The European Trading System would be reformed so that it no longer treats biomass combustion as carbon neutral. This assumption is based on an accounting error that dates to the misinterpretation of IPCC national reporting guidance. In that guidance, countries can ignore the emissions from burning biomass only if they count the carbon removed from a forest or otherwise in the land use sector.
PU
Princeton University
Academic / research · United States
not in the EU Transparency RegisterThis organization files on consultations without a register number, so its record here is built from its filings alone. Register facts (staff, costs, accreditations) are not available for it.
3
positions filed
in the 665 files tracked
3
legislative files
of 665 tracked
1
with a full position paper
attached to a submission
Counts here are a floor, never a total: they cover the 665 consultation files tracked so far (57,800 submissions, mostly 2021–26), so an organization's real filing history is larger, not smaller.
Track Princeton in PolicySpeak: request access →
Work at Princeton University? so we know who speaks for it.
Their record over time
Princeton University filed 3 positions between 26 Nov 2020 and 2 Jun 2023, across 3 of the 665 legislative files tracked here, attaching a full position paper 1 time.
2020 · 2 filed2023 · 1 filed
What they argued
I support the goal of the European Commission in revising its LULUCF regulations and recommend that revised policies properly factor in the carbon trade-offs of different land uses. 1. The goals of increasing the land carbon sink and increasing the harvest of wood for the “bioeconomy" are in tension.
Dear European Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback to the Draft Delegated Regulation on Conducting Independent Audits under the Digital Services Act. My feedback (in the attached document) follows from my experience of conducting independent audits of platforms for privacy violations and algorithmic discrimination.
Looking for an argument rather than an organization? Search every submission for a phrase and see everyone who used it.
Put Princeton University next to another organization. Same files, same register facts, side by side. Compare →
Turns up on the same files
Organizations that also filed on at least two of the same consultations. A shared interest in the same dossiers, not evidence of coordination, and we do not suggest any.
Showing 5 of 38.
Is this your organization?
Everything on this page comes from Princeton University’s own submissions to the European Commission. We have added nothing and interpreted nothing. If something is wrong or out of date, email info@policyspeak.com and we will correct it. If you are an individual named in a record, our privacy policy sets out your rights to correction, objection and removal.
Quotes are verbatim from submissions published by the European Commission, trimmed to their opening passage and never summarized by a model. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.