Towards a European methane strategy?

Transcription

1 Methane: the gas that weighs heavy on the climate Towards a European methane strategy? Tuesday 20 March, European Parliament Hosted by Michèle Rivasi MEP, co-rapporteur of the Governance Regulation & the European Environmental Bureau The battle against climate change focuses largely on carbon dioxide but tends to forget a gas that weighs heavy on the climate. Being a precursor for ground level ozone it is also considered an air pollutant. In Europe the three sectors responsible for 99% of methane emissions are energy, waste and agriculture. I had the pleasure of organizing a conference in the European Parliament to understand the real impact of methane on the climate, the different sources of methane emissions and the possible mitigation measures. This conference was also a real opportunity to create a space for policy makers and various stakeholders to discuss methane mitigation policies. This conference showed that a focus on methane does not only concern the energy sector, but also the waste and agriculture sectors. It is essential and urgent to deal seriously with methane. Reduction potentials are important in the short and medium term and they can be mobilized at reasonable costs without jeopardizing development. Michèle Rivasi 1

2 I Methane: a state of play (Global Warming Potential of methane) Bernard Laponche, international energy expert and co-founder of global change, convincingly illustrated that due to its very specific characteristics methane deserves special attention compared to other Greenhouse gases. Currently the IPCC standards refer to a 100 year time frame when calculating Global Warming Potentials (CO2 equivalents). However, due to its short lifetime of only about 12 years the GWP of methane increases 28 for a 100 year timeframe to more than 80 CO2 equivalents for a 20-year timeframe. Accordingly methane would account for a much bigger share of the EU s greenhouse gas emissions, if a 20-year time frame was applied. While the IPCCC methodology is unlikely to change it is still important to keep this aspects in mind when designing climate mitigation policies. Especially, since most policies are based on targets for 2030 or 2050 instead of 100 years from now. II Sources of methane emissions and the solutions for limiting them Three sectors account for 99% of the methane emissions in the EU. These three sectors namely waste, energy and agriculture are quite different in terms of the challenges and solutions to mitigate emissions. Therefore three scientific experts gave an overview about their respective sectors. 2

3 1. Energy The two main sources in the energy sector are fugitive emissions from oil & gas as well as coal. In his presentations Paul Balcombe, researcher at the Sustainable Gas Institute at the Imperial College London put his focus on fugitive emissions from oil and gas. Fugitive emissions refer to vents and leaks occurring throughout the whole supply chain starting from exploration, extraction and processing and ending with storage and distribution. His statistical analysis encompassing 1400 literature estimates showed that 50% of fugitive methane emissions are caused by only five percent of super emitting facilities. Using best available techniques (BAT) and installing effective equipment reduces this heavy tail distribution, but it doesn t eliminate it. More effective operation and maintenance will required to reduce super emitters further. 2. Waste Philip Longhurst, professor at the Cranfield University Centre for Bioenergy & Resource Management gave an overview about methane emissions in the waste sector. Methane emissions from when biodegradable waste is stored under anaerobic conditions, like in a landfill. Such biodegradable waste does not just include food and kitchen waste, but also paper, wood, garden and park waste as well as forestry and agricultural residues. Therefore avoiding, recycling (e.g. as compost) and separating waste (biowaste exclusion) are the first steps to take. At the same time these measures resonate well with the current EU policies already in place. For existing landfills, gas recollection is an option, which also provides biogas as an energy source. In his case study Mr Longhurst showed how improved management of existing landfill gas recollection programs can significantly increase the amount of biogas, which can be used for energy generation and simultaneously reduce GHG emissions. As future challenges, which could be addressed in a Union methane strategy Mr Longhurst highlighted (among other things) the maximisation of the separation of degradable and nondegradable products, but also the vulnerability of some landfill sites to flooding and landslide. 3. Agriculture Pierre-Marie Aubert, director of the food and agriculture policy programme at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) gave an overview about the methane emissions from the agricultural sector, which account for more than 50% of the EU s methane emissions. 3

4 There are two main sources of methane in the agricultural sector, namely manure and enteric fermentation. Enteric fermentation describes the natural digestion processes of ruminants such as cows, goats and sheep, however, the great majority of emissions originates from cows. It accounts for 80% of agricultural methane emissions (the rest coming from manure). The more technical approaches to reduce emissions from enteric digestion, such as genetic selection, feed selection, feed additives and antibiotics are currently in the initial stages of research, which is why Pierre-Marie suggested to take a more systemic approach. To address methane emissions from enteric digestions Pierre-Marie Aubert highlighted the importance of taking into account what the cow is fed. Grazing for instance brings cobenefits for the climate through higher carbon sequestrations in the soil, but also the avoidance of emissions from direct and indirect land use changes, which can for instance be associated to feeding soy. Collection and methanisation in digesters presents one option to mitigate methane emissions from manure, which can have co-benefits in producing nitrogen fertilizer. However, there are concerns about incentivising structural changes towards more intensive large scale agriculture. Additionally the digesters can t be operated on manure alone so the addition of e.g. maize grown only for this purpose might be necessary. Therefore respective policies need to be carefully designed in order to avoid the creation of perverse incentives. 4

5 III Panel debate Interventions from civil society: Why do we need a European methane strategy? The US methane strategy William Dow from the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) gave an overview about the US methane strategy. Initiated in June 2013 by the Obama administration the US methane strategy addressed emissions from landfills, agriculture, coal mining as well as oil and gas systems. It is largely based on voluntary measures involving the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, US Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. The strategy included partnerships with industries from all sectors. Aside from the federal methane strategy the states are also taking additional regulatory action. EDF is working together with oil and gas companies to reduce fugitive methane emissions thereby showing that reductions are not just feasible but also present an opportunity for industries. Organic farming Kurt Sannen, organic cattle farmer and representative of the BioForum Vlaanderen presented his opinions on a more sustainable agriculture. He strongly argued for a transition of our agriculture and food system and the multiple benefits organic farming can offer for climate protection, thereby echoing the presentation from Piere-Marie Aubert. Kurt explained how the solution is to consume less but better meat from cows that graze outside and thus produce not just meat and dairy but multiple co-benefits for the environment. Agriculture should be a zero input system using only soil, rain and sun light, and cows can be part of that solution, since organic manure management is a way to increase the carbon content in soil. On top of that, the water retention capacity of such organically managed soils is also much higher compared to conventionally managed soils. Furthermore, Mr Sannen pointed out that ruminants like cows and sheep should not be used to turn cereals into meat and dairy, but instead should be used on land that is not suitable for growing crops. With respect to the Common Agricultural Policy Mr Sannen said that its large amount of public money should be used to support public goods, such as the ones provided by organic agriculture. Interventions from Civil society representatives Marco Contiero, Director Agriculture at Greenpeace also stressed the importance of more systemic changes in the agricultural sector. End-of-pipe solutions will not be enough to achieve the EU s ambitious climate protection targets. Similarly, further intensification under the pretence of mitigating emissions will only create more conflicts by conflicting with other policy objectives, such as biodiversity, animal welfare and or vitalizing rural areas. A Union methane strategy therefore presents an opportunity to develop a more holistic approach. 5

6 Olga Kikou, European Affairs Manager at Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), pointed out that many approaches for an allegedly more climate friendly agriculture come at the cost of less animal welfare. Further intensification of animal production should be avoided and animals should be raised extensively with access to pasture, providing them the ability to express natural behaviours. Additionally, it should be noted that shifting diets from ruminants (cattle, goats and sheep) to monogastrics (chicken and pigs) would prove harmful for animal welfare, since the majority of these animals are raised in intensive systems, and the planet s resources, as vast areas of land are used to grow their feed. A significant reduction in consumption of animal products is a necessary measure for methane mitigation. Nikolai Pushkarev, Policy Coordinator at the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA), highlighted methane's risks to human health. Aside from the threats climate change poses to human health, methane is also a precursor for ground level ozone, an important air pollutant. Furthermore, he argued that no single country can tackle air pollution and climate change alone, bearing evidence to the European Union's added value to act on methane. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union is clear where the EU's priorities should lie: The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples. 6