• Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

How industry won EU subsidies for CCS

Big carbon polluters succeeded in persuading a British MEP to ensure they benefited from billions of euro in public subsidies, according to a new report published today by Corporate Europe Observatory and UK-group Spinwatch[1].

The report, EU billions to keep burning fossil fuels, reveals how Shell, BP, Vattenfall and other big polluters worked with Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies to obtain EU subsidies to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. Emails voluntarily released following freedom of information requests show that the an amendment introduced by Chris Davies to secure a crucial subsidy worth billions of euros was put forward by industry.

And as negotiations on the EU’s climate package reached the final stages, Davies threatened to block the entire legislative package – unless the subsidies for CCS were agreed [2] .

Industry will receive the value of 300 million carbon allowance (between 4 - 7 billion Euros depending on the carbon price) under the deal agreed as part of the Climate and Energy Package in December 2008, with most of the money earmarked for eight pilot CCS plants.

Carbon capture and storage technology has been heavily promoted by industry as a way of tackling climate emissions, despite objections from members of the public and concerns about its safety and effectiveness.

Yiorgos Vassalos, a researcher with Corporate Europe Observatory, said:

"This is a shocking example of carbon polluters benefiting from policies supposedly intended to tackle climate change. It also clearly shows how industry has infiltrated the heart of the decision making process in Brussels. Industry lobbyists provide MEPs and Commission officials with background briefings, expert advice, and draft amendments, while continuously warning of the damage that will be caused to Europe's economy if their advice is ignored. Their influence has become so embedded in the way in which business is done, that even well-meaning MEPs can struggle to see the wood for the trees.”

Industry successfully lobbied to water down recommendations that all new power stations should be fitted with mandatory CCS – allowing polluting coal-fired power stations to continue to be built.

Andy Rowell a writer working with Spinwatch said:

“Many people would be shocked to find out that the very companies that stood to gain financially from CCS were the same ones advising Chris Davies. They would also be shocked to find out that companies such as BP and Shell were even drafting his amendments. Yet Davies apparently sees nothing wrong in this."

Pilot carbon capture and storage plants have received EU recovery funding and may also receive ETS funding in Jaenschwalde (Vattenfall), Belchatow (PGE), Compostilla (ENDESA) and Porte Tolle (ENEL). A proposed Arcelor Mittal project in Florange failed to meet the technical requirements, while an E.ON project near Rotterdam was cancelled following public objections. Now the future of a project at Hatfield in the UK is in doubt after the company behind the project, Powerfuel Power, went into administration last week.

Nevertheless, fossil fuel lobby group ‘Zero Emissions Platform’ insists that CCS can work and is now appealing to the European Commission to provide support to help develop the infrastructure for CCS – a network of carbon dioxide pipelines across Europe1. Their wish is the Commission’s command – as a draft of the Commission’s Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and 2030 blueprint reveals.

The estimated level of windfall profits in the power sector in five countries (UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland) during the second phase of ETS (2008 – 2012) is between 23 and 71 billion euros [3].

Contact:
Yiorgos Vassalos, Corporate Europe Observatory
yiorgos@corporateeurope.org
+32 2 893 0930

Notes:
[1] EU Billions to keep burning fossil fuels, Corporate Europe Observatory / Spinwatch / December 2010
http://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/f...

[2] Links to emails: 20081024DaviesGraffCOM, http://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/f...
see also 20081024DaviesMaskayFR
http://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/f... and
20081110DaviesMaskayFRBrockettCOM
http://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/f...

[3] PointCarbon: EU ETS Phase II – The potential and scale of windfall profits in the power sector

 

Help!

Exposing the lobbying of big business costs money. Would you consider a donation to help us continue? We refuse funding from the EU, governments, political parties and corporations to be as independent as possible, so every single donation really helps. Thanks!

 

 

 

Get our monthly newsletter

Follow us on social media

Lobbying around the EU Copyright Directive has been intense: big-budget tech platforms led by Google as well as tech industry trade associations on one side, historically important collecting societies, the creative industries and publishers on the other. The interests and opinions of citizens have become sidelined in the resulting turmoil.

A seemingly innocent concept, the “innovation priniciple” has been invented by some of the dirtiest industries in Europe. They have carefully and strategically inserted it into the EU system, where it could have a significant impact on the shaping of new EU legislation or policies, and those under revision.

The slogan of this year's climate talks is “black to green” -  appropriate, given the dirty energy companies that are bankrolling the conference. While the sponsors hide behind green branding, their core business models depend on coal, oil and gas, and are therefore absolutely incompatible with the Paris Agreement, let alone a planet still habitable in the future.

Concerns about corporate co-option at the upcoming climate meeting COP24 in Poland are growing as the sponsors are revealed. Many are dirty energy companies, among them several from Poland's state-owned coal industry. A repeat of the 2013 COP at which the Polish presidency allowed coal and gas privileged access to the meeting? It looks likely.

Lobby Planet 2017 banner