Biofuelwatch

Biofuelwatch welcomes the European Commission’s commitment to the Green Oath’ and its No Harm principle, and the acknowledgment that this must be considered in relation to biodiversity and air quality as well as climate impacts. We believe that this Principle requires substantial reforms to REDII, due to the large volume of evidence of the harm caused by forest biomass and land-based biofuels (including bioliquids).

We are deeply concerned about the proposal for a certification framework for carbon removals. Its primary purpose is to facilitate carbon offsets which will inevitably legitimise additional fossil fuel burning, at a time fossil fuel burning and other sources of carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced.

As shown in our submission (Pdf attached), we believe that biomass energy and biofuels, including for aviation and shipping, must no longer be treated as zero carbon under EU-ETS rules. Furthermore, we set out why including so-called "permanent carbon removals" in ETS would create new offsetting opportunities for polluters, even though there is no technically and scientifically proven way to permanently remove…

We are disappointed to see no mention of the need for reducing energy demand, which is vital for addressing the climate and biodiversity crises and which also for increasing the share of renewable energy (compared to a lower total energy demand).

We reject the proposals to remove barriers to and de-risk CCS in the EU. Based on the evidence gained over years and decades of CCS, we cannot see how it can ever play a role in a meaningful response to the climate crisis. The actual barriers to CCS are interconnected technical, economic and safety problems.

Preventing the worst impacts of the climate crisis requires rapid phasing out CO2 emissions as well as strengthening the ability of natural ecosystems to sequester and store carbon. We are deeply concerned that, despite the 2030 LULUCF target, forests and other ecosystems in the EU are sequestering progressively less carbon.