"Today's decision to reaffirm the commitment to the ITER project is an impressive demonstration of inability to reconsider past decisions and adapt to a new situation. All the reasons for a reversal are there: The estimated construction costs have tripled before the main construction has even started and nuclear fusion will not contribute to the EU's energy supply for decades - if ever. Several studies have come to the conclusion that renewables will be able to cover the EU's energy supply by 2050. Since fusion will not be commercially available before that, it has become irrelevant for Europe's energy future. 

"To add insult to injury, the Council asks the Commission to give preference to financing ITER to the detriment of other, more relevant projects in the framework of the EU 2020 strategy. 1.4 billion Euro earmarked for 2012 and 2013 for the European programmes on innovation and non- nuclear research, education, transport and energy networks and poverty reduction will, according to the Council, simply need to be diverted to close the finance gap of the ITER project. This is outrageous, given that even the Commission itself has stated scepticism towards this approach.

"The least costly option clearly would be abandoning the project before the main construction has started at all. This has however not been considered by the Council at all.

"Today's decision also shows once again the democratic deficit in the EU's nuclear decision making. Despite the strong implications for the EU budget this decision has been taken without discussion in the Council, without prior consultation of Parliament and without proper information to the public. In the upcoming budgetary decisions the Parliament will have to defend the strategic goals of the EU 2020 strategy and prevent the noncritical focus on one energy research option."

"It is encouraging that the EU Commission is belatedly starting to take the threat of offshore oil and gas drilling seriously. Given the serious dangers of offshore drilling and the haphazard nature of rules on liability and safety, which commissioner Oettinger has now acknowledged, the EU commission is justified in looking to act.

"The lack of sufficient regulation and the ongoing uncertainty regarding the causes of the current spill in the Gulf of Mexico justify commissioner Oettinger's call for a possible moratorium on deep sea drilling. All the more so as some member states have announced plans to expand deep sea drilling (1). While it is welcome that the Commission is now echoing concerns raised by the Greens last month, action must follow swiftly.

"One crucial issue is to ensure that the Environmental Liability Directive - currently under review - will also cover offshore oil and gas exploitation. As regards safety inspections of offshore installations and cleaning up of oil spills, the mandate of the European Maritime Agency (EMSA) should be expanded, as has been recognised by EU transport commissioner Kallas, and the Commission should act on this now."

Bart Staes added:

"When it comes to oil platforms, EU governments and their regulators show a deluded tendency to claim they have everything under control. However, clearly offshore drilling and the resultant risks is an issue that transcends borders. If there would be an offshore oil spill in Scottish or Norwegian waters, the coasts and biodiversity of all member states around the North Sea would be affected. Pan-European action is need and the Belgian presidency and other member states should play an active and constructive role by cooperating closely with the Parliament and Commission to this end. In order to prevent a catastrophe, and to respond effectively in case of a major accident, the three EU institutions should try and agree on concrete regulatory measures before the end of the year.

"The member states have a golden opportunity next September: In a ministerial meeting in Norway the parties to the OSPAR Convention (2) will conclude a review of the Convention so that OSPAR will play a major role in the European Maritime Strategy. EU member states must make sure that the so called 'Bergen Statement 2010', foreseen to be adopted by the ministerial meeting in Norway, deals in a sufficient way with the current and increasing safety risks connected to offshore oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and beyond."

(1) Ireland for example wants to allow drilling up to 2000-3000 metres!
(2) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment

"At last the link between the European market and the forests around the world ravaged by illegal logging has been weakened. For too long the EU has preached against such logging and the resulting massive deforestation while simultaneously providing one of the largest markets for illegal timber. As such, this agreement on the illegally sourced timber represents a major international breakthrough.

"Thanks to the European Parliament, the law now contains an explicit prohibition on the placing of illegally logged timber on the EU market.  This is augmented by a traceability requirement that affects every part of the supply chain, from the importer all the way down to us, the final customers.

"Today's vote is also good news for the fight against climate change, as deforestation is responsible for 20% of global CO2 emissions. Also developing countries will profit from the law, as they are currently losing billions of euro in tax revenues due to illegal logging and timber exports.

It is high time that the EU took responsibility for the environmental damage its own consumption causes.  This piece of legislation is a positive step and an example of how the size of the EU can be used to deliver solutions to global problems."

Note to editors:

1) Caroline Lucas was elected to the British parliament in May 2010

Satu Hassi's Press Conference can be downloaded at:

http://www.greenmediabox.eu/archive/2010/07/06/pressbriefing/

Commenting on the decision, Green MEP Heidi Hautala (Finland) said: 

"This hasty decision by the Finnish parliament is a dangerous and potentially costly mistake, which defies much of the evidence presented in the process. There were clear warning signs throughout the process, for example the clear conflict of interest among high officials, while the cosy relationship between the companies involved and the political elite was confirmed by financing scandals during the campaign. The entire process was clearly not guided by good governance."

Green MEP Satu Hassi (Finland) added:

 "The favourable terms provided to the nuclear industry in Finland are highly dubious. The EU Commission is investigating one of the benefits given to the nuclear companies, namely the fact that power companies can sell electricity to their shareholders below market price. This in practice means reduced taxation for these companies. The electricity not needed by the shareholders can be sold by them to the markets with huge profits. No other industry sector has such a benefit. This is an incentive to invest in nuclear power in Finland.

"Another subsidy to the nuclear industry is the limited liability the companies have to bear: in the case of a severe accident it is the taxpayers and the victims who bear the bulk of the cost. The rules governing liability has not been updated.

"These subsidies give an unfair benefit to an energy model that is unsustainable, creates very few jobs and does not develop our domestic expertise in renewable energy sources, which are rapidly expanding in the world market."

Rebecca Harms (Germany), chairperson of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament said: 

"It is regrettable that the Finnish parliament does not trust modern  sustainable energy solutions. In recent years renewable energies have become a booming business in many countries. Furthermore, while other industries have struggled during the economic crisis, the renewable industry has continued to grow. The decision to invest in a high risk technology of the past instead of focusing on the new alternative energies of the future leaves Finland as a developing country in the energy sector. Even more worryingly, Finland will be exporting nuclear energy and will also have to take responsibility for the extra nuclear waste. This is a dangerous move, especially as there is no safe nuclear waste solution available at the moment - if ever."

"In voting for watering down the legislation on van emissions, a majority of the Industry Committee have yet again failed to grasp an opportunity to tackle the climate, oil and economic crises at the same time. Requiring efficiency improvements beyond business as usual would have helped EU car manufacturers regain global leadership. In fact, we risk instead "protecting" our car industry out of business.  Moreover, this weakened proposal fails to make industry meet its potential to reduce emissions which would also save the consumers and society money. Not tackling such cost opportunities now means making climate policy more expensive in the long run.

"Luckily this wrong headed and short sighted industry approach will not be the Parliaments last word on this. In September the leading Environment Committee can rectify today's mistakes.

"As a positive sign, the Industry Committee opinion also contains a requirement for equipping vans with speed limiters, already supported by the Parliament's Transport Committee. This will save lives as well as emissions and money."

"If the EU gets it right, European energy and carbon taxes can play a crucial role in shifting to a more sustainable energy policy and achieving Europe's climate change objectives. Moreover, taxing resources instead of salaries can be an important step to achieve a more resource efficient and therefore competitive economy, to increase financial revenues for the state and to create more jobs. Such a tax reform is absolutely necessary in a context of a deep financial and economic crisis. The EU Commission should make it the flagship of its EU 2020 reform."

Dutch Green MEP Bas Eickhout added:

"As it stands, the energy taxation directive offers perverse incentives for some of the more polluting energy sources. Shifting to an energy tax based on energy content rather than volume would be an important step in the right direction. Setting the minimum rates at a sufficient level would also help promote increased energy efficiency.

“Introducing an EU-wide carbon tax framework would help spur green innovation and help realise Europe's climate change goals. The minimum rate of any carbon tax component would be crucial to its effectiveness in stimulating cleaner and more efficient technologies to deliver actual emissions reductions. The current carbon price of €15 per tonne of CO2 is proving far too low to act as an incentive, so clearly any carbon tax must be set a much higher level.

"A serious problem with the Commission's logic is its assumption that a carbon tax should only apply to sectors outside of the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Clearly, the current carbon price in the ETS is proving far too low to make the shift to a resource-efficient economy. If the goal is to stimulate green innovation and investment in green technologies, a carbon tax could be used as a complement in ETS sectors.

 "There is also talk of widespread exemptions, such as for households: this would undermine the purpose of a carbon tax. Governments can compensate households in other ways and should not abandon the polluter pays principle."

"The European Union is completely unprepared to deal with a potential spill from offshore drilling. Large aspects of offshore oil drilling remain unregulated, particularly concerning safety and liability, with the rules that are in place piecemeal and littered with loopholes. The current situation in the Gulf of Mexico has highlighted the devastating impact of a potential oil spill. The Greens are calling for a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas exploration, at the very least until there is more clarity on the legal and regulatory framework concerning this potentially extremely damaging activity.

Commenting on current EU rules governing environmental liability, Dutch Green MEP Bas Eickhout said:

“Current international and EU legislation on liability is fragmented and incoherent. It is absurd that international rules on liability for oil pollution caused by an oil rig do not exist. As a result, oil companies have few incentives to introduce additional safety measures for oil drilling. In addition, there is currently no EU legislation for damage to marine waters as a result of oil pollution or spills. As a first step, the EU should consider extending the Environmental Liability Directive to include damage to marine waters and delete the exclusion of liability for oil spill incidents that take place outside EU waters.

"The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico shows that the use of fossil fuels is not only dirty, but can also be a costly and risky business. This proves once again that the EU should make energy savings and the transition to renewable energies one of its top priorities.”

Commenting on safety, health and environment concerns, Green MEP Michèle Rivasi (France) said:

"It is now certain that the safety and impact assessments set up by BP and their contractors in the US were not sufficient. We must ensure that EU companies can prevent and deal with such a catastrophe. Also, there is a need for 'inspecting the inspectors' since it seems that the regulation agencies are subject to corruption: the EU - through the European Maritime Safety Agency - should play such a role with regard to member states' certification organisations."  

"There is a rising concern regarding the use of COREXIT dispersant by BP. Because these dispersants are patented, many ingredients are not known, so it is very hard to get information on the environmental and health effects. Other dispersants are proven to be less harmful but BP still continues to use one of the worst, which contains 3 hazardous substances. In any case, this dispersant does not properly address the polluting impact of the oil, which still remains."

With regard to the lack of regulation on the decommissioning of offshore infrastructure, Belgian Green MEP Bart Staes said:

“Hundreds of oil and gas wells are almost depleted and this substantial offshore infrastructure of platforms and pipes will have to be decommissioned over the coming years. This will have to be done in an environmentally safe way. The costs of this, which will run into tens of billions of euro, should clearly be borne by the industry, which has made huge profits, and not by the European tax payers. European companies like BP and Shell have been cutting costs by saving on safety measures. We will not let them get away with this by putting another ecological and financial burden on societies.”

The Green members also urge Commission and Council to update the mandate of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) located in Lisbon and to turn it into a real EU maritime watchdog with teeth. Currently EMSA has al the technical capacity and know how, but not the mandate to deal with spills from oilrigs (only from oil ships). 

For visual information:

* For a Map of Deep water oil and gas operations in North Sea and Atlantic Frontier and the prevailing ocean currents:

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/northsea.png

* Footage on the Deepwater Horizon disaster and North Sea oil platforms is available via filezilla (please download software), on ftp://share.greenpeace.org  (username: video.input; password: v1d301n; folder: gpi_video_upload).

"It is extremely good news that the Parliament was able to secure fundamental improvements to the draft regulation on illegally harvested timber. The compromise text agreed with the Council now makes clear that the placing on the EU market of illegally harvested timber or timber products is prohibited, and will be subject to considerable penalties. The regulation requires actors further down the supply chain to ensure traceability and to refrain from measures that could otherwise jeopardise the objectives of the regulation, in order to make sure the prohibition is effective.

"Prohibiting illegally logged timber from the EU market sets an important precedent for taking responsibility for the external impacts of European consumption.

"For years the EU has preached against illegal timber, a major driver of deforestation worldwide, but has hypocritically continued to provide one of the biggest markets for it. Between 20% and 40% of global industrial wood production is estimated to come from illegal sources, and up to 20% finds its way into the EU - with biodiversity and forest-dependent peoples paying the price. With deforestation accounting for nearly a fifth of the global total emissions causing climate change, tackling illegal logging as one of its drivers is an important step in the right direction.

"Although it is hugely disappointing that the Member States could not move closer to the Parliament's position, it is clear that that there were considerable differences between their various positions. In light of this, I would like to thank the Spanish Presidency for all their efforts to help secure an agreement. I would also like to thank Caroline Lucas, the original rapporteur, for all her innovative and tireless work on this dossier."

"The Commission's proposals on applying the so-called 'sustainability criteria' for biofuels are riddled with loopholes and would allow climate-damaging fuels to get the all clear in Europe. Far from ensuring the sustainability of these fuels, the communication could undermine overall EU climate policy. The Commission does not acknowledge the potential problems with biofuels anywhere in the communication. While pressure from MEPs and NGOs has thankfully resulted in the deletion of the scandalous definition of palm oil plantations as forests, the new loopholes that have been introduced are just as shameful.

"Among the more odious loopholes, are the 'by-product definitions', which take no account of the existing economic uses of by-products. This would mean that by-products could be diverted from one economic usage to use as biofuels and be substituted by more greenhouse gas intensive alternatives, without any attempt to factor in the resultant emissions increase.  Another major flaw is the 'energy allocation definition', which would allow undistilled ethanol to be classified as near-zero emissions! This makes a mockery of the lifecycle greenhouse gas assesment process and renders the so-called 'sustainability criteria' nothing more than an exercise in greenwash."

Green MEP Claude Turmes, Vice-President of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament and Parliament's rapporteur for Renewables, said:

"It seems that Commissioner Oettinger is ill-advised in this dossier. The Commission has still made no progress in setting out how to take account of the climate impact of indirect land-use change (ILUC) for biofuels. This issue is absolutely crucial for assessing how much greenhouse gases these fuels account for over their lifecycles and is therefore fundamental to assessing the 'sustainability' or not of biofuels. This prolonged delay is inacceptable. Under the legislation on renewable energy agreed in December 2008, the Commission was tasked to come forward with measures to account for the full climate impact of agrofuels. It is also inimical to the interests of investors, who are badly in need of legislative certainty for their investments."

"Reports that the EU is trying to massage the figures to weasel out of its pledges on climate aid for developing countries are very worrying. The EU has made a clear pledge to provide €2.4 billion per year in new and additional funding as 'fast start' climate financing for developing countries (2010-12). Reneging on this promise by fudging the figures would further fuel mistrust between developed and developing countries and undermine the UN climate talks.

"According to today's reports, around 1/3 of the EU's annual contribution could come from loans, rather than direct aid. Rather than trying to address our climate debt to the world's poorest countries, we are saddling them with further debt at a time of economic difficulty. These reports compound revelations earlier this year that EU member states were trying to simply divert funding pledged for overseas development assistance.

"We call on the EU presidency to clarify the situation and to rule out backtracking on its climate financing pledges. EU member states must deliver on their promises to provide new and additional financing of €2.4 billion per year over the coming three years."

 (1) Oxfam report http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2010-05-31/climate-cash-must-not-increase-developing-countries-debt

Reported in the press http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_4Bt6lPNWPdO0muUeqf_yJ2MfkQD9G1SGQ01