process, hydrogen can be used as a stock of electricity that can be displaced in space and time to better match our energy demands.
Obstacles to decarbonizing the economy using batteries
As you know, batteries can also be used to store and transport energy. Some of their limitations, however, pose important obstacles to our ability to fully decarbonize our economy. Hydrogen can help us overcome those obstacles.
High impact of raw materials
Firstly, the raw materials required to manufacture LIBs pose environmental, social and geopolitical challenges that become more and more pressing as the scale of production of this technology increases. Lithium and cobalt are two materials used in LIBs. Lithium mining, on the one hand, has a water footprint of more than 2000 liters per kilogram extracted. The practice has also been linked with “declining vegetation, hotter daytime temperatures and increasing drought conditions in national reserve areas”. Cobalt mines, on the other hand, are notoriously infamous for the terrible working conditions of their workers. At the same time, both materials are to be found in only a couple of regions throughout the world. This creates perverse incentives to adopt hoarding strategies, which artificially push up the price of these resources. Such a high level of concentration also decreases the resilience of the supply chain to unforeseeable external shocks, decreasing the long-term reliability of the industry as a whole.
Hydrogen, like lithium, can be used to store energy, however, unlike lithium, it is not a rare material and can be extracted with carbon-neutral technologies. Consequently, replacing some of the current and future demand for batteries with hydrogen-based solutions can reduce our consumption of these materials, and with that the challenges that they come with. This can also diversify the energy storage supply chain, increasing its ability to withstand exogenous shocks. Hydrogen systems also do not use cobalt.
Of course, this is only a part of the solution, the issues I have highlighted above need to be addressed independently of the fact that we introduce hydrogen in the equation. Nonetheless, this technology can help us reduce the scale of the problem. With this, it should also be noted that, while hydrogen is not a rare material, iridium and platinum (two materials often used in fuel cells) are. These materials come with their own environmental problems, which further proves that technical diversification is only part of the solution. The social and environmental patterns of exploitation behind mining need to be addressed, regardless. That, however, is a broader conversation that pertains to our economy as a whole.
Low gravimetric energy density
Secondly, the low energy density of LIB makes them unsuitable as an alternative to fossil fuels in some applications. The aviation industry is an example of this issue. The table below shows the energy density of different materials, i.e., the amount of Megajoules stored in one kilogram of material ( = gravimetric density) and the amount of Megajoules in one litre of material ( = volumetric density).
| Material | Gravimetric energy density* | Volumetric energy density | Energy efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Jet A1 (kerosene) |
43.3 MJ/Kg |
||
|
Hydrogen |
142 MJ/Kg |
||
|
LIBs |
0.5 MJ/Kg
|
|
As you can see, compared to Jet A-1 (a common aviation fuel), a LIB providing the same amount of energy as an airplane’s fuel tank would be 86 times as heavy. Emily Pickrell, Energy Scholar at the University of Houston estimates that “if a jumbo jet were to use today’s batteries, 1.2 million pounds of batteries would be required just to generate the power of the jet engine it would be replacing. This weight would effectively need an additional eight jet planes just to carry that weight!”.
Consequently, replacing jet fuel with an equivalently powerful battery would make the plane too heavy to fly. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is more energy-dense than both LIBs and Jet A-1. Thus, it can provide the same amount of energy at a much lower weight.
Hydrogen’s energy density makes it a much better match for the electrification of the aviation industry than batteries. There are, however, some limitations to the potential of this gas. If we look at its volumetric energy density, a hydrogen tank would take 4 times as much space as a Jet A-1 providing equivalent energy. And this is assuming we are able to keep the gas in its liquid form at -252.8°C. Together with this, to this day the round-trip efficiency of hydrogen systems is still much lower than that of batteries. Finally, hydrogen aircraft are still in the early stages of development, meaning that we still need to wait for the large-scale commercial adoption of these vehicles.
Limited long-term and high-capacity storage capabilities
Finally, LIBs are less efficient at storing higher quantities of energy for longer periods of time than hydrogen systems. In some applications, we need this longer-term storage capacity. One case is that of intermittent energy storage.
As I said before, renewables’ energy supply cannot be adjusted to the specific demands of consumers and producers at any given moment. To address this, storage devices allow us to stock up energy in moments of excess supply, in order to release it back into the grid in periods of excess demand. Intermittency, however, is a multidimensional phenomenon that has a short-run and long-run component: fluctuations in supply can be intraday or seasonal. Looking at solar energy makes it easier to understand both. As the sun shines only during the daytime, at night panels will not produce any electricity. That is intra-day intermittency. At the same time, during summer days are longer, and, in many climates, less cloudy. Thus, output will be higher during June, July and August than it will during winter (as shown by the table below). This is what we call seasonality.
LIBs are more effective at smoothing intraday fluctuations. Battery storage facilities are cheaper to install, but more expensive to scale up, making them more suited for smaller capacity applications. Their higher round trip efficiency (look at the table above) also means that less energy is wasted in the process. Due to their higher rate of self-discharge, however, they cannot store electricity for prolonged periods of time, making them useless when it comes to seasonal intermittency. At the same time, hydrogen is better suited to supply that higher capacity, long term storage facility needed to smooth out seasonal fluctuations. On the one hand, hydrogen deposits show increasing returns to scale. They can be more costly than batteries to set up, but doubling capacity less than doubles the cost. This makes the technology better suited for higher capacity stockage. On the other, hydrogen has a lower rate of self-discharge, meaning that it can store energy for longer. These two characteristics make this technology a useful tool to smooth out seasonality, even when we account for its lower round trip efficiency (being able to store something is better than being able to store nothing).
To conclude, we can see that hydrogen can help overcome three important limitations of LIBs: high impact of raw materials, low gravimetric energy density and limited long-term and high-capacity storage capabilities. Nonetheless, the analysis also shows that hydrogen technology is still in its earlier stages of development. Consequently, important challenges need to be overcome before this technology can be deployed at scale. If used together, batteries and hydrogen will have a central role in facilitating the energy transition.
I would like to thank Tuur Knevels, who provided some crucial support in the drafting of this article. He is a passionate young engineer who has been active in the hydrogen and automotive industry for the past 3 years and is currently completing his degree in Aerospace Engineering whilst working as a freelance fuel cell systems engineer. We met back in July during the in-person training we organised as part of the AmPower Project. Of course, any potential incoherence in this analysis is solely attributable to me.
- Hydrogen or batteries for grid storage? A net energy analysis
- The future of energy: batteries vs. hydrogen
- Hydrogen: the future of electricity storage?
- Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming | Department of Energy
- Carbonomics – Re-Imagining Europe’s Energy System | Goldman Sachs
- Carbonomics – Re-Imagining Europe’s Energy System | Goldman Sachs
- Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming | Department of Energy
- Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming | Department of Energy
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1203083/composition-of-lithium-ion-batteries/
- China’s Rare Earths ‘Slump’ A Sign Of Domestic ‘Hoarding’ For EV Batteries
- Green hydrogen: How can it help stop climate change? – DW – 02/06/2023
- Grey, blue, green – the many colours of hydrogen explained | World Economic Forum
- Episode 6: Masters of Risk-Jennifer Reynolds | S&P Global Market Intelligence
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z
- The Environmental Impact of Lithium Batteries – IER
- https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae9b1
- Lithium mining and its water impact: More complex than previously thought?
- https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/parts-fuel-cell
- Lithium batteries’ big unanswered question – BBC Future
- https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248
- Child labour toxic leaks : the price we could pay for a greener future
- https://www.britannica.com/technology/fuel-cell/Types-of-fuel-cells
- This is what’s keeping electric planes from taking off | MIT Technology Review
- https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/electric-planes-aviation-future-innovation/
- Hydrogen in aviation: how close is it? | Airbus
- We won’t have electric planes until battery tech improves
- Time To Clean The Skies, Electric Planes Have Arrived
- Energy Density of some Combustibles | The Geography of Transport Systems
- https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage
- Dutch group targets hydrogen-fuelled commercial flight in 2028
More articles
The war in Ukraine has highlighted the significance of energy policy as a major power issue. It is an opportunity to break
How is our generation responding to the challenges posed by the energy crisis and the imperative for a green transition? This thought-provoking
In this article, we will delve into the exciting world of hydrogen as a potential solution for energy storage, aiming to overcome
Learn about the positive and negative outcomes of the liberalisation process, and how energy communities could play a major role in the
More To Explore
Green Hydrogen=Green Flag
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/hydrogen-energy-storage.png 1080 1080 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2023-11-16 14:46:542024-02-22 16:45:36Green Hydrogen=Green Flag
When youth takes states to court | Handbook
This handbook provides important information on the hearing and the potential impact of the Court on climate action in Europe.
On the 27th of September, the Duarte Agostinho et al case will be heard at the European Court of Human Rights. This will be the third of a series of climate lawsuits brought in front of the Court, after Klimaseniorinnen, and Câreme, which were heard this Summer. The case involves youth from 11 to 24 years old. This will be an excellent opportunity for youth all around Europe to make the voices of the youngest generations heard! We have prepared this handbook to highlight the most important things to keep in mind when following the hearing, including the potential role of the Court in enhancing climate action in Europe.
This handbook covers:
When youth takes states to court | Handbook
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HANDBOOK.png 540 540 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2023-09-22 10:31:202023-12-07 13:16:51When youth takes states to court | Handbook
Climate Justice Needs An Intersectional Approach | Tookit
This toolkit invites you to embark on an inspiring journey where inclusivity and empowerment become the driving forces behind climate action.
Our Intersectionality Toolkit offers a comprehensive guide to understanding and integrating intersectionality into climate action. It provides a framework to navigate the interconnected web of social identities, power dynamics, and environmental impacts. Through a combination of research-based insights, practical tools, and case studies, this toolkit empowers users to approach climate activism, policy-making, and community engagement through an inclusive and justice-centered lens.
This toolkit covers a wide range of topics, including:
Climate Justice Needs An Intersectional Approach | Toolkit
https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Climate-Justice-Needs-Intersectional-Approach-Toolkit.png 675 675 YEE https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/logo-yee-728x1030.png YEE2023-09-05 15:40:442024-02-23 11:50:42Climate Justice Needs An Intersectional Approach | ToolkitOur mission
YEE aims to unite environmental youth non-profit organisations in Europe in order to enhance international cooperation, increase knowledge about the climate crisis, raise awareness of environmental problems and to strengthen participation of youth in environmental decision-making.
We are supported by
Supported by the Council of Europe through the European Youth Foundation.
Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
