OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Environmental Defense Fund Europe

EDFE

Environmental Defense Fund Europe uses science and economics to solve environmental problems.

Lobbying Activity

Environmental Defense Fund Europe seeks ambitious EU circularity targets

6 Nov 2025
Topic — The consultation addresses a new framework for EU resource efficiency and competitiveness.
Message — The organization calls for measurable circularity targets and financial incentives like reduced VAT for recycled products. They also suggest expanding the Innovation Fund to support resource-saving projects.12
Why — Circular policies would foster new business innovation and high-value economic opportunities across Europe.3
Impact — Industries relying on virgin resources would face increased costs through new environmental pricing.45
Read full response

Response to Revision of the EU’s energy security framework

13 Oct 2025

Environmental Defense Fund Europes Response to the Call for Evidence on the EU Energy Security Framework (revision) 13 October 2025 Environmental Defense Fund Europe (EDFE) welcomes the European Commissions initiative to revise the EU energy security framework. As European countries face rising energy security pressures and intensifying climate risks, the fastest way to reconcile both is by cutting methane emissions. The EU Methane Regulation anchors this effort serving as both a climate safeguard and energy security measure by reducing methane emissions while also increasing transparency for the EUs fossil fuel supplies. EDFEs is sharing the following key considerations for the review of the EUs energy security supply framework, supported by Rystad analytics (attached): 1) Ample global LNG supply gives the EU leverage to set global environmental and transparency standards 2) Robust implementation of the EU Methane Regulation will strengthen EU energy security 3) Leverage energy transparency to enhance energy security 4) Methane abatement is a tool in the EUs toolbox for energy resilience The attached full statement details these points which are supported by a Rystad study attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Ditte Juul-Joergensen (Director-General Energy)

22 Sept 2025 · EU Methane Regulation

Meeting with Taru Haapaniemi (Cabinet of Commissioner Christophe Hansen) and Danone and BEL

20 May 2025 · Methane reduction efforts in the Livestock Workstream

Meeting with Sven Gentner (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

28 Mar 2025 · Omnibus and ESRS revision

Meeting with Kitti Nyitrai (Head of Unit Energy)

25 Mar 2025 · MethaneSAT data presentation

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

14 Mar 2025 · Security of Energy Supply

Meeting with Dan Jørgensen (Commissioner)

11 Mar 2025 · Energy situation in US and Europe

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Jan 2025 · Exchange on follow up of the Gas and Hydrogen market dircetive and the Methane Regulation

Meeting with Lena Schilling (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Dec 2024 · Methan Emissions

Environmental Defense Fund urges stricter climate accounting for low-carbon hydrogen

25 Oct 2024
Topic — EU methodology for certifying greenhouse gas emission savings from low-carbon fuels.
Message — The organization requests five changes: include hydrogen emissions using GWP100 value of 6, increase default methane emission rates to 3%, account for midstream methane emissions, base CCS credits on actual sequestration rather than capture rates, and review these standards by 2028.1234
Why — This would prevent low-carbon hydrogen from receiving undeserved market premiums that undermine renewable alternatives.56
Impact — Climate goals lose as inaccurate accounting could certify hydrogen delivering only 32-68% savings instead of required 70%.7
Read full response

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

3 Apr 2024 · Exchange on hydrogen and methane emissions and the priorities for the upcoming elections

Environmental Defense Fund demands explicit BPA ban in food plastics

7 Mar 2024
Topic — Proposed EU regulations aim to restrict bisphenol A and other bisphenols in packaging.
Message — The group supports the regulation but requests that Article 3 explicitly prohibit polycarbonate plastics. They argue this is necessary to ensure compliance throughout the food production chain.12
Why — Clearer restrictions would lower the population's exposure to chemicals damaging human health.3
Impact — Food manufacturers using polycarbonate plastics would face more rigorous and detectable compliance requirements.45
Read full response

Response to Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) – compiling data on farm sustainability

19 Feb 2024

The FSDN once implemented will begin to generate valuable benchmarked data about the aggregated environmental performance of holdings and significant OGA. The FSDN has significant potential to be a useful tool for supporting efforts to move towards climate neutrality across the agri-food value chain and mitigating risks of heterogenous approaches to measurement. However this depends on the relevant aggregate data on climate impacts being made available when and where useful in timely manner, in an efficient and simplified way to the right stakeholders. This goes beyond parties engaged in academic research, but needs to encompass especially pilot schemes and ground-truthing emission-reduction and adaptation initiatives with farmers in real-world settings - and particularly where the aim is improving livelihoods within frameworks of improved and fairer contractual relations. In order to better achieve the objective stated in preamble 17 of the regulation, Environmental Defense Fund Europe makes drafting proposals accompanied by justifications in the accompanying document, in order to make the relevant data more accessible and useful.
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

10 Nov 2023 · Methane

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

18 Oct 2023 · Meth

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

5 Oct 2023 · Methane

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Climate Action Network Europe and

21 Sept 2023 · Methane

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

27 Jul 2023 · Exchange on the Methane Regulation (staff level)

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

12 Jul 2023 · Exchange on the gas market directive (staff level)

Environmental Defense Fund urges mandatory climate disclosure rules

3 Jul 2023
Topic — Consultation on standards specifying how companies must report their sustainability performance.
Message — Re-state the mandatory status of the core set of climate metrics. Align mandatory reporting indicators with SFDR to avoid unnecessary complexity for investors.12
Why — Standardised requirements would increase comparability and data assurance for environmental monitors.34
Impact — Investors and citizens lose access to reliable and meaningful sustainability information.5
Read full response

Meeting with Mick Wallace (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

30 Mar 2023 · Methane regulation

Meeting with Joanna Stawowy (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

20 Mar 2023 · EDF Europe’s new EU Agriculture Program

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

14 Feb 2023 · Reducing methane emissions

Meeting with Aleksandra Tomczak (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

7 Feb 2023 · GHG emissions from hydrogen value chain

Meeting with Mick Wallace (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

14 Oct 2022 · Methane regulation

Meeting with Aleksandra Tomczak (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and European University Institute

12 Sept 2022 · EU action and communication on the importance of methane emissions mitigation

Meeting with Jens Geier (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BDEW Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e. V. and

31 Aug 2022 · Vorschlag einer Verordnung über die Verringerung von Methanemissionen im Energiesektor

Response to Greenhouse gas emissions savings methodology for recycled carbon fuels and renewable fuels of non-biological origin

17 Jun 2022

Environmental Defense Fund Europe welcomes the publication of the Delegated Act setting out a methodology for assessing greenhouse gas emission savings for RFNBOs and recycled carbon fuels. We believe that renewable hydrogen can play an important role in the EU economy and these rules will be crucial to be able to maximise its benefits. If done right, hydrogen has the potential to contribute to multiple objectives, including energy security and decarbonisation. It is important to set a framework that allows the simultaneous realisation of these potential benefits without prioritizing one over the other. With that in mind, Environmental Defense Fund Europe would like to make the following recommendations: 1. Account for and quantify all direct and indirect greenhouse gases Article 14 of the Annex A to the Delegated Act foresees that only direct GHGs, more specifically CO2, N2O and CH4, are taken into account in the calculations, which could lead to the underestimation of impacts on the climate. We especially call for the inclusion of hydrogen that is a potent indirect greenhouse gas and also prone to leakage due to its small molecule size. Hydrogen does not trap heat directly but can contribute to climate change through a series of chemical reactions that increase the amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Recent research, including by the Environmental Defense Fund, shows that in the short-term hydrogen is over 30 times more powerful at causing warming than CO2 for equal mass. It is therefore important to account for hydrogen emissions, including both intended venting and unintended leakage. 2. Account for both near and longer-term climate impacts Article 14 of Annex A requires the evaluation of climate impacts only on a 100-year time horizon, using the Global Warming Potential (GWP) 100 metrics. This will very likely lead to the underestimation of climate impacts linked to the emission of short-lived direct and indirect greenhouse gases such as methane and hydrogen. Because these gases do not stay in the atmosphere for very long, relying solely on GWP100 risks overlooking their short-term potency while they are still affecting the climate . As a specific example, based on a recent report commissioned by the UK government, over 20 years hydrogen has 33 times the global warming potential of an equal amount of carbon dioxide, while over 100 years, hydrogen’s GWP is only 11 (+/- 5), about a third of its short-term potency. We therefore recommend evaluating the climate impacts over multiple time horizons, including at least over 20 and 100 years. 3. Account for all emissions along the entire value chain The methodology put forward in Article 1 of Annex A excludes emissions arising in relation to hydrogen compression and distribution. In our view this is a missed opportunity for encouraging the development of robust and accurate monitoring and leak detection tools, which are very much needed in order to better understand the potential scope and implications of hydrogen leakage. There is a high leakage risk and consequently negative impacts on the climate, if hydrogen is transported through infrastructure that was designed to contain larger molecules. The problem has been acknowledged by a range of stakeholders, including industry representatives . However, existing technology is not capable of accurately measuring small hydrogen leakage that may not pose a safety concern but could matter for the climate in the aggregate, hence there is an urgent need to accelerate R&I efforts targeting this problem. The Delegated Act can serve as an extra stimulus in that regard, provided it stipulates the evaluation of emissions along the entire supply chain, including during compression and distribution. We believe that with an appropriate transition period during which the necessary technology can be developed, this requirement will help ensure the climate positive deployment of hydrogen. EDF latest research attached below.
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur-, Tier- und Umweltschutzverbände (DNR) e.V. and STEAG GmbH

2 May 2022 · Methane regulation

Environmental group urges stricter climate accounting for EU hydrogen

12 Apr 2022
Topic — EU directive establishing market rules for renewable gases and hydrogen.
Message — The organization requests that the directive include methodological principles for assessing hydrogen's climate impact. They want assessments to account for all direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions throughout the full lifecycle, evaluated over multiple timescales. They also urge prioritizing hydrogen deployment for hard-to-decarbonize sectors rather than buildings.123
Why — This would ensure hydrogen development aligns with their climate protection mission.45
Impact — Natural gas and hydrogen suppliers face stricter emissions accounting and restrictions on residential markets.6
Read full response

Meeting with Nils Torvalds (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Feb 2022 · ETS and FuelEU Maritime

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

21 Jan 2022 · Exchange on the EDF’s and the Green Deal’s priorities

Meeting with Mick Wallace (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

21 Sept 2021 · Methane regulation

Response to Green Recovery for the Blue Economy (tentative)

7 Dec 2020

Please see attached file for EDF comments.
Read full response

Response to Updating the EU Emissions Trading System

25 Nov 2020

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Environmental Defense Fund Europe (EDFE) thank the European Commission for the opportunity to comment on the Commission’s update on the EU’s emissions trading system (EU ETS). Climate leadership from the EU could leverage greater ambition from the rest of the world in urgent need of raising their climate commitments and send a clear message to radically ramp up global climate action if we were to mitigate against the most damaging impacts of climate change. In that context, it is important that the EU includes shipping in the EU ETS to support the emissions reductions necessary for shipping to contribute to the EU’s proposed 2030 emissions reduction target. We also welcome the vote of the European Parliament supporting this. At a time when industries need to be on a firm path to decarbonisation, shipping emissions are increasing. The International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO’s) Fourth Greenhouse Gas (GHG) study showed the sector’s emissions grew by 9.6% between 2012 and 2018. Under a business as usual scenario, the IMO projects emissions to increase by 90-130% by 2050, compared to 2008 levels. That projection assumes that other sectors, such as land transport and aviation, reduce their emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals, which will result in a significant drop in demand for fossil fuels and their sea-borne transport and related emissions. We need to ensure that shipping will do its share to reduce its impact. Inclusion in the EU ETS will help put shipping on the path to decarbonisation and have a positive impact on the sector’s emissions globally. Shipping’s inclusion under the EU ETS should also provide an additional incentive for the deployment of alternative fuels for maritime transport, as is already the case for aviation’s alternative fuels. Incentives created by the EU ETS could complement the incentives envisioned by EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) II for shipping and aviation [1], depending on how Member States transpose them, as well as other policy measures currently under consideration. However, without a robust sustainability framework in place to prevent the deployment of low-quality alternative fuels, the EU risks undermining the positive climate impact of alternative fuel use. A robust sustainability framework begins with correcting the EU ETS assumption of zero CO2 combustion emissions for biofuels, which undermines the integrity of the EU ETS and the EU’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement. Instead, a full lifecycle assessment approach including indirect emissions (e.g. indirect land use change) should be used. In addition, the sustainability framework shall be complemented with a robust monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system to ensure transparency and traceability of emissions reductions claims and avoid double counting. [1] “Fuels used in the aviation and maritime sectors can opt in to contribute to the 14% transport target but are not subject to an obligation. The contribution of non-food renewable fuels supplied to these sectors will count 1.2 times their energy content.” See: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/jec/renewable-energy-recast-2030-red-ii
Read full response

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Nov 2020 · Green Deal

Meeting with Diederik Samsom (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Stefanie Hiesinger (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

4 Nov 2020 · European Green Deal

Meeting with Aleksandra Tomczak (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Shell Companies

29 Sept 2020 · Methane strategy

Meeting with Kadri Simson (Commissioner) and

24 Sept 2020 · Methane emissions

Response to Revision of the EU Emission Trading System Directive concerning aviation

28 Aug 2020

3892 pre changes Environmental Defense Fund welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Inception Impact Assessment on a revision of the EU ETS for aviation. When evaluating policy options for CORSIA and EU ETS, the Commission should assess their consistency with the Paris Agreement obligation to pursue further climate ambition as well as the Chicago Convention, as the EU noted in the context of ICAO Assembly Resolution A40-19, Paragraph 18. To be consistent with the Paris Agreement, it is crucial to pursue options that maintain the current level of EU climate ambition. This is not the case with Options 2 and 3. Option 6 does not ensure equal treatment and would distort competition. ETS-CORSIA “mix” (Option 5) has the potential to achieve compliance with CORSIA while maintaining EU ETS ambition, though it poses design and implementation complexities. We also note that absent a reservation to Resolution A40-19, the other options would require filing a difference to the SARPs. While the ICAO Council decision to change the CORSIA baseline likely means little or no offset obligations in CORSIA’s first three years, CORSIA currently remains intact for the ensuing twelve years. In these initial three years, EU ETS ambition should not be similarly watered down. The EC should ensure that any use of offsets under CORSIA preserves the environmental integrity and effectiveness of Union climate action and maintains required obligations for aircraft operators. This is particularly important given that CORSIA allows international emission reduction units while the EU ETS Phase 4 does not. To resolve this inconsistency for intra-EU/EFTA flights, the EC could require airlines to comply with CORSIA using only emission reductions recognized both by CORSIA and the EU ETS, i.e., reductions achieved through high-quality Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF). The EC could implement such a requirement by establishing SAF mandates expressed not as quantities of fuel to be consumed, but as quantities of emission reductions to be achieved through SAF in amounts needed to meet CORSIA obligations. The ReFuelEU Aviation regulation provides a legal pathway for establishing these mandates without the need to file a difference to the SARPS. The co-existence of CORSIA and EU ETS also requires coordination across policies to ensure consistent and harmonized treatment of SAF, to avoid different sustainability frameworks and MRV approaches. The EU ETS zero-rating should be replaced with a full lifecycle assessment and broader sustainability framework at least as robust as CORSIA’s. To avoid double counting, the rules established by the EU must ensure transparency and compliance with UNFCCC and ICAO reporting rules. Data on emissions must be made publicly available and broken down by domestic flights; inter-EU/EFTA; and flights between EU/EFTA and a third country. Aircraft operators would need to report total combustion emissions before claiming the emission reduction from SAF, broken down by flight scope to allow Member States to make adjustments to avoid double claiming. SAF claims, including full disclosure of the environmental attributes, should be made public. On the issue of free allowances, the EC should aim for 100% auctioning. Considerations on whether to transition to 100% auctioning immediately or over time should take into account the size of the EU ETS allowance market distortion, which grows proportionally to the EU ETS allowance price. Market distortions are currently caused by the uneven distribution of free allowances as a result of (1) divergent growth rates between carriers, as compared to the benchmark, and (2) the rules applying to new entrants and fast growers, particularly those who did not have access to free allowances from the Special Reserve for the period 2017-2020. Finally, in light of COVID-19 flight disruptions, the allocation mechanism should be re-evaluated as a reliance on historical emissions data will create further distortion.
Read full response

Response to Environmental claims based on environmental footprint methods

28 Aug 2020

The amount of sustainability certifications and markers on products and packaging is confusing for brands, retailers, and especially consumers. Environmental Defense Fund is excited to see the EU develop regulation around product claims ensuring such claims be backed by scientific evidence. The only way to make this initiative meaningful is to make a mandatory, legal framework for ensuring claims are verifiable and backed by third party assessments and LCA data. Creating anything less would be akin to yet another voluntary certification scheme to further confuse both consumers and businesses, therefore EDF supports the Option 3 to establish a binding legal EU wide framework for environmental claims.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the EU Emission Trading System Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR)

24 Jul 2020

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the EC’s plans to update rules on monitoring and reporting of emissions under the EU ETS for the period 2021-2030. The following comments focus on specific provisions for aviation fuels. The EC’s proposed amendments to Article 54 of Implementing Regulation 2018/2066 unfortunately fail to utilize lifecycle approaches. They perpetuate the erroneous zero rating for emissions from biofuels and introduce inadequate EU RED II sustainability criteria. Two important developments since the adoption of Regulation 2018/2066 are: (1) the IPCC clarified [1] that individual facilities or industries using the IPCC guidelines for estimating CO2 emissions from the use of bioenergy should not automatically consider biomass used for energy as “carbon neutral”, even if the biomass is thought to be produced sustainably, and it drew attention to the lifecycle approach including indirect effects; and (2) the adoption of ICAO CORSIA documents with the implementation elements for aviation biofuels in 2019 [2]. If the current EU rules are not updated it will result in two different monitoring and reporting approaches for aviation biofuels for flights between European countries, one for the EU ETS based on zero-rating, and another for CORSIA based on lifecycle assessment and a broader sustainability framework. That should not be allowed to occur. Instead, Regulation 2018/2066 should be amended to ensure lifecycle approaches that quantify the climate impacts of fuels, including proper treatment of direct and indirect emissions, in accordance with the IPCC Guidance and the ICAO CORSIA Sustainability Criteria and other CORSIA implementation elements. The proposed changes are particularly relevant considering the new RefuelEU Aviation policy and the review of ICAO CORSIA implementation under the EU ETS. The principles related to aviation biofuels set out in Article 54 must be coordinated across policies to ensure consistent and harmonized treatment of aviation biofuels. There is no need to wait for further developments on RefuelEU Aviation or the ongoing review of CORSIA implementation under the EU ETS to amend Implementing Regulation 2018/2066. The EU ETS Directive provides opportunity (via Articles 22 and 28c) to correct the erroneous zero-rating for biofuels and to change the EU ETS quantification of aviation biofuels to make it consistent with the ICAO CORSIA sustainability framework. Article 14 of the EU ETS Directive on monitoring and reporting of emissions obligates the Commission to adopt guidelines that “shall take into account the most accurate and up-to-date scientific evidence available, in particular from the IPCC” (Article 14, paragraph 2). The Implementing Regulation 2018/2066 should be updated to reflect the following guiding principles: aviation biofuels (1) shall only be rewarded for actual environmental results using a lifecycle approach to estimate and account for emissions reductions, (2) shall meet a robust sustainability framework building on ICAO CAEP-approved sustainability criteria in the ICAO Doc 10126, CAEP/11 (4-15 February 2019), in line with the EU’s own advocacy in ICAO, and (3) shall avoid double counting with Paris goals and CORSIA claims. [1] See A2-10 at https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html [2] https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Pages/CORSIA-Eligible-Fuels.aspx
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Energy Tax Directive

1 Apr 2020

Methane emissions from the EU's gas supply chain, CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels in non-ETS sectors and maritime fuels Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) welcomes the opportunity to comment. The fact that the ETDs minimum tax rates have lost their effect and no longer have a converging effect on national tax rates is particularly relevant for the EU’s objective of net zero GHG emissions by 2050 since these minimum energy tax rates represents effective minimum CO2 prices on the fossil fuels covered by the ETD (i.e., fossil fuels used as motor and heating fuel). An updated ETD should consider the CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in all non-ETS sectors (incl. residential buildings, road transportation, maritime and aviation sectors) as well as the full methane footprint of natural gas. EDF therefore proposes that the impact assessment for the ETD also consider options that would introduce a price signal representing the methane emissions along the natural gas supply chain. Such a price signal should be applied on both imported and domestically produced gas and could initially be based on a methane footprint as given by IPCC Tier 1 emission factors for natural gas systems (using the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). Recognizing the importance of incentivizing methane abatement along the supply chain, such a methane emissions price signal should be paired with requirements for leak detection and repair in Member States as well as provisions in a future EU border carbon adjustment mechanism and/or the ETD to allow: •gas producers to reduce the methane emission payments associated with their gas by providing certified third-party verified data on emission intensity representative of all their production facilities, with the underlying calculations made public and following guidelines and protocols established for carrying out the measurements and reporting the results; •credits towards EU methane emissions payments for any emissions price already paid in the production country on the condition that such payments can be verified in fiscal registries and are based on third-party verified and appropriately sampled measurements of methane emissions per above. To address the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels covered by the ETD, EDF proposes the updated ETD includes new minimum tax rates applied to all fossil fuels directly proportional to the carbon contents of the fuel and be regularly updated to represent a CO2 price consistent with the EU Emission Trading Scheme (e.g. defined as an average price across auctions for ETS allowances). Furthermore, EDF suggests a revision of both Articles 5 and 6 of the current directive to only allow tax differentiation for fossil fuels above those minimum tax rates proportional to the carbon contents of the fuels. Importantly, for any taxes in an updated ETD introduced to either address CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels in the building, road transportation, maritime and aviation sectors or methane emission along the fuel supply chain, the future inclusion of any of these emission sources in the EU ETS needs to be considered to avoid double taxation. Our recommendations with regard to maritime fuels under the ETD are twofold. First, remove the prohibition on taxing bunker fuel, there is no reason to enshrine in EU law an exemption of an entire sector from basic taxation. Second, work with Member States to find the best solutions to the current perverse incentive on using fossil fuels rather than electricity while at berth. Exempting electricity used in ports/for shipping from taxation is a temporary solution. Better solutions would be to include shipping in the ETS or another comprehensive climate measure and further to mandate the use of shore power across Europe. The revised Directive must remove all perverse incentives to use fossil fuels in the maritime sector.
Read full response

Meeting with Adalbert Jahnz (Cabinet of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič)

26 Feb 2019 · EDF are seeking to raise awareness of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, both in Europe and globally

Meeting with Christian Burgsmueller (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström), Jolana Mungengova (Cabinet of Vice-President Cecilia Malmström)

26 Feb 2019 · Methane emissions footprint of the European gas consumption