Greenpeace EU: nuclear

Comment on EU summit discussion on energy

edavitt — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:41:00 +0200

Brussels, 22 May 2013 – Today, European leaders are meeting to discuss how the EU can ensure the supply of affordable, safe and sustainable energy. EU governments are keen to cut rising energy prices and are under pressure to back seemingly cheaper but extremely polluting fuels with expensive side-effects.

Greenpeace believes that the key to future competitive energy pricing and long-term security of supply for the EU lies with energy efficiency, renewables and a flexible energy system.

Greenpeace EU energy policy adviser Frederic Thoma said: “An EU energy policy that ignores long-term costs is like a restaurant that charges you less but doesn’t do the washing up – in the end somebody has to deal with the mess. Short-term thinking on energy is as unforgivable and as costly as short-term thinking on taxation or banking. An integrated European energy system should be built on a modern and smart grid that promotes the use of clean and safe energy sources, not a temporary, polluting waste of money that does nothing to secure our economy.”

Greenpeace welcomes the commitment from today’s Council to discuss a new framework for climate and energy policy for 2030 in March next year, and calls upon the Commission and ministers to come forward with proposals for strong binding targets for renewable energy, energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Greenpeace wants a renewable energy target of 45% and a greenhouse gas target of at least 55% domestic cuts by 2030.

Contacts:
Frederic Thoma - Greenpeace EU energy policy adviser: +32 (0) 486 401 895, Fred.Thoma@Greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584, Edward.Davitt@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties.

Report: EU_nuclear_stress_test_action_plan_review

edavitt — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:30:00 +0200

The nuclear stress tests announced after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 were supposed to be a transparent exercise to reduce the risk of nuclear energy in Europe. As a result of the EU stress tests, the countries with nuclear power stations worked out national action plans to address weaknesses that emerged during the two years of analysis.Report_EU_Stress_Tests_NAcPs

In May 2012, Greenpeace commissioned a study independently analysing the outcomes of the stress tests. A year later, one of the lead-authors of this study took a closer look to what extent the national action plans are indeed sufficiently addressing the identified concerns.

Briefing: Updated review of EU nuclear stress-tests

edavitt — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:30:00 +0200

Irish government unveils ‘trio’ EU presidency programme

mbreddy — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:45:00 +0100

Brussels – Today the Irish government laid out plans for its presidency of the Council of the European Union, which is due to begin on 1 January 2013. Statements today by Irish Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) and foreign minister Eamon Gilmore highlighted the need to focus on ‘jobs and growth’, but Greenpeace is concerned that the plans as outlined today still lack direction and fail to address the drain on the economy from expensive imports of natural resources. They also fail to recognise the opportunity for greater prosperity from the greening of the European economy across all sectors, warned Greenpeace.

The six-month presidency will allow Ireland to direct much of the policy focus of the Union for the first half of next year, within an 18-month joint 'trio' programme with the subsequent presidencies of Lithuania and Greece.

Greenpeace welcomes that the Irish presidency, as part of the trio programme, recognises that "the challenges posed by the current economic and financial situation cannot be addressed effectively in the long term without a continuing emphasis on green growth and resource efficiency" [1].

However, in a letter to Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Enda Kenny last week, Greenpeace joined nine other leading environmental NGOs in expressing concern about the lack of focus on how greening the economy can shape Europe's recovery and highlighting some of the areas where the Irish government needs to focus special attention [2]. Europe's energy policy is central to its economic future – the EU currently spends €1 billion a day on fossil fuel imports from places like the Middle East and Russia, despite the fact that the OECD and the EU's own 2020 strategy specifically underline the need for greater energy efficiency and independence if the EU is to stabilise its economic position. The recent EU Energy Revolution report from Greenpeace highlights the potential for 1.5 million jobs in a new, modern European energy system based on renewables, energy efficiency and sustainable, independent energy [3].

Greenpeace adviser for the Irish presidency Dónall Geoghegan said: "What Ireland promotes as its themes and priorities for the presidency is important. There needs to be focus on a more sustainable direction for Europe's economy. We hope that as detailed plans are worked out by the Irish presidency, emphasis will go into ways to pursue lasting economic benefits and sustainable employment from clean and efficient economic systems that produce sustainable jobs. There is a risk that without such focus, EU countries would once again subsidise old polluting technologies that will do nothing to solve the underlying problems in the European economy. The Irish presidency needs to focus on things that work and benefit everyone, not just the banks: paying less for fuel, saving energy and creating jobs with better insulation, and cutting food and resource waste."

Notes to editors:
[1] http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st17/st17426.en12.pdf
[2] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Global/eu-unit/reports-briefings/2011%20pubs/2012%20Nov-Dec/201212%20letter%20to%20Irish%20Taoiseach%20Enda%20Kenny.pdf
[3] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2012/ER-PR/

Contacts:
Dónall Geoghegan - Greenpeace adviser for the Irish presidency: +353 87 222 5691
Greenpeace EU pressdesk: +32 (0)2 2741911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

This press comment is also available on: www.greenpeace.eu
For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Green NGO letter to Taoiseach Enda Kenny on the Irish EU presidency

mbreddy — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:57:00 +0100

Letter on behalf of the Green 10.201212 letter to Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny

The Green 10 is the group of leading environmental NGOs active at EU level, with a combined membership of over 20 million citizens.

energy [r]evolution

jhunter — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:00:00 +0200

The 2012 EU Energy [R]evolution report, carried out for Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council by the German National Centre for Aerospace, Energy and Transport Research, demonstrates how Europe would gain nearly half a million extra energy sector jobs by 2020 if it prioritises a system largely made up of renewables and energy efficiency over nuclear power and fossil fuels. Other benefits include long-term savings for consumers and improved climate stability.E[R] 2012 lr

The expert consensus is that a fundamental shift in the way we consume and generate energy must begin immediately and be well underway within the next ten years in order to avert the worst impacts of climate change. The scale of the challenge requires a complete transformation of the way we produce, consume and distribute energy, while maintaining economic growth.

The five key principles behind this Energy [R]evolution will be to:

• Implement renewable solutions, especially through decentralised energy systems and grid expansions
• Respect the natural limits of the environment
• Phase out dirty, unsustainable energy sources
• Create greater equity in the use of resources
• Decouple economic growth from the consumption of fossil fuels

Decentralised energy systems, where power and heat are produced close to the point of final use, reduce grid loads and energy losses in distribution. Investments in 'climate infrastructure' such as smart interactive grids and transmission grids to transport large quantities of offshore wind and concentrated solar power are essential. Building up clusters of renewable micro grids, especially for people living in remote areas, will be a central tool in providing sustainable electricity to the almost two billion people around the world who currently do not have access to electricity.

The Reference scenario is based on the Current Policies scenarios published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in World Energy Outlook 2011 (WEO 2011). It only takes existing international energy and environmental policies into account.

As the IEA's projections only extend to 2035, they have been extended by extrapolating their key macroeconomic and energy indicators forward to 2050. This provides a baseline for comparison with the Energy [R]evolution scenario.

2030 renewables target key to unlocking European Energy [R]evolution

jhunter — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:00:00 +0200

Brussels – Europe could enjoy the broad benefits of an energy system powered from renewable sources by 2050, but must set a firm 2030 renewable energy target to steer the transition, according to a new report published today.

The 2012 EU Energy [R]evolution report, carried out for Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) by the German National Centre for Aerospace, Energy and Transport Research (DLR), demonstrates how Europe would gain nearly half a million extra energy sector jobs by 2020 if it prioritises a system largely made up of renewables and energy efficiency over nuclear power and fossil fuels. Other benefits include long-term savings for consumers, curbing energy demands and improved climate stability. The EU is already considering the post-2020 climate and energy policy landscape.

Greenpeace EU energy policy adviser Frederic Thoma said: “Renewable energy is the fastest growing energy source in Europe, largely thanks to an existing EU target. But we are quickly approaching a crucial crossroads, with more jobs, energy security and climate protection in one direction, and a growing dependency on expensive fossil fuels imports in the other. What we need now is a firm commitment at EU level to maintain the continent’s renewables revolution.”

Today, renewables provide 12.5 percent of Europe’s energy needs and are projected to meet the EU 20 percent target by 2020. The Energy [R]evolution foresees the renewables share increasing to over 40 percent by 2030 and 90 percent by 2050.

Greenpeace International senior energy expert Sven Teske said: “Every €1 rise in the price of oil costs Europeans over €400 million a month. By refocusing its energy system, the EU can cut that this dependency almost in half by 2030. Renewable energy, combined with efficiency standards for cars and buildings, will revitalise our societies and save billions of euros.”

Greenpeace and EREC are calling for a binding 2030 renewable energy target of 45 percent. They also want to see a swift phase-out of subsidies for nuclear energy and fossil fuels.

EREC secretary general Josche Muth said: “Nearly half a million extra energy sector jobs will be gained by 2020 if we chose to prioritise a system largely made up of renewables and energy efficiency. Clear administrative procedures, stable and reliable support and easier access to capital are vital to achieving this ambition. But to create investor confidence and stimulate further innovation, policy clarity post-2020 is needed. This will not only help the EU tackle the economic crisis, but bring us on a long-term sustainability path to 2050.”

The Energy [R]evolution report estimates that the costs of building a power system based on renewables and efficiency (power being more accurate than energy for estimating costs) would be compensated two-fold through the €3 trillion of fuel cost savings that would be accrued between 2011 and 2050.

For the 2012 EU Energy [R]evolution click here.

Contacts:
Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 2741911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org
EREC Communication and Policy Officer Eleanor Smith: +32 (0)2 400 1081, smith@erec.org

You can also find this press release on: www.greenpeace.eu
For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Nuclear stress tests find serious safety problems, but still only scratch the surface

jhunter — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:53:00 +0200

So-called ‘stress tests’ of Europe’s nuclear plants have revealed serious safety problems across the continent, but avoided asking some of the most difficult questions, Greenpeace said.

The European Commission is today expected to publish its assessment of tests carried out by European nuclear plant operators and regulators on the continent’s nuclear power plants following the Fukushima disaster. These have revealed hundreds of problems, including four reactors that would have under an hour to restore safety functions if a power blackout occurred. Ten reactors were found not to have proper equipment to detect earthquakes. The Commission estimates that the cost of addressing these failures could be up to €25 billion.

But the exercise dodged major questions such as the threat from terrorism, plane crashes, off-site emergency plans, and the same multiple disaster scenarios that sparked the Fukushima crisis and the stress tests in the first place, Greenpeace said. The tests also ignored the age of plants and so missed suspected cracks in ageing reactor vessels that led to two Belgian reactors being shut down in recent months [1].

Greenpeace spokesperson Mark Breddy said: “It’s not surprising that the tests, though limited, have uncovered major concerns. Nuclear power is inherently risky and failures, accidents and close calls happen all the time. But there are serious safety issues that the stress tests haven’t looked into. EU governments must act fast by shutting down the oldest and most risky plants and by ordering more thorough testing on the remaining plants.”

About half of Europe’s nuclear plants are of particular concern, either because they lack secondary radioactive containment, because they are in earthquake zones, or because the reactors are old [2].

EU heads of state and government are expected to discuss the Commission assessment at a meeting in Brussels on 18 and 19 October. Greenpeace believes nuclear power should be rapidly phased out in favour of renewables and energy efficiency. The European Commission predicts renewables will become the major power source for the EU in its recent 2050 energy roadmap [3].

To find out more about the shortcomings of the stress tests, see: Nuclear stress tests - flaws, blind spotsand complacency

Notes for editors:

[1] For more information, click here.
[2] For more information, click here.
[3] For more information, click here.

Contact: Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

This press release is also available on www.greenepeace.eu

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Green groups: no medals in sight for Barroso II

jhunter — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:30:00 +0200

Brussels – Halfway through its term in office, the European Commission is falling behind in the race to create sustainable long-term prosperity in Europe, warn Europe’s leading green groups in a critical assessment of the Commission’s environmental performance since 2010.

The report released today finds that the Commission has so far acted to protect the environment even less than the first Barroso Commission [1], according to environmental organisations.

Unless it changes track, the Barroso II Commission could have one of the worst ever environmental records, said the Green 10 coalition [2].

The report, inspired by a topical Olympic theme, assesses progress in nine EU policy fields with impacts on the environment and reviews the track record of 13 European Commissioners and Commission President José Manuel Barroso. Each policy field is given a mark out of ten based on two main factors: environmental ambition and the extent of environmental issues that the Commission has addressed.

Faced with the breakdown of an economic system operating beyond planetary limits, the Commission has so far lacked the courage to propose legislation for a new, sustainable economy and has continued to favour short-term fixes over long-term solutions for people’s health and the planet, said green groups. Despite encouraging statements on the need for a smart, inclusive and sustainable economy, the Commission has so far failed to harness the potential for environmental policies to create jobs, improve health and reduce energy and resource use. Industry lobbyists have continued to pull the strings on many political files, leading to woefully inadequate policies, according to the Green 10.

While the Commission has in some measure recognised the environmental, health and economic impact of enduring problems linked to resource depletion, pollution and ecological destruction, swifter action is required. Its flagship reform proposals on EU fisheries and agriculture policies would not put an end to industrial overfishing, nor halt animal and plant extinctions, nor soil, water and food pollution from pesticides. The Commission therefore only scores a 3.5/10 on agriculture and a 4.5/10 on fisheries.

The Commission has acknowledged the economic and environmental rewards offered by clean energy and transport and an end to fossil fuel subsidies. But its mixed record on energy policy has not delivered clear measures to bring Europe closer to a modern energy system built around renewables and efficiency, and free from expensive energy imports and polluting greenhouse gases. Failure to live up to its own rhetoric has contributed to another low score of 4.5/10 for energy policy.

The Green 10 assessment includes a series of policy-specific recommendations for the remaining two-and-a-half years of the Commission’s term that will help Europe successfully tackle the economic, climate and resource challenges facing the continent.

To download the Green 10 report, click here.

Versions of this press release are available in French and German.

Notes to editors:
[1] To view the Green 10 assessment of the outgoing Barroso Commission in 2009, click here.
[2] The Green 10 is an alliance of ten of the largest European environmental organisations and networks, with a membership of over 20 million people. www.green10.org

For media enquiries: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

Off Their Game

jhunter — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:30:00 +0200

This report is a mid-term assessment of the environmental performance of the Barroso II European Commission, covering the period from early 2010 to mid-2012. It is issued by the Green10, a platform of environmental organisations active at EU level, with a membership of over 20 million EU citizens.

Individual sections in this report summarise the Commission’s activities in different policy areas and set out our recommendations for the remainder of its term in office. We have also briefly assessed the performance of many European Commissionersand the Commission President.

For a print version, click here.

For a screen version, click here.

Ministers recognise need for a clean, efficient energy system but fail to show the way

jhunter — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:43:00 +0200

Brussels/Luxembourg - Energy ministers today recognised the need for substantially more renewable power and energy efficiency as the basis for Europe’s energy future, but fell short of a clear call for action. Poland alone did not support the agreement.

Discussing the European Commission's 2050 energy roadmap proposal during an energy council in Brussels, ministers formally recognised that three "no regrets" elements should be integral to Europe's long-term energy strategy - smart and flexible energy infrastructure; increased energy efficiency; a substantially higher share of renewables.

They called on the Commission to propose a policy framework for the period to 2030 based on these options. But a framework is not a firm enough basis to encourage strong energy investments, Greenpeace said.

Greenpeace EU energy policy director Frauke Thies said: "While some countries are still trying to give a lifeline to risky and dirty nuclear and fossil technologies, ministers could not help but conclude that renewables, efficiency and a flexible energy system are the three essential elements for a clean and secure energy supply for Europe. But instead of calling for ambitious 2030 targets in these areas, they only made a vague appeal for a policy framework."

"The longer the Polish government sticks to its current position, the longer its citizens and economy will miss out on the benefits of a clean and lean energy system," Thies added.

Ends

A briefing outlining how Poland's coal-dependence is not a given, but a result of misguided energy policies and neglected opportunities is available here.

Contacts
Greenpeace EU energy policy director Frauke Thies: +32 (0) 477 790 415 Frauke.Thies@Greenpeace.org
Greenpeace media officer Jack Hunter: +32 (0)476 988 584 Jack.Hunter@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Nuclear stress tests in Europe – the results are in

jhunter — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:29:00 +0200

Brussels - Fifteen months after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, European energy ministers will tomorrow for the first time consider the outcome of ‘stress tests’ for nuclear power plants during their Energy Council meeting.

Greenpeace commissioned independent experts to analyse elements of the regulators’ stress test report. The researchers found:

Alarming shortfalls in back-up power for nuclear plants, including multiple reactors relying on single emergency diesel generators in case of disaster. Some plants were found to be incapable of handling challenging earthquake or flood conditions. Radiation shielding was woefully inadequate in dangerous spent fuel storage across the continent.

Testers have ignored multiple disaster scenarios, like that at Fukushima. Most also ignored plane crashes and all ignored emergency evacuation plans, despite the fact plants are as close as 10 kilometres to European cities.

There is little consistency in the findings, making comparison between plants difficult or impossible.

The research findings can be found in a briefing here. The research is complemented with independent calculations (maps) showing how nuclear clouds could spread across Europe following a severe nuclear accident.

Greenpeace energy campaigner Roger Spautz said: “If these tests were meant to raise confidence in nuclear power, they’ve done the opposite. Difficult questions have quietly been dropped, including those relating to the kind of disaster scenarios we saw in Japan. If they want a genuine picture of nuclear risk, governments should send back the report with a note saying ‘more stress needed’.”

Commissioner Oettinger pledged that stress tests would be uniform, thorough, exhaustive, and based on Fukushima lessons and other threats. Plants that ‘fail’ should be shut down, he has told Der Spiegel. The Commission plans to present a communication on these results in the autumn.

Ends

Contacts

Greenpeace energy campaigner Roger Spautz +352 621 233 361 Roger.Spautz@Greenpeace.org
Greenpeace media officer Jack Hunter: +32 (0)476 988 584 Jack.Hunter@Greenpeace.org

Nuclear Stress Tests - flaws, blind spots and complacency

jhunter — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 05:00:00 +0200

Greenpeace hired independent consultants to analyse the results of 'stress tests' carried out on nuclear plants in Europe. They came to some alarming conclusions, summarised in this briefing.

Fifteen months after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, European energy ministers will this week consider the outcome of ‘stress tests’ carried out on Europe's nuclear power plants.

Independent analysis of the stress test results revealed the following headline threats:

Alarming shortfalls in back-up power for nuclear plants, including multiple reactors relying on single emergency diesel generators in case of disaster. Some plants were found to be incapable of handling challenging earthquake or flood conditions. Radiation shielding was woefully inadequate in dangerous spent fuel storage across the continent.

Testers have ignored multiple disaster scenarios, like that at Fukushima. Most also ignored plane crashes and all ignored emergency evacuation plans, despite the fact plants are as close as 10 kilometres to European cities.

There is little consistency in the findings, making comparison between plants difficult or impossible.

The research focuses on example nuclear plants in Belgium, Sweden, France, the UK, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, Slovenia and Spain. The research is complemented by independent calculations (maps) showing how nuclear clouds could spread across Europe following a severe nuclear accident.

Nuclear Stress Tests - flaws, blind spots and complacency

For a copy of the full consultancy report, click here.

Renewables surge ahead – time for energy ministers to back the winning horse

jhunter — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:30:00 +0200

EU energy ministers should start preparing for ever more renewable power when they discuss long-term energy plans at an informal meeting in Denmark today and tomorrow, Greenpeace said.

With renewables booming and nuclear power in terminal decline, energy ministers should back the clear favourite in discussions around the EU 2050 energy roadmap, the environmental group said.

Renewables are rocketing and made up over half of all newly installed electricity capacity in the EU from 2000 to 2011 [1]. Costs are falling rapidly, with electricity from onshore wind turbines down by about 75 percent since 1984 [2] and electricity from solar down 75 percent since 2000 [3].

Meanwhile, nuclear capacity in Europe shrank by eight percent from 2000 to 2011 to only 14 percent of total power generation capacity [4]. Costs for nuclear have consistently risen since the 1970s [5]. Electricity from new French-designed reactors are predicted to be higher than prices for wind and solar in most locations[6]. This doesn’t take into account the full costs of nuclear liability, long-term waste storage or decommissioning.

The European Commission points to renewables forming the backbone of any future energy system at no extra cost. Its EU Energy Roadmap 2050 predicts the share of renewable energy will rise to at least 55 percent, while for electricity, renewables could meet nearly 100 percent of demand by 2050 [7].

Greenpeace EU energy policy director Frauke Thies said: “Renewables are surging ahead in the technology race. Nuclear power is the old horse at the back of the pack that can only watch the renewables thoroughbred racing past to a two-length lead. It is obvious which horse energy ministers should back for a brighter energy future.”

-----

Ministers will also discuss the ailing European carbon market.

Greenpeace EU climate policy director Joris den Blanken said: “The carbon market is said to be Europe’s ‘flagship’ climate tool, but it is a flagship that’s flooded with excess credits and taking us nowhere. To avoid a titanic loss of face, ministers need to signal a purge of surplus credits that are preventing the market from doing its job.”

Ends

Notes
[1] See www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/statistics/Stats_2011.pdf
[2] According to Bloomberg, prices fell from €200 per megawatt hour (MWh) in 1984 to about €52 per MWh in 2011. See: www.bnef.com/PressReleases/view/172
[3] According to the International Energy Agency, prices have fallen by 75 percent to around €200 per MWh today, and projected to decrease to between €80 and €170 per MWh by 2020. See: www.energetics.com/resourcecenter/products/studies/Documents/iea_progress_metrics_report.pdf
[4] See www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/statistics/Stats_2011.pdf
[5] See www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL[1].pdf [6] Electricity generation costs over the lifetime of the plant based on US Department of Energy cost methodology and data, with capital costs updated to current market prices. See also: www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/nuclear/2012/EPR/399%20-%20EPR%20reportDEF-LR.pdf.
[7] See www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2011/2050-energy-roadmap/

Contacts
Greenpeace EU energy policy director Frauke Thies: +32 (0) 477 790 415 Frauke.Thies@Greenpeace.orgGreenpeace media officer Jack Hunter: +32 (0)476 988 584 Jack.Hunter@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Briefing on the European Citizens' Initiative

jhunter — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:00:00 +0200

A concise two page briefing on the European Citizens' Initiative.

201203 BR ECI

The Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in December 2009, enshrines the right for a million Europeans to petition the European Commission and require it to draft legislation on the basis of their demands (or justify its refusal to do so). This right is known as the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI).

In December 2010, Greenpeace and Avaaz submitted a one million signature ECI in accordance with the rules established by EU treaties (http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2010/first-citizens-initiative/). The ECI was in response to the first authorisation by the Commission in March 2010 for the cultivation of a genetically modified (GM) crop in Europe in 12 years. This authorisation was in direct breach of a request by all 27 member states for a review of the approval system for GM crops. It also raised serious health and environmental concerns. The ECI therefore called for a moratorium on all new authorisations and a review of the GM approval process.

On 1 April 2012, new operating rules on the work-ings of the ECI will come into force. This briefing clarifies Greenpeace’s position on the ECI and the status of the initiative on GM crops.

Danish EU presidency - Greenpeace priorities for the environment

mbreddy — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:39:00 +0100

Denmark will take the helm of the Council of the European Union from January 2012 at a crucial time for the future of Europe and its citizens. As government cuts start to bite and the debt and Euro-zone crises unfold, Europeans continue to be concerned about the environment. A recent survey found that 95% of Europeans think that environmental protection is important (Eurobarometer, June 2011). Over three quarters also believe that environmental measures would help boost economic growth.120101 Danish EU presidency priorities

The new Danish government will lead the political debate on fundamental issues that will help determine whether Europe banks on short-term financial gain at a great environmental cost or whether it favours long-lasting economic and environmental recovery supported by innovation, resource efficiency and clean development.

This paper briefly highlights some of the main environmental issues that will feature prominently on the EU agenda during the Danish EU presidency. These include: the future make-up of the EU energy sector; Europe’s impact on the world’s oceans; the freedom of Europeans to choose how their food is produced; and the elimination of toxic pollution in Europe’s waterways.

Commission progress report on nuclear stress tests – emergency plans ignored

jhunter — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:16:00 +0100

The European Commission is tomorrow expected to publish a progress report on nuclear power station stress tests. The latest publicly available data reveals that the tests have entirely ignored evacuation plans for towns and cities near nuclear plants. Most have not looked at multiple reactor failure, which is what happened at Fukushima, or the threat from crashes by large aircraft.

Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser Jan Haverkamp said: “The Japanese
nuclear disaster scared Europe into probing its own plants for weaknesses,
though now it seems these tests contain major gaps. Emergency plans are
one. The Japanese authorities were ill prepared to evacuate around
Fukushima. Europe should be carrying out an in depth scrutiny of its own
plans.”

The European Union has 19 nuclear power stations within 30 kilometres of
towns and cities of 100,000 or more inhabitants.

An interactive Google map with test results for every EU nuclear power
station is available here.

To date, most regulators have failed to disclose final operator reports to
the public, despite being urged to do so by the European Nuclear Safety
Regulators Group, the group that designed the stress tests.

Ends

Contacts
Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser Jan Haverkamp +32 4777 90416
Jan.Haverkamp@Greenpeace.org
Greenpeace EU press officer Jack Hunter +32 476988584
Jack.Hunter@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to
change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and
to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments,
the EU, businesses or political parties.

Nuclear stress test map reveals alarming gaps in results

jhunter — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:30:00 +0200

Brussels, 27 October 2011 – Greenpeace today presented a map [1] allowing citizens in every European country to see how nuclear plants fared under ‘stress tests’.

After the Fukushima disaster in Japan, Brussels told all nuclear power plant operators to carry out tests, hand over and publish the results by 31 October. They are meant to see whether plants can stand up to extreme scenarios, including earthquakes, floods, loss of power and cooling.

To date, several regulators had failed to disclose the results to the public, despite being urged to do so by European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, the group that designed the tests [2].

Early Greenpeace analysis of the 10,000 or so published report pages [3] revealed missing results. Multiple-reactor failure that struck at Fukushima was supposed to be examined, but is missing from results. The threat of airplane crashes were also a promised part of tests, but are largely ignored.

Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser Jan Haverkamp said: “Fukushima taught us to think the unthinkable and these tests have forced plant managers to do a little of that. But there are major blind spots - why are evacuation plans for towns and cities ignored; why is reactor age not properly considered; why did the authorities promise, but fail to look at the danger of multiple-reactor failure and large airplane crashes?”

Where national regulators are more independent from operators and therefore more rigorous, tests were more thorough. Others have failed to publish substantial information, including the Czech Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Czech Republic submitted a seven page report on its six reactors, compared to Slovenia’s 177 page report on its single reactor.

Following the Monday deadline, the European Commission will prepare an interim report for the meeting of EU energy ministers of 9 December 2011.

Ends

Notes
[1] The map is available for publication here http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=216439168024541302060.0004b03025c31b94269a1&msa=0&ll=49.296472,9.536133&spn=14.68678,28.256836

[2] The European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group stress test specifications, adopted unanimously by national regulators in May 2011, urges the publication of all operator and regulator reports. See www.ensreg.eu/node/286.

[3] The map is based on an initial analysis of >10,000 official report pages, partly interim operator reports submitted by 15 August, but mostly interim regulator reports submitted by 15 September.

New EU rules for nuclear waste open the door to dumping in Russia

mbreddy — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:50:00 +0200

European countries today agreed to develop plans to address the ever-growing problem of nuclear waste. However, the EU also agreed to continue the dangerous practice of transporting radioactive material across great distances to storage plants outside EU borders.

EU ministers rubber stamped new rules obliging governments to publish plans by 2015 detailing their preferred options to store or reprocess radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. Some countries that generate nuclear waste, such as Bulgaria, Slovakia and Spain, had so far been reluctant to put together comprehensive plans.

Despite pressure from the European Commission to block exports, the new rules will allow Hungary and Bulgaria, countries that currently have agreements for the export of nuclear waste to Russia, to continue transferring radioactive material.

Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser Jan Haverkamp said: “European governments have adopted an out of sight, out of mind approach to radioactive waste, but all they are doing is dumping the long-term problem on someone else and putting Europeans at risk by allowing dangerous waste convoys. Only countries that face the unsolvable problem of radioactive waste head-on by ending their reliance on nuclear power can stop the vicious circle that shifts responsibility to the next generations.”

For more information on nuclear waste storage technologies:
Greenpeace briefing: The deadly legacy of nuclear waste
Greenpeace report: Rock Solid? A scientific review of geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste

Contacts:
Jan Haverkamp – Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser: +32 (0)477 790 416 (mobile), jan.haverkamp@greenpeace.org
Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications manager: +32 496 156 229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties.

Despite pressure from the European Commission to block exports, the new rules will allow Hungary and Bulgaria, countries that currently have agreements for the export of nuclear waste to Russia, to continue transferring radioactive material.

Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser Jan Haverkamp said: “European governments have adopted an out of sight, out of mind approach to radioactive waste, but all they are doing is dumping the long-term problem on someone else and putting Europeans at risk by allowing dangerous waste convoys. Only countries that face the unsolvable problem of radioactive waste head-on by ending their reliance on nuclear power can stop the vicious circle that shifts responsibility to the next generations.”

For more information on nuclear waste storage technologies:

Greenpeace briefing: The deadly legacy of nuclear waste, http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Global/eu-unit/reports-briefings/2010/7/deadly-legacy-radioactive-waste.pdf

Greenpeace report: Rock Solid? A scientific review of geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste, http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2010/rock-solid-a-scientific-review

Contacts:

Jan Haverkamp – Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser: +32 (0)477 790 416 (mobile), jan.haverkamp@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications manager: +32 496 156 229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org

This press release is also available on www.greenpeace.eu

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Hidden Consequences - The costs of industrial water pollution on people, planet and profit

jhunter — Wed, 25 May 2011 13:53:00 +0200

Industrial pollution is a severe threat to water resources around the world, particularly in the Global South where the view prevails that pollution is the price to pay for progress. The only way to address these hidden dangers in our water is through a preventative approach: Taking action to phase out the use and discharge of hazardous chemicals, rather than attempting to control the damage with end-of-pipe treatment methods.Hidden Consequences

Greenpeace's call for 'zero discharge' is built upon three decades of exposing and addressing the problems of hazardous chemicals. Case studies from the Global North show the extent to which persistant and bioaccumulative chemicals have contaminated entire regions. If we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past, then we are doomed to repeat them. This is especially the case in those regions of the world where much chemical and manufacturing production has now relocated - namely, Asia and the wider Global South.

Greenpeace is calling on governments to adopt a political commitment to 'zero discharge' of all hazardous chemicals within one generation, based on the precautionary principle and a preventative approach to chemicals management.

Europe to get nuclear 'stress tests lite'

jhunter — Wed, 25 May 2011 07:30:00 +0200

Brussels, 25 May 2011 – Agreement on the content of ‘stress tests’ for Europe’s nuclear power stations between the European Commission and European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group will be announced this morning.

Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser Jan Haverkamp said: “Europe looks set to get ‘stress tests-lite’ for its aging nuclear power stations. These won’t be independent, won’t cover plans for emergencies and won’t always tell us whether some of Europe’s most obvious terrorist targets are protected or not. Pro-nuclear governments from the UK, France and the Czech Republic are responsible for watering down the deal.”

Contacts:
Jan Haverkamp – Greenpeace EU nuclear energy policy:
+32 (0)477 790 416 (mobile), jan.haverkamp@greenpeace.org
Jack Hunter – Greenpeace EU media officer:
+32 496 156 229 (mobile), jack.hunter@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties.

More ‘stress’ needed to European nuclear safety tests

jhunter — Thu, 12 May 2011 08:42:00 +0200

Brussels, 12 May 2011 – Options for so-called “stress tests” on Europe’s nuclear power plants will be discussed today by the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group and the European Commission.

After the recent disaster in Japan, European heads of state agreed that the "highest safety standard" should be applied to all nuclear reactors in Europe and beyond [1]. The Commission asked the Western European Nuclear Regulatory Association to draw up the stress tests, but its proposals give control of the tests to nuclear plant operators [2].

Greenpeace said today’s discussion could lead to tests that are little more than a fig leaf for business as usual.

Greenpeace EU nuclear policy adviser Jan Haverkamp said: “What national nuclear regulators appear to want from stress tests is a largely toothless paper-shuffling exercise. Commissioner Oettinger must step in and try to really address nuclear safety.”

Greenpeace said stress tests should be carried out independently and transparently, be mandatory, comprehensive and lead to the rapid closure of those plants that fail.

ACEI letter

ACEI — Mon, 09 May 2011 13:13:00 +0200

ACEI letterACEI letter

21 January 2010

BP position letter

BP — Mon, 09 May 2011 13:12:00 +0200

BP position letterBP position letter 30%

20 April 2011

BE Letter to President Schauvliege

BE — Mon, 09 May 2011 13:09:00 +0200

BE Letter to President SchauvliegeBE letter to pres

11 Oct 2010